The problem is in the opening of the quote above. Your assumption is that there was a series of demonstrations that statements were false. You can not legitimately go any further unless there is agreement on the "demonstrations".

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

Let's take a different approach.

How is the reality of the color blue defined to a man who is color blind and has been from birth? You can not. The man who is color blind has to accept on faith the alternate reality that a color known as blue exists.

The concept of threat is subjective. Each person has their own threshold for what they would deem a threat.

Some things not understood require faith.

uh..yes you can, ace. that question turns up inside the game. in fact it's one of the main things that's at issue--how the counter-claims (if you like) are processed.
all that would be required for a demonstration to be one is that there are axioms that are not problematic, rules for processing variables, and variables. to be a demonstration doesn't mean it has to be correct. so if you call something a demonstration, you're only characterizing it's features, not it's content. another way: an incorrect demonstration, or one based on problematic features, doesn't stop being a demonstration.

An honest person never really knows if ignorance applies to them or those they disagree with when there is less than absolute certainty. Most issues in politics are decided in an environment of less than absolute certainty.

I find it ironic that, me, a hard ass conservative is displaying more empathy to differing points of view than bleeding heart liberals.

---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------

A) There is disagreement on what WMD are. Some say they are only defined by nuclear weapons, others don't.

B) Tax rate cuts, all other things being equal will not increase taxes collected by the government, but we know all thing were not equal. Those who understand that, know certain assumptions have to be made when analyzing the consequences of tax cuts. Those assumption can have a dramatic affect one way or the other. so the real question involves understanding the assumptions, rather than accepting them on faith.

There is a big difference in being ignorant and willfully ignorant. When I don't understand something people are talking about on this forum I just lurk and hope to pick stuff up. What I don't do is make shit up or push something that I know is likely false.

Over the last year there have been many willfully ignorant positions taken by conservatives in the main stream. Here are a few of them:

Obama is a terrorist, Obama is not a US citizen, Obama's suicide bill, Obama wants to teach my kid how to have sex, Obama had a gay orgy (i'm seeing a pattern here)

The right has so much hatred in them that they don't care how false something is they will preach it like fact because it fits their position. That is willful ignorance.

Really?

What are the consequences of both? I don't think in the end there is a difference. If a person is ignorant of a spouse having an affair, and another person is willfully ignorant, what is the difference? Or, how are you defining "willfully ignorant?

I do not dispute there are people who do what you suggest. However, I do not think conservatives are more or less guilty of this than liberals.

Ignorant is not knowing the truth, willfully ignorant is knowing the truth but choosing not to believe it.
Ignorant is not knowing what you are saying is false, willfully ignorant is knowing what your saying is false but saying it anyway.

No, that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is you're arguing against the existence of an objective reality. Which is one of the criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia, by the way.

Before we do, just for my own edification, you believe that homosexuals are real, right? You understand (note: I didn't say "believe") that some men are sexually attracted to men and some women are sexually attracted to women?
I'm colorblind, oddly enough. I have trouble with certain hues of blue and purple, and certain reds and greens. According to my doctor, there are some colors that the average person can see that I can't, and there are probably some colors that I see that other people can't. Here's the thing, though: the actual color can be objectively verified. (I've actually done this before) All I have to do is take a photograph with a good camera, upload the picture to your computer, open it in an illustration program and then use the sample tool. The sample tool then shows you where on the color palate the color is located. It's an independent and verifiable method of determining color that I can trust.

I know this just seems like I'm skirting your illustration, but I'm trying to illustrate something myself: many things in our lives can be independently verified to a high degree of likelihood through deduction and use of methodology that's been developing for thousands of years and will only continue to be more precise and reliable. One can discover, through such methodology, the most likely reality in a given situation. Reality isn't purely subjective, if you don't believe me, take a picture of something, move it to your computer, and verify it's color.
Threat might be subjective to a point, but eventually it can become something most people agree on. If I have a gun in your face and am in the process of pulling the trigger, in that instant I suspect most if not all people would agree I'm a threat to your well being.
This isn't some abstract debate about god. This is about very real and objectively verifiable facts.

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------

Again, this is objectively verifiable.
Federal Bureau of Investigation - What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Considering the term weapon of mass destruction came from the government, the responsibility of defining it is theirs. Anyone that doesn't agree with this definition isn't holding a different opinion but an incorrect definition.

http://www.duke.edu/~bjn3/nyhan-reifler.pdf

thought i would make this a little easier. i had glanced at the paper before i put up the thread, but only just now read it kinda carefully.
the link above takes you to it direct-like.
the paper itself is 26 pages and outlines 3 trials--the sections about iraq are relatively short. the experimental data is reproduced in the appendices both at the level of the fake articles used and responses.

have a look.
maybe we can chat about this.

I have been in self treatment for a number of years. I have been making progress, however I have been questioning the qualifications of my mental health care provider lately. I think I am going to start self treatments with someone else. Someone more qualified.

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

I don't understand it. I accept it.

I understand my sexuality.

I am beyond my ability to communicate or explain this.

I do find it interesting that I have and continue to say that I may be wrong on some issues, like the Iraq "threat" question. I have stated my bias to error on the side of being overly defensive against any potential threat from Iraq, but you have never admitted that you could be wrong, or that you have a bias to error on the side of giving Iraq the benefit of the doubt.

This is not beyond your ability, you're a smart guy that's being stubborn.

I, colorblind man, seeking an objective color, use demonstrably verifiable methodology to determine that which otherwise I can't perceive due to a disability. It's blue; I can't see the blue, but I can demonstrate that it's blue objectively. The blue exists regardless of whether or not I can perceive it. I can't think of a better illustration for independent verification.

Let me help you Will.

I have never seen oxygen yet I believe it exists.
I have never seen pluto but I believe it exists.
I have never seen an honest politician but I believe one could exist.... ;)

The color blue elicits an emotional response with me. I don't know how that works for you, and I don't know how to communicate what that emotional response is or what it means. I simply don't know where to go with this.

Whether or not Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium in Africa is not a matter of emotion, but rather a matter of demonstrable, factual evidence. How you feel about it isn't important to me, whether or not it happened is.

Here is how we differ.

I agree Saddam seeking yellow cake uranium in Africa is a matter of fact (we may not know the whole truth, only what the evidence suggests is the truth, but there is a known truth), however the way "I" feel about it may be very important to you even if you don't want it to be. If "I" have the power to act on my feelings/emotions, in a manner that impacts you, you may find my feelings/emotions are important. Given the numbers of people that responded to a series of things involving Iraq that may or may not have turned out to be factually accurate (again we are limited by what the evidence suggests and our predispositions regarding evidence presented - and given the importance of studies like the one referenced in the OP understanding how people respond to "reports" puts a interesting value on such studies) the way that I do or did, you may be in a minority and suffer serious consequences. All of this can create a reality involving you, that you would not accept as rational relative to your belief of what reality is. So, you can accept this new reality that you don't think is rational, or you pretend this reality does not exist, or you find some other way to reconcile this unrational reality.

You mean it's a matter of fact that Saddam was not seeking yellowcake, that in fact the story was fabricated to justify the war, yes? The documents have been repeatedly demonstrated to be forgeries. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Or in the case in the same reality.

Emotion plays no part in truth. Facts, reached using established and demonstrable methods of deduction, lead to truth. You may feel one of myriad ways about the Niger uranium documents, but those emotions have no bearing on whether or not they were fake. Either they were fake or they were not. We've discovered, via factual evidence, that they were fake. This is objective truth, not subjective interpretation.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2673962]I have been in self treatment for a number of years. I have been making progress, however I have been questioning the qualifications of my mental health care provider lately. I think I am going to start self treatments with someone else. Someone more qualified.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

Ace.
You are not talking about Schizophrenia.
Here, this might help.

schizophrenia is not multiple personality disorder

Carry on people,
I'm sorry for the thread jack.

Stopping at this point, do you think you know that with absolute certainty?

Assuming less than absolute certainty, how can you conclude the story was fabricated? If the proof is 99% certain and I act on the 1% of uncertainty, why do you take on an air of superiority regarding your judgment? Certainly the odds are in your favor, but factoring in the consequences of being wrong it is possible there is greater value in the 1% choice.

We are not. We will never be on this subject. I understand why, but I can not explain it to you.

This point of view seems to suggest that emotion is not real. If emotion is real and exists, can it influence "truth"? Perhaps not, but "truth" is rarely known with absolute certainty. I have the opinion, especially in politics, emotion is more important than "truth". I have found the same to be true in business and many others aspects of human existence.

In most cases it leads to what we believe or accept as truth. Truth is pretty elusive.

My emotional response is that the documents are not relevant.

I am repeating myself in different ways, and it is not connecting with you. That is why I say I am beyond my capacity to communicate with you on this. My words seem to have no meaning to you. You simply do not accept my "reality". Your position seems to be that if "it" doesn't fit your view of a rational reality, it is not real.

The issue is not the documents, the issue is - Saddam attempting to develop or enhance his capacity to destroy innocent life.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

[quote=ring;2674562]So, you are saying when I go to my self-treatment appointment this afternoon, that I should simply fire my mental health care provider and possibly sue for malpractice? See, I knew I should have been self-treating with a more qualified practitioner. But, then again, the term schizophrenia never came up in the discussions. Aghhh, I am so confused!:confused::confused::confused:

It's worth mentioning that this is noticed, and despite ideologically agreeing with roach, Will, et. al., I'm very impressed with the civility of your discourse, particularly so since you've been called no less than an a willfully ignorant schizophrenic in the last page or so. I respect you much more, even if I do disagree with your conflation of worldview with reality and your unpopular opinion about Iraq.

I know beyond a reasonable doubt. Very few things can be known with true absolute certainty. The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that I exist. Je pense donc je suis. After that, everything is about following established and verifiable methodology to determine a thing. I've been saying this all along.
This is the strangest incarnation of Pascal's Wager/Fallacy-esque thinking I've come across. By your logic, we should always act as if the least desirable outcome will happen, regardless of it's likelihood. Moreover, you're also assuming that there is only one least desirable outcome (the same mistake Pascal made). What if the least desirable outcome isn't Saddam getting yellowcake, but in his search for yellowcake finding a biological weapon that can devastate an entire continent? It's incredibly unlikely, but it's not totally impossible. And it's certainly worse than Saddam only having a small piece of nuclear material of questionable purity.
You don't understand why, seriously.
Show me where I said that.
I'm talking about objective verification. Do you understand what objective verification is? Can you grasp the concept that there are methods that can establish facts and likelihoods omitting human bias?
That's not my position at all. My position is that, regardless of personal bias, there is an objective reality which can often be verified objectively using proven methodology. You don't get to have your own reality just like I don't get to have mine. When I'm wrong about something I can be proven wrong. I have to adapt my understanding of the world to objective and verifiable facts regardless of how I feel about them. If it hurts my feelings, tough shit.
Do you have objecvtively verifiable information that Saddam was attempting to develop or enhance his weapons, or do you simply have the claims of known liars?

No, this is basic probability and statistics. For example the probability of heads or tails given a random coin toss is 50%. The value of heads appearing compared to tails appearing is equal. If you own a 1,000,000 home and (for the sake of argument) the probability of it being destroyed in a fire is 1% in a given one year period, would you pay to insure the home and if so how much? In my view the true value of insuring the home is $10,000. I would pay that price or less. So, given the 99 to 1 odds of not having a fire and risking a $1,000,000 is a decision I would compare to taking the action to insure the $1,000,000 for $10,000. In both cases the "value" is the same even though the probability is 99 to 1.

Yes.

I used the word "suggest"s. You did not expressly say it.

Yes.

I will try another approach.

Scientifically we can establish the normal physical limitations of the human body, i.e. pain tolerance, endurance, strength, heart rates, blood pressure to generate expected results given certain stimuli. We can generate a set of scientific norms and theoretical limitations. We can do all of this absent emotion and/or human bias or aversion to certain stimuli. However, when we introduce "emotion", all those known scientific facts and theoretical finding are worthless. We introduce fear and 40 year-old mother can move a weight x% more than science would predict possible. We trigger "survival" and a person can tolerate levels of pain that would normally render them unconscious.

I never omit human bias or human emotion.

I wonder if other conservatives would claim ace as one of their own. That'd be interesting to ask both before and after showing them this thread.

This thread is downright ALARMING, people.

I don't understand your point.

In business I would much rather deal in an environment without emotion/bias. I simply realize that is not realistic. I accept it. I accept things in some cases that I don't understand.

Also, I am a borderline libertarian. On most social issues I am not, what many consider to be a bible quoting conservative. I do however think aborting viable fetuses is wrong in all circumstances - having empathy for the unborn.

ace: That comment wasn't directed at you. I will say, I now understand why having a conversation with you is like trying to grab steam. Why you can shift positions and side-step the corners you get backed into, and then deny any shift. I now completely understand why it's been so frustrating to interact with you.

For you, a thing is true if you believe it. For most of the rest of us (I won't say "all", because I don't know that to be the case, but for sure it's most), there's the facts about a thing, and then our opinion, and we can separate the two. For you, the facts ARE what you believe. Evidence is seen through the filter of your existing beliefs, and nothing anyone can say to you can be heard in any way but through that filter.

I guess that's where you started this thread from, and what you've been up to since then is to justify that. I could have just listened to you when you said that right up front. But I didn't--I assumed SOME level of rationality and objectiveness over there, and I now see I was completely in error about that.

Her we go, from one of my favorite Boondocks episodes the "known unknowns", this summarizes where I am at this point:



---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------

Like making a decision understanding to odds, consequences, assigning an objective value to action or inaction and then being honest about it.

And, I am the one who has a problem. I got it.

OK. Except in this case, the war in Iraq, we're not talking about a house.
Even if we were talking about a house, the example is so irrelevant, so isolated from any other factors and, in general, absurd, that it doesn't really hold.
But, fuck it, let's take this house example.
Are you arguing that the alleged "risks" and threats that Saddam caused America, even if they were 1%(again, I'm typing this, and it makes no sense, but your example), were reason enough for going in there?


Damn it you make my head hurt. Please don't give me a "well, it's my reality" type answer. Please don't dodge it. Please try to explain it to me.

I guess this is the bottom line.

I think a person wants to kill me, and I tell you.

You present factual evidence that he did not go to Africa to buy a gun.

I think the person still wants to kill me and I tell you.

You present factual evidence that he does not have a gun.

I think the person still wants to kill me, and I tell you.

You present factual evidence that his wife likes me.

I think the person still wants to kill me, and I tell you.

You present statistics showing that the odds are 99 to 1 that he won't kill me.

I think the person still wants to kill me, and I tell you. I take action.

You say I ignored all of your facts.

I tell you that your facts were not relevant. I tell you that I thought the person wanted to kill me.

I tell you that I am prepared to live with the consequences of my actions. Because I know that I would rather deal with the consequences of my actions than be a victim to the person who I think wants to kill me.

You conclude I am not rational, out of touch with reality, ignoring facts, ect.

I ask you, who really is in denial?

Determine within a +/-2% margin of error the odds that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake, and please show your work.
Emotion does not give one greater physical strength, it simply motivates one to access the potential that was already there but that one was not previously motivated to reach. The real maximum capability has not changed, simply the resolve.

The woman often cited as lifting a car off her son, Angela Cavallo, said that she lifted the car less than 4 inches, which suggests that the suspension had all four tires on the ground. She didn't lift the car off the ground, she just moved it up far enough to get her pinned, unconscious son out. I can provide a link verifying this if you'd like. As an experiment, go out to your car and pull up on the back bumper (or even front bumper) and see if you can move your car three or four inches up. I'll bet money you can, even without the emotional motivation of having a loved on trapped underneath.

Well, maybe because this isn't about your life, only, it's about civilians in Iraq, and soldiers in Iraq, dying, and most of whom probably didn't want you dead in the first place.
And tons of taxpayer money, sunk into a war that was unjustified, and that has no guarantee of leaving Iraq in a better place.

What I am in denial about? I see that this war was never justified, the reasons stated were untrue, and it ended up hurting both nations with consequences later on that we still don't understand or can predict.

You're free to promote your convictions/thoughts/perceptions/faith, but when it hurts other people, yes, you bet we're gonna fight back.
And if you think conservatives in America (as a whole) are more about belief than fact, and I'm not saying you said that, then there is truly something wrong.

Consider the fact that, in your little scenario there, the jury would probably fry you. You committed premeditated murder (I assume that's the un-named "action" you "take"). Despite council from others not to, you operated on un-substantiated gut feelings, and those gut feelings will only demonstrate your savageness and lack of fitness to continue to participate in society, when displayed in court.

You said you're willing to live with the consequences of your actions. Are you prepared to die as a consequence of your actions? I understand you're more committed to being right (actually, more like "having been right") than to almost anything else. Would you die to demonstrate your certainty that you were right?

You are. But you'll never hear anyone else, when they say it.

The value I place on innocent human life = googol or 10 to the one hundredth power x (the probability that Saddam intended to kill innocent people, which is a number greater than zero, minus the probability a normal person has intents of killing innocent people) = a number greater than zero. Any number greater than zero requires some kind of action.

I think you missed the point. Scientifically you may think we know the "facts". Personally, you may think you know your limitations, the "facts". But in reality, do you? No.

I guess you know, and you know you know, and there are no unknowns knowns, or known unknowns. Must be nice to have all the answers or to know all the answers are known based on facts.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------


Gee., I think you missed my point also. See, this is clearly my inability to communicate on a level that you folks understand.

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------


I told you I accept the consequences of my actions. I would rather die being proactive than being a victim. That's just me, I know others see it different. And, for the record I would not just act for no reason.

ace the probability that any person in the world will hurt someone else during there life is greater than 0. Does that mean we should kill every other person in the world because any chance means we need to take action?

The action brings with it loss of life. If the statistical probability for the loss of American lives you've found is 0.000000000001% and an invasion of Iraq brings with it a 96% chance of Iraqi civilians dying, what does that do to your equation? If the invasion of Iraq brings with it a 76% increase in the chance of being attacked by terrorism instead of lowering it, what does that do to your equation? What purpose does oversimplifying serve you?
I'll make this very simple for you:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do yourself a great disservice by thinking in absolutes.

There are things I know beyond any doubt, things I know beyond a reasonable doubt, things I know are by far the most likely, things I strongly suspect are likely, things I suspect are likely, things I suspect are possible, things I know are less likely, etc. There are myriad shades of gray. The yellowcake being fake thing is probably "things I know are by far the most likely". Whether or not Saddam Hussein was a threat to us is in "things I strongly suspect are likely". I can actually present evidence for these, which can be verified. It's that evidence that supports my opinions, which gives them weight. That evidence isn't something subjective, something from a human bias, it's something outside of us, which can be objectively verified.

since the argument here seems to be grinding to a halt, maybe it'd be good to go back to the paper for a minute.
what the study is concerned with responses to types of statements.
it asked participants to self-identify on a political scale.
there was no way to exclude or control for contexts like information--so no way to know how much any particular respondent knew about iraq--to stay with that one.
what they were shown were fake newspaper articles, one of which contained a statement attributed to george w bush, another of which contained statements attributed to other sources which refuted the claim attributed to george w bush.
so at issue here really is the relation to types of statements based on assumptions about the speaker, refracted through the dominant media.
questions about the validity of the claims were relegated to background conditions, which is one of the features of the study that makes it problematic. but anyway.

what they basically show is that the respondents who identified as conservative were even more likely to believe the claims attributed to george w bush after reading counter-claims, attributed to other sources presumably outside the administration.

this was nothing like the results obtained for other political affiliations.

the second part of the study tried to subdivide conservatives around questions specifically about the iraq war. this part happened *after* cowboy george had been obtained a second term. the first happened during the campaign.
with that subdivision in place, there was less of a backfire effect except amongst those who claimed a strong committment in support of the war in iraq and who identified as conservative. (i could be wrong about this, it's been a couple days since i read the paper--but i think it's the case)

so the overall conclusion of the study linked this change back to contextual shifts, which the study can't and doesn't really account for.

so what you have is a curious result. self-identified conservatives in the context of the campaign around what turned out to be bush's second term (um...yeah) exhibited this backfire effect. after the campaign, with a differently defined group of conservatives, a variant on the same effect was exhibited amongst the subset that identified as having a strong committment to the iraq war.

so what is this about then?

well, it does reveal a curious phenomenon that is characteristic of how conservative forms of identity politics operate---but one which is necessarily linked to a highly polarized context (as a strong feature anyway)...this characterstic has to do with the ways in which various speakers/sources are weighted---which is an ideological effect.
what the article doesn't really account for are contextual features either during the campaign or--especially--afterward. the second is interesting because it wasn't long after cowboy george's investiture for that second go-round that the real devolution of populist conservatism as a mass political phenomenon started to really take hold.

so it may well be that the study reflects the passage from ascendancy into devolution of populist conservatism as a mass political phenomenon.
so it may well be that what the study is about is something that's tied to a historical conjuncture.
political science types like to count things and feign a degree of transcendence for the results of their experryments because they've counted things, so in the way these results are presented this possibility is downplayed.
but i don't think it should be.

at the same time, the study does speak to something that is a regularity in what remains of conservative identity politics.
strangely enough, much of the thread turned into a demonstration of this.
the reason i find it strange is that the thread is about this backfire phenomenon, so you'd think would be the last place we'd get to read a performance of exactly what the study is about particularly one that is framed as a refutation of the study's conclusions.

go figure.
it pays to read the material, i guess.

I would really, really like to see the outcome from those that self-identified as liberals, to compare to the results in the article. I think it could provide a clearer context.

the data's in the appendix, which starts around page 26.
i think it's all there anyway.

Excellent, I hadn't noticed the second update.
Sounds like “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” by Larry Bartels might have that information.

http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS234/articles/bartels.pdf

Page 133-137 are there.

I'm trying to decipher my way through it at the moment.

It seems that there is some bias on "Strong Democrats", but it's not as pronounced overall as it is in "Strong Republicans".

I did not use the word "kill", I said "take action". One of the actions societies have taken is to criminalize intentional harming of innocent people. there are consequences.

---------- Post added at 01:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 AM ----------

I would never have the intent of harming innocent people. My goal would be to do the most good.