On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:26:31PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:52:06AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > But it does. As you said, it is trivial to prove, by definition. You > > > > have a valid argument about the possible costs, but if you are still > > > > opposing a policy that has a high success of removing Saddam, you > > > > are therefore pro-Saddam. > > > > > > No hard feelings, but I have never in my life seen that proposed as a > > > logical arguement. > > > > Wrong again! > > ROTFLMAO. How can you be sure what I've seen? Because you replied to my message and quoted me saying it? > > > > The syllogism I see you proposing is: > > > > > > If you are opposed to a plan that has a very high probability of > > > removing X, you are pro-X. > > > > > > Are you really standing by that statement? > > > > Yes, of course. > > Remember, since this is a generality, it can be falsified by only one > statement. Automobile fatalities from drunk driving is a problem. If we > get rid of every automobile, we will eliminate these deaths? Do you > support this plan, or are you in favor of people being killed by drunk > drivers. I oppose getting rid of automobiles, and accept that by this position I am supporting some amount of drunk driving deaths. No falsification. This is really quite simple and I am getting tired of discussing the obvious, so this will be my last reply. > Would you argue that Gautam favors horrendous painful deaths for young > innocent children, or US soldiers? For US soldiers, yes, of course. That is a likely consequence of supporting such a plan. For the children, again yes, but it is misleading to state it that way without mentioning that not going in also favors death for children due to Saddam and sanctions, etc. By the way, I find it inconsistent that you hold this view and repeatedly label people racist who say they are not racist. It is not what you say you are (or favor) but rather the reality of your position that matters. I actually agree with you there, but it is inconsistent with the viewpoint you express here. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
