From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 18:37:37 MDT
Harvey said:
<<This sounds less extreme, but the logic error is still there. You cannot
assume anything about anyone based on a lack of information from them.
There could be a million reasons why someone doesn't respond. This tactic
can never add information to a debate, while it can frequently lead to
misunderstandings and accusations of misrepresentation. I maintain that
this source of information is unsupportable and should not be used in a
rational debate where the person in question is available for comment if
they so choose.>>
> Harvey, when the anti-war protestors, actors, comics line up against
> Son of George, and have never, ever, been heard saying a word against
> Saddam, or the Saudis, or Bin Ladin, what is a thoughtful person
> supposed to think?
That they oppose the "Son of George", but that you've never heard them speak
out about Saudis or Bin Ladin. Seriously, I don't know what else you could
think. These are not the same topic. It is possible to speak on one and
not the other. Do you really believe that everybody who opposes George Bush
must support bin Laden without a specific disclaimer otherwise? This is
insane.
Maybe they're interested in American politics but not our foreign policy.
Maybe they want to modify their leadership's actions, but don't feel they
can have much influence on foreign terrorists. Maybe they think that George
is more sensitive to public opinion than foreign terrorists. Or, for the
comedians, maybe they think George is funny, but they don't see anything
funny about terrorism. Maybe so many people support George that they feel
like they have to fight for their cause, but there isn't a lot of
pro-bin-Laden support in this country so they don't have to fight that
battle. Maybe they think there are non-obvious reasons to oppose George
that they need to explain it a lot, but the reasons for opposing bin-Laden
are so obvious that they don't need to be explained. Maybe because people
debate and disagree about George, but there is not so much debate or
disagreement about bin Laden.
There are so many reasons, I would never have jumped to the conclusion you
draw.
On a personal note: You probably think I am anti-George because of my
frequent liberal-leaning rants. I am not sure that I have ever felt the
need to oppose bin-Laden in this group. It never seemed to come up or be
disputed among us. Do you therefore believe I am a bin-Laden supporter?
Isn't that what your logic demands? Is that really what you think? Do you
really think that conclusion is accurate and supportable based on evidence?
I really am not following your logic here.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 18:47:31 MDT