Skip to main content

View Diary: DOJ Dread Exposed: Destruction of AT&T (260 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I will engage your polemic (0+ / 0-)

      [they] cannot prove that they did not (enable the surveillance).

    Disproving a negative has no place in any reasoned discourse.  This is an echo of the barbaric Napoleonic code of "justice".

    This is by no means the crux of my arguments, and if you read the diary you would recognize and acknowledge this.
    I am curious why liability immunity is important to the administration.  My supposition is that liability is real and big.  If the TelCos could disprove liability easily, they would not need legislative protection.

    This major logical failure sets a low standard that is maintained by the rest of the diary;

    This is an opinion; I do not share it.

    specifically, your depiction of Gillespie leaves out pertinent data that directly impacts the validity of your thesis.  

    My thesis is independent of Gillespie's other attributes.  If you are interested in logic, then A+B=C does not rule out D being important.  Your pet hypothesis is no more valid than mine, nor made wrong by my thesis; as such your behavior is weakly supported by a claim of neglect of alternative hypotheses.

    It is a mis-representation of his relationship with Bush

    It is not.  It is a neglect in deference to space and the point I aimed to make.

    With respect to my diaries and my opinions, they are literally an open book.

    Join the club.

    When I engage in wild speculation, I don't make any specific allegations against individuals or institutions:

    The Strike on Iran: A Cover for Peak Oil?

    Wild speculation is a luxury of free speech; again, welcome to the club.

    When I do make specific allegations against individuals or organizations, they are firmly grounded in facts that are directly related to the theses I propose:

    Well, it is a stylistic difference; if you believe I perpetrated libel, feel free to solicit my contact info by email.

    More Cronyism: An 877.5 Million Dollar Anthrax Vaccine Scandal in the Making.

    When diaries such as yours rise to the recc list, it's not only a negative reflection on our collective credibility, it also degrades political discourse.

    Again, I respect your opinion.  I tried to base my speculation on the extent of evidence available.  I wish that you would have shown up earlier in the day to prevent the travesty that my rec list diary perpretrated.  For future reference, I generally post between 7-10 a.m. central.

    One of the main problems in the US is the dysfunctional nature of political discourse: logical fallacies and misrepresentations are now the norm.

    You yourself highlight my retreat from statement of fact.  I wonder if you can acknowledge that I was honest in speculation.  You can disagree with my ideas, but please be honest in doing so.

    Our disagreement is lost to dead diary land.  If you go back through my old diaries you will see that I share your concern about crappy diaries.  I don't think this is a good example, but I again see your points.

    If you go back in my diaries, you will also see that I am responsive to good criticism.  In this case, I am stretching to find a criticism that will help me make better diaries; I suspect you have latched onto something deeply and personally meaningful that I cannot reach.  I apologize for not meeting you on this; I trust that you are authentic in your motives, but I just cannot get there.

    •  I saw the Glenn Greenwald article... (0+ / 0-)
      ...that confirms your thesis.

      You were right and I was wrong: I apologize.

      After I read "[they] cannot prove that they did not (enable the surveillance)", it raised a red flag and I went into hyper-critical mode.  

      Please refrain from using the inability to prove a negative in your arguments.

      Proving a negative isn't always impossible.  Proving a negative is always exculpatory  evidence, however failure to prove it means nothing.

      Here is an example of why it's wrong:

      Can you prove that you're not a child molester? How would you go about proving it?  You could present reams of evidence demonstrating that you have healthy sexual appetite, but none of it would prove that you're not a child molester.

      When someone has an alibi for something, proving that they weren't at a given place at a given time, they prove a negative by presenting affirmative evidence of an exclusionary state: they can prove they were someplace else at the time of a given incident.

      However, the inability to present an alibi does not prove guilt.  Alibi's are used as exclusionary evidence, like DNA.  The inability to exclude one's self via DNA evidence is not evidence of guilt, while the the ability to exclude one's self in this way is evidence of innocence.

      While providing conclusive evidence of one's innocence proves that one is innocent, it does not follow that failure to provide such evidence proves any guilt at all....like the child molestation question.

      -5.75 -4.72 3.14159 2.71828

      by xynz on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:43:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site