"Hawke" wrote in message
...
I would say that since Rove and company thought that invading Iraq was
a
good idea and were too stupid to see it would be a major folly, then
believing anything else he says about Iraq would make me as stupid as
he
is.

Except when he's right, in which case *not* believing it, just because it
was Rove who said it, would make you somewhat more stupid than he is. The
point is not that Rove said it. The point is that he's probably right in
this case.

No, that doesn't follow any more than it's probably right because Rove
said
it.

I didn't say it's probably right *because* Rove said it. I said it's
probably right because it reasonably follows from the facts. I'm saying the
message is likely correct regardless of the messenger. You're saying, ad
hominem, that it's probably not right *because* of the messenger who
delivered it. That's a logical fallacy.

Rove showed his lack of savy about Iraq when he couldn't see that
invading would lead to a whole host of problems for us. He proved his
judgment was not so good.

Regarding war. As for the much simpler and better-evidenced matter of
insurgent behavior regarding oil, and the behavior of oil markets in the
face of uncertaintly, his point looks reasonable based on the evidence we
all can see. This isn't a matter of secret intelligence or unknown cultural
reactions. This is a matter of drawing reasonable conclusions from things
that already have happened.

To believe someone again when they were wrong the
first time means you aren't learning from your mistakes, just like him.

Well, Hawke, we've seen you come out wrong on numerous issues, so does that
mean that we aren't learning from the mistake of having thought you might be
correct? In other words, should we then discount everything you say,
because, for example, you got the arguments for remanding the Heller case
wrong?



This is like a guy telling you to use more lighter fluid on the
briquets
after you have just burned off your eyebrows. You just don't take
advice
from someone who has been proven not to know what he's talking about.

Since he's one of the smartest guys in politics, as well as being one of
the
most successful and generally insightful, assuming he's wrong all the
time
is a very foolish thing to do.

True, no one is always wrong. Of course, Bush tests that proposition. But
I'm not saying everything Rove says is wrong just because of who he is.
I'm
saying I wouldn't trust his word on Iraq based on his prior predictions,
which were totally wrong. I do agree he knows politics extremely well.
He's
out of his area of expertise when it comes to foreign policy though. Which
he already proved.

Bush/Rove etc. didn't know what they were doing when they told us we
should
go into Iraq. Now we're supposed to believe them when they say we have
to
stay there.

I don't necessarily accept his conclusion that this is a valid reason to
stay there. I do think it's quite reasonable that pulling out now will drive
oil prices up even further, which is all I said about it.

Of course, that assumes nothing else changes, but there are certain factual
constraints -- finite amounts of petroleum that can be pumped out of the
ground in the short term, for example -- that suggest any uncertainty in the
market right now is going to spike oil prices, possibly to a new, higher,
and stable plateau.


Except that he's probably right. If you reject it because it comes from
Rove, rather than disbelieving it because you're considered the question
yourself in light of the evidence, then you've let him make you a fool.

No, he's probably wrong. He was wrong the first time even though he and
Bush
acted like there was no way anything would go wrong. You're the fool if
you
trust someone who has already proven himself to be clearly fallible. If
you
don't distrust someone's judgment when it's been shown to be very wrong on
something as big as Iraq then you're gullible.

Well, it's a good thing that I don't trust your judgment, then. d8-)


I'm sorry, once you prove you don't know what you're doing I
quit taking your advice. Apparently, a lot of others don't follow that
path
to their detriment. And proving once again that you can fool a lot of
the
people all of the time.

There are few things dumber than defeating oneself because you refuse to
believe the messenger, regardless of the facts.


I think that is a given. So I'm not doing that. But I heard Rove say the
republicans would win in the 2006 election.

I heard what he said on NPR two days before the election. I believe he was
lying. He knew better. Or else he went temporarily insane, which,
considering the pressure he was under, isn't an unreasonable thing, either.

I heard him say that invading
Iraq was the right thing to do. I've heard him say plenty of other things
that make me question his judgment and veracity. I also know what is going
on in Iraq. When I hear a mouthpiece for the Bush administration say
things
about Iraq I know aren't true I'm not disbelieving it because it's Rove
saying it. Rove is biased so you can't simply trust what he says.

I don't trust a word he says. I do trust a reasonable evaluation of facts I
can validate on my own. I also think he tells the truth more often than not
on most issues, although things he says in public are particularly suspect.
Practically everyone tells the truth more often than not.

He also
has been glaringly wrong about Iraq before. Adding up that he's biased,
he's
been horribly wrong more than once, and what he says about Iraq I know
from
other sources to be wrong all adds up to one conclusion. Rove is wrong
again. If you agree with him then you will be too...again.

That's the ad hominem fallacy.

--
Ed Huntress

No, that doesn't follow any more than it's probably right because Rove
said
it.

I didn't say it's probably right *because* Rove said it. I said it's
probably right because it reasonably follows from the facts. I'm saying
the
message is likely correct regardless of the messenger. You're saying, ad
hominem, that it's probably not right *because* of the messenger who
delivered it. That's a logical fallacy.

That would be true if that is what I said, but I didn't. I say that Rove's
credibility is bad. Therefore I am suspicious about whatever he says. He
speaks for the administration and to influence the public. So I need the
facts and I disregard his opinions. Like I said, he's been too wrong too
many times. I think you want to believe him. If he says it's a sunny day,
and it is, I believe it. When he says we can't leave Iraq, I don't.


Rove showed his lack of savy about Iraq when he couldn't see that
invading would lead to a whole host of problems for us. He proved his
judgment was not so good.

Regarding war. As for the much simpler and better-evidenced matter of
insurgent behavior regarding oil, and the behavior of oil markets in the
face of uncertaintly, his point looks reasonable based on the evidence we
all can see. This isn't a matter of secret intelligence or unknown
cultural
reactions. This is a matter of drawing reasonable conclusions from things
that already have happened


Except you draw different conclusions from the known facts than I do. You
make certain assumptions about future behavior that you can't possibly know.
Like will insurgents sell oil or will they destroy it. If left alone I
believe Iraqis will sell as much oil as they can whether they are
"insurgents" or otherwise. We won't know what they will do until we leave
them their country. I say take the risk. Your side says we can't chance it.
I think your side isn't believeable.


To believe someone again when they were wrong the
first time means you aren't learning from your mistakes, just like him.

Well, Hawke, we've seen you come out wrong on numerous issues, so does
that
mean that we aren't learning from the mistake of having thought you might
be
correct? In other words, should we then discount everything you say,
because, for example, you got the arguments for remanding the Heller case
wrong?

Well, I can't recall making any specific arguments about the Heller case. I
would remember if I did. In discussing the 2nd amendment it was a matter of
opinions if I'm not mistaken, so I'm not ready to admit an error there. But
if I were to make a huge blunder on something very important I certainly do
believe you would have a reason to question my future comments on other
things. It's called credibility. It's one thing to get something wrong once
but when you do it all the time, like Bush, then nothing is believeable. I
think Rove is real close to that except when he is giving his opinion on
things like what is going on in an election. You see, he hasn't shown any
huge blunders in that area.

This is like a guy telling you to use more lighter fluid on the
briquets
after you have just burned off your eyebrows. You just don't take
advice
from someone who has been proven not to know what he's talking about.

Since he's one of the smartest guys in politics, as well as being one
of
the
most successful and generally insightful, assuming he's wrong all the
time
is a very foolish thing to do.

True, no one is always wrong. Of course, Bush tests that proposition.
But
I'm not saying everything Rove says is wrong just because of who he is.
I'm
saying I wouldn't trust his word on Iraq based on his prior predictions,
which were totally wrong. I do agree he knows politics extremely well.
He's
out of his area of expertise when it comes to foreign policy though.
Which
he already proved.

Bush/Rove etc. didn't know what they were doing when they told us we
should
go into Iraq. Now we're supposed to believe them when they say we
have
to
stay there.

I don't necessarily accept his conclusion that this is a valid reason to
stay there. I do think it's quite reasonable that pulling out now will
drive
oil prices up even further, which is all I said about it.

I doubt that would have much effect on oil prices for one reason, they don't
produce much oil. Their contribution to the world supply is minimal. But
without oil revenue Iraq is one poor country. Without oil their GDP is ****.
So anyone running the place is going to make selling oil number one on the
list of things to do. Oil is a world commodity. Tons of things influence its
price. Iraq, not one of the major factors.

Of course, that assumes nothing else changes, but there are certain
factual
constraints -- finite amounts of petroleum that can be pumped out of the
ground in the short term, for example -- that suggest any uncertainty in
the
market right now is going to spike oil prices, possibly to a new, higher,
and stable plateau.


Except that he's probably right. If you reject it because it comes from
Rove, rather than disbelieving it because you're considered the
question
yourself in light of the evidence, then you've let him make you a fool.

No, he's probably wrong. He was wrong the first time even though he and
Bush
acted like there was no way anything would go wrong. You're the fool if
you
trust someone who has already proven himself to be clearly fallible. If
you
don't distrust someone's judgment when it's been shown to be very wrong
on
something as big as Iraq then you're gullible.

Well, it's a good thing that I don't trust your judgment, then. d8-)

I guess that means you don't trust Rove's either because he's shown he's
wrong on the big ones more than me.


I'm sorry, once you prove you don't know what you're doing I
quit taking your advice. Apparently, a lot of others don't follow
that
path
to their detriment. And proving once again that you can fool a lot of
the
people all of the time.

There are few things dumber than defeating oneself because you refuse
to
believe the messenger, regardless of the facts.


I think that is a given. So I'm not doing that. But I heard Rove say the
republicans would win in the 2006 election.


I heard what he said on NPR two days before the election. I believe he was
lying. He knew better. Or else he went temporarily insane, which,
considering the pressure he was under, isn't an unreasonable thing,
either.

That's another factor you don't have to contend with when it's me, lying.
You do with Rove. He lies for effect. I have no reason to. That was another
credibility blow to him. You notice that since that defeat people aren't
calling him a genius anymore?


I heard him say that invading
Iraq was the right thing to do. I've heard him say plenty of other
things
that make me question his judgment and veracity. I also know what is
going
on in Iraq. When I hear a mouthpiece for the Bush administration say
things
about Iraq I know aren't true I'm not disbelieving it because it's Rove
saying it. Rove is biased so you can't simply trust what he says.

I don't trust a word he says. I do trust a reasonable evaluation of facts
I
can validate on my own. I also think he tells the truth more often than
not
on most issues, although things he says in public are particularly
suspect.
Practically everyone tells the truth more often than not.

Practically. Less likely if they have an "R" after their name though.


He also
has been glaringly wrong about Iraq before. Adding up that he's biased,
he's
been horribly wrong more than once, and what he says about Iraq I know
from
other sources to be wrong all adds up to one conclusion. Rove is wrong
again. If you agree with him then you will be too...again.

That's the ad hominem fallacy.


How do you figure that? Where is the personal attack? I added up the cases
where the guy was wrong and where I have contrary facts from other sources
and deduced that if you follow someone who has a bad track record, then you
will too. Nothing ad hominem there at all. You better get out your logic
primer again. Unless you're constructing a straw man.


Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

That's the ad hominem fallacy.


How do you figure that? Where is the personal attack? I added up the cases
where the guy was wrong and where I have contrary facts from other sources
and deduced that if you follow someone who has a bad track record, then
you
will too. Nothing ad hominem there at all. You better get out your logic
primer again. Unless you're constructing a straw man.

If you have contrary facts from other sources, then the fact that it's Rove
isn't relevant. But you didn't say that in previous posts. You simply said
that you thought Rove wasn't credible.

If you attack Rove's claim because it's Rove, you're "arguing to the man."
That's ad hominem. Ad hominem does have a bit of a bad rap, because we do
make judgments based on the general reliability of the source. But
discounting an argument *because* it comes from someone in particular,
arguing with the source rather than with the facts, is ad hominem argument,
nonetheless.

--
Ed Huntress

How do you figure that? Where is the personal attack? I added up the
cases
where the guy was wrong and where I have contrary facts from other
sources
and deduced that if you follow someone who has a bad track record, then
you
will too. Nothing ad hominem there at all. You better get out your logic
primer again. Unless you're constructing a straw man.

If you have contrary facts from other sources, then the fact that it's
Rove
isn't relevant. But you didn't say that in previous posts. You simply said
that you thought Rove wasn't credible.

He's not. If you make predictions and they don't pan out people stop
listening to you. That makes perfect sense. Bush and the Treasury sec.
continue to say the fundamentals of the economy are strong. No they are not.
Rove says staying in Iraq is a smart thing to do. No it's not. These
republicans have lost their credibility by being consistently wrong. If you
continue to listen to their advice then you deserve whatever you get. Most
of us know when a dog don't hunt. I'm going to have to exclude you in that
regard.



If you attack Rove's claim because it's Rove, you're "arguing to the man."
That's ad hominem. Ad hominem does have a bit of a bad rap, because we do
make judgments based on the general reliability of the source. But
discounting an argument *because* it comes from someone in particular,
arguing with the source rather than with the facts, is ad hominem
argument,
nonetheless.

Resorting to technicalities of logic when you're trying to make a weak point
won't win you any debates. If every man's word is worth the same then no one
knows more than anyone else. We all know that Bush's word isn't to be
believed. I'm not too sure you believe that though. If you don't disregard a
man's word when he's wrong time and time again that just makes you a fool,
and I don't care if that is ad hominem or not because it's true. If you
don't disbelieve someone because of who it is then you'd buy snake oil that
doesn't work from the same seller over and over again. I guess I'm just
different from you. If I can't trust someone because they have told me
things that were wrong on numerous occasions I stop listening to them.
Apparently, you continue giving people credit even when you know they are
wrong all the time. I guess it takes all kinds. Maybe you're one of the
people Lincoln was talking about when he said some people can be fooled all
the time. If you don't know when to stop trusting someone's word then that's
for sure.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


How do you figure that? Where is the personal attack? I added up the
cases
where the guy was wrong and where I have contrary facts from other
sources
and deduced that if you follow someone who has a bad track record, then
you
will too. Nothing ad hominem there at all. You better get out your
logic
primer again. Unless you're constructing a straw man.

If you have contrary facts from other sources, then the fact that it's
Rove
isn't relevant. But you didn't say that in previous posts. You simply
said
that you thought Rove wasn't credible.

He's not. If you make predictions and they don't pan out people stop
listening to you. That makes perfect sense. Bush and the Treasury sec.
continue to say the fundamentals of the economy are strong. No they are
not.
Rove says staying in Iraq is a smart thing to do. No it's not. These
republicans have lost their credibility by being consistently wrong. If
you
continue to listen to their advice then you deserve whatever you get. Most
of us know when a dog don't hunt. I'm going to have to exclude you in that
regard.



If you attack Rove's claim because it's Rove, you're "arguing to the
man."
That's ad hominem. Ad hominem does have a bit of a bad rap, because we do
make judgments based on the general reliability of the source. But
discounting an argument *because* it comes from someone in particular,
arguing with the source rather than with the facts, is ad hominem
argument,
nonetheless.

Resorting to technicalities of logic when you're trying to make a weak
point
won't win you any debates. If every man's word is worth the same then no
one
knows more than anyone else. We all know that Bush's word isn't to be
believed. I'm not too sure you believe that though. If you don't disregard
a
man's word when he's wrong time and time again that just makes you a fool,
and I don't care if that is ad hominem or not because it's true. If you
don't disbelieve someone because of who it is then you'd buy snake oil
that
doesn't work from the same seller over and over again. I guess I'm just
different from you. If I can't trust someone because they have told me
things that were wrong on numerous occasions I stop listening to them.
Apparently, you continue giving people credit even when you know they are
wrong all the time. I guess it takes all kinds. Maybe you're one of the
people Lincoln was talking about when he said some people can be fooled
all
the time.

Pfffhhhht.

--
Ed Huntress