Re: OT Is anyone really surprised?

Quoted message said:

Bill ranted:

Quoted message said:

Exactly. There isn't a damned thing I'm told by a politician, read in
a study, or read as the "latest advance" in medeicine and other things
I don't either take with a grain of sand, or seriously question, even
if it sounds good.

You have, of course, swallowed the entire right-wing obfuscation
point: the point isn't to do science, uncover facts, learn, or make
informed decisions--it's to sow doubt and to discredit actual
expertise.

Both sides hire their experts, you just agree with those on the left.
I think they are mostly all paid stooges doing what their masters tell
them on both sides.
Academic ethics is about as cotradictory as military intelligence
IMO, at least in things that aren't cut and dried, reproducible, hard
science.
In this case I think there are so many unknowns, based on people,
intimidation, threats, and using the researchers to gain an advantage
that there's no way in hell to come up with anything approaching an
accurate result. That's why I take all the claims with a grain of
salt.
Show me ANY war, let alone one as complicated as this mess where we
have solid, confirmed, accurate, hard science "proof" type study
results. I don't think there's a single one in history. The situation,
by definition is chaos, everyone is lying for advantage, and
propaganda, people are made to disappear without any certainty of
disposition, ridiculous claims are made and "verified" then later
found to be fabrications.
I'm not saying that thay didn't try, and didn't use what are
considered to be valid methodology. I just don't think any methodology
is accurate in this type of mess and can be used to get any result
they're paid to get.
Bill C

Bill C said:

On Jan 14, 11:36 am, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You have, of course, swallowed the entire right-wing obfuscation
point: the point isn't to do science, uncover facts, learn, or make
informed decisions--it's to sow doubt and to discredit actual
expertise.

Both sides hire their experts, you just agree with those on the left.
I think they are mostly all paid stooges doing what their masters tell
them on both sides.
Academic ethics is about as cotradictory as military intelligence
IMO, at least in things that aren't cut and dried, reproducible, hard
science.
In this case I think there are so many unknowns, based on people,
intimidation, threats, and using the researchers to gain an advantage
that there's no way in hell to come up with anything approaching an
accurate result. That's why I take all the claims with a grain of
salt.
Show me ANY war, let alone one as complicated as this mess where we
have solid, confirmed, accurate, hard science "proof" type study
results. I don't think there's a single one in history. The situation,
by definition is chaos, everyone is lying for advantage, and
propaganda, people are made to disappear without any certainty of
disposition, ridiculous claims are made and "verified" then later
found to be fabrications.
I'm not saying that thay didn't try, and didn't use what are
considered to be valid methodology. I just don't think any methodology
is accurate in this type of mess and can be used to get any result
they're paid to get.
Bill C

Of course you'd say that. Those are the exact wingnut arguments, and
you've swallowed them entirely. Doesn't say much for your critical
thinking.

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

On Jan 14, 11:36 am, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You have, of course, swallowed the entire right-wing obfuscation
point: the point isn't to do science, uncover facts, learn, or make
informed decisions--it's to sow doubt and to discredit actual
expertise.

Both sides hire their experts, you just agree with those on the left.
I think they are mostly all paid stooges doing what their masters
tell them on both sides.
Academic ethics is about as cotradictory as military intelligence
IMO, at least in things that aren't cut and dried, reproducible, hard
science.
In this case I think there are so many unknowns, based on people,
intimidation, threats, and using the researchers to gain an advantage
that there's no way in hell to come up with anything approaching an
accurate result. That's why I take all the claims with a grain of
salt.
Show me ANY war, let alone one as complicated as this mess where we
have solid, confirmed, accurate, hard science "proof" type study
results. I don't think there's a single one in history. The
situation, by definition is chaos, everyone is lying for advantage,
and propaganda, people are made to disappear without any certainty of
disposition, ridiculous claims are made and "verified" then later
found to be fabrications.
I'm not saying that thay didn't try, and didn't use what are
considered to be valid methodology. I just don't think any
methodology is accurate in this type of mess and can be used to get
any result they're paid to get.
Bill C

Of course you'd say that. Those are the exact wingnut arguments, and
you've swallowed them entirely. Doesn't say much for your critical
thinking.

Actually, your thinking is far from critical; it is basically closed-loop,
Washingtonian, numbers-mean-what-I-say-if-they-are-justifiable.

None of the numbers, not the first Iraqi nor the first American who died in
this conflict, not the latest deaths or numbers, do more than reduce human
lives to picayune chess pieces on a board of complexity and topology that
obscures genuine moral compromises, contradictions, inferences that preceded
the current milennium by a vast stretch of time. There is no break-even
strategy conceivable, nor does the actual number help figure out how much
land is devoted to burials instead of productive human industry.

If the academic in you revels in having better numbers, it doesn't add to
the resolution of conflict, except perhaps in the tiny world of numbers
theology. Each time you add a "1" to the list, it was a human life lost.
An irreplaceable, unique human life. To think otherwise, one has started to
side with the enemy. I am sure that Al Qaeda wanted big numbers, too. They
salivated when the count was reported as 10,000, whined when it dropped to
5,000 and were really [censored] when the final tally came in. Right - not
the final final final tally. I babbled. Sorry.
--
"Manners are of more importance than laws.
Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend.
Manners are what vex or soothe,
corrupt or purify, exalt or debase,
barbarize or refine us, by a constant,
steady, uniform, insensible operation
like that of the air we breathe in."
E. Burke

Quoted message said:

Of course you'd say that. Those are the exact wingnut arguments, and
you've swallowed them entirely. Doesn't say much for your critical
thinking.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In large part that thinking was firmed up starting with YOUR attack on
how it was impossible to conduct an accurate survey in post war
Vietnam due to the government's interference.
There's 10 times that in Iraq, and various competing groups exerting
"governemental" powers in various areas.
How is your own argument against being able to get a good study in
limited opposition and chaos not even more applicable in a much more
chaotic and violent environment?
Please enlighten me.
Bill C

Sandy said:

I babbled.

Then we agree.

"Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de
Actually, your thinking is far from critical; it is basically closed-loop,
Washingtonian, numbers-mean-what-I-say-if-they-are-justifiable.

None of the numbers, not the first Iraqi nor the first American who died
in this conflict, not the latest deaths or numbers, do more than reduce
human lives to picayune chess pieces on a board of complexity and topology
that obscures genuine moral compromises, contradictions, inferences that
preceded the current milennium by a vast stretch of time. There is no
break-even strategy conceivable, nor does the actual number help figure
out how much land is devoted to burials instead of productive human
industry.

If the academic in you revels in having better numbers, it doesn't add to
the resolution of conflict, except perhaps in the tiny world of numbers
theology. Each time you add a "1" to the list, it was a human life lost.
An irreplaceable, unique human life. To think otherwise, one has started
to side with the enemy. I am sure that Al Qaeda wanted big numbers, too.
They salivated when the count was reported as 10,000, whined when it
dropped to 5,000 and were really [censored] when the final tally came in.
Right - not the final final final tally. I babbled. Sorry.

Thanks for your contribution Sandy. Now if all intelligent persons could
think as carefully as you.

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

I babbled.

Then we agree.

That was like doing an appendectomy to save the appendix.

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

Of course you'd say that. Those are the exact wingnut arguments, and
you've swallowed them entirely. Doesn't say much for your critical
thinking.

In large part that thinking was firmed up starting with YOUR attack on
how it was impossible to conduct an accurate survey in post war
Vietnam due to the government's interference.

I didn't say that at all. Go back and look. I said that the snowball
sample technique that Desbarats used could not be used to get an
accurate rate since it had no denominator. I explained this to you
before. That you continue to persist in this means either that you
don't understand the technical and methodological issues (and are
therefore incompetent to judge the issues in this case) or else you
did understand them and are now willfully misrepresenting them. Which
is it?

Sandy said:

Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

I babbled.

Quoted message said:

Then we agree.

That was like doing an appendectomy to save the appendix.

In this case, it was the only part worth saving.

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

On Jan 14, 12:31 pm, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course you'd say that. Those are the exact wingnut arguments, and
you've swallowed them entirely. Doesn't say much for your critical
thinking.

Quoted message said:

In large part that thinking was firmed up starting with YOUR attack on
how it was impossible to conduct an accurate survey in post war
Vietnam due to the government's interference.

I didn't say that at all. Go back and look. I said that the snowball
sample technique that Desbarats used could not be used to get an
accurate rate since it had no denominator. I explained this to you
before. That you continue to persist in this means either that you
don't understand the technical and methodological issues (and are
therefore incompetent to judge the issues in this case) or else you
did understand them and are now willfully misrepresenting them. Which
is it?

I'll have to go back and re-read that stuff. I do remember you
disputing the method, but also stating that there was no good way to
get a reliable survey in those type of conditions.
Could be my faulty memory.
Bill C

Sandy said:

Actually, your thinking is far from critical; it is basically closed-loop,
Washingtonian, numbers-mean-what-I-say-if-they-are-justifiable.

None of the numbers, not the first Iraqi nor the first American who died in
this conflict, not the latest deaths or numbers, do more than reduce human
lives to picayune chess pieces on a board of complexity and topology that
obscures genuine moral compromises, contradictions, inferences that preceded
the current milennium by a vast stretch of time. There is no break-even
strategy conceivable, nor does the actual number help figure out how much
land is devoted to burials instead of productive human industry.

If the academic in you revels in having better numbers, it doesn't add to
the resolution of conflict, except perhaps in the tiny world of numbers
theology. Each time you add a "1" to the list, it was a human life lost.
An irreplaceable, unique human life. To think otherwise, one has started to
side with the enemy. I am sure that Al Qaeda wanted big numbers, too. They
salivated when the count was reported as 10,000, whined when it dropped to
5,000 and were really [censored] when the final tally came in. Right - not
the final final final tally. I babbled. Sorry.

This is a fine-sounding sentiment in a perfect world.
In an imperfect world, it's hooey, and some idea of
this can be drawn from the reasons that Kunich cheered it.
In our imperfect world, we say that every life is sacred,
but in practice we don't shed tears each time someone
dies in a faraway country, so we might as well count
to understand the magnitude of what is happening.

Most cultures have elaborate rituals that are performed
to remember the dead. Societies that can spend the
effort go to great lengths to recover the bodies of
victims of disasters (drowning, mine collapse, air
crash, and so on). This gives some idea of the value
placed on remembrance.

In the case of the casualties in Iraq, we (meaning
people outside the families of the disappeared, from
the Iraqi government to the US govt to you and me)
don't know their names, the dates they vanished, the
dates of their demise, or what the hell happened.
The least we can do, however, is count them as
previously having existed. If we don't do that, we
are saying it doesn't matter, regardless of fine
talk about the preciousness of life.

Functioning societies know who lives in them and
make a census, crudely or accurately, of their
inhabitants. When someone disappears or dies, the
fact is reported to and noted by the civil authorities.

The fact that we are even having this discussion, and
that 5 years after the invasion, civil structures
in Iraq are still so dysfunctional that nobody can
accurately say who got killed or died of disease
or fled or previously existed and now does not,
is evidence on its face of the failure of the
American misadventure in Iraq.

Ben
Bush _said_ he didn't believe in nation-building.