|
|
#51
12-11-2006, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Its The General Principle
"How is this different than denying a house to a black family because blacks are statistically more likely to commit a crime?"
If that statistic is true then it is not. Therefore what? 
|
|
#53
12-11-2006, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two More Things People Think But Won\'t Say
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I've noticed that 7% of brown horses can't run a lick. Only 5% of white horses can't run a lick. If I'm allowed to watch them run a couple times, should I buy a white horse or a brown horse? luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Did you learn anything of value when you watched them run? All else being equal, you should choose the white horse. Why wouldn't you? [/ QUOTE ] white over the brown eh....i'm gonna have to play the race card.
|
|
#54
12-11-2006, 07:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two More Things People Think But Won\'t Say
I basically agree with your point regarding statement 1 FWIW (this is the way many people actually think about the situation). The counter argument to statement 1 (some people believe the results of the war are worse than having Hussein in power) is that the U.S. intervention has led to more deaths than if Hussein had been in power. There's some estimates out there that over 600,000 Iraqi's have died since the U.S. intervention started (the particular report that presented the analysis of the estimate has been challenged as bogus by other credible sources). I'd also point out that U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq, prior to the intervention, caused hardships in Iraq as well and IMO these sanctions are supported by the U.S. citizenry for the most part further indicating a lack of caring about the plight of the Iraqi citizen. Why don't people come out and say they don't care about the plight of Iraqi citizens since they really don't? IMO it has alot to do with political correctness.
On point 2 I don't think that many people have considered the possibility very much.
|
|
#55
12-11-2006, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two More Things People Think But Won\'t Say
[ QUOTE ]
Your nation's current leader is George Bush. How could you possibly argue that women would be worse leaders than men? [/ QUOTE ] Is a world class answer. The only thing I could posibly add to that would be Ronald Reagan.
|
|
#56
12-11-2006, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two More Things People Think But Won\'t Say
Avoid employing unlucky people, simply throw half the CV's (resumes) you receive straight in the bin.
|
|
#57
12-11-2006, 07:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two More Things People Think But Won\'t Say
[ QUOTE ]
Again people are missing my point. Which is that IF a certain small percentage of women are SERIOUSLY affected by PMS, (much more so than men might be by their own unique problems) it is not wrong to factor that small probability into the equation even if the great majority of woman are UNFAIRLY hurt by such probabalistic calculations. [/ QUOTE ] So, if by nuking the entire US into the stoneage we would probably kill some of the most dangerous, mal-adjusted people on the planet then it is not wrong to factor that probability into the equation even if the great majority of US citizens are UNFAIRLY wiped out of existence by such probabalistic calculations? It's one line of thought I suppose.
|
|
#58
12-11-2006, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two More Things People Think But Won\'t Say
On number 2, one reason people like you don't say those things, is cuz they don't VOTE... lol
On number 1... Its a lot like the book 1984 post 9-11. We're in a neverending war against "the terrorists" and Bush was in good position to define who "the terrorists" are and moved all-in against Iraq because he needed someone to beat up and the public was easily convinced it was justified, and many still are because of their ignorance and vast aray of media distractions. The democrats couldn't stand up against Bush's all-in when the entire nation was so blinded by the desire for revenge for 9-11, so they pretended to believe him, hoping not to look weak to the ignorant masses. Now, the problem is so bad and all the options available seem even worse than the status quo, and yet a solution to the status quo is so important, that people realize now isn't the time to be saying "I told you so" since no one said [censored] against Bush's war mongering to begin with... When Bush got horny, the nation basicly said "Ok sounds good lets all go bend Sadaam over and gang bang him" Now that its the Iraqi people who are suffering more than they ever did under Sadaam, we're ashamed to admit we allowed Bush to be this sadistic.
|
|
#59
12-11-2006, 07:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Its The General Principle
[ QUOTE ]
"How is this different than denying a house to a black family because blacks are statistically more likely to commit a crime?" If that statistic is true then it is not. Therefore what? [/ QUOTE ] Therefore taking one piece of statistical evidence, in isolation from the bigger picture, and using it as the foundation for any argument tends to lead to erroneous decision making and can make the person proposing such an argument look like a bit of a cnut.
|
|
#60
12-11-2006, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two More Things People Think But Won\'t Say
[ QUOTE ]
1. Once it was shown that Iraq had no WMDs and Sadam wasn't helping terrorists, we don't care anymore. The fact that Sadam was a ruthless dictator who supressed rights and killed tens of thosands of innocents doesn't begin to make spending billions and losing thousands of Americans worth it. The issue isn't that we don't think the US should be the world's policeman imposing our values on others. That's actually fine. As long as we can pull that off cheaply. But if it isn't cheap, who cares about the plight of the Iraqi's? 2. As long as even a small fraction of woman suffer PMS to the point where it occasionaly affects their decisions, that one fact is highly relevant as far as voting for a woman president is concerned. At least until she is of the age that doctors agree the syndrome no longer occurs. If after taking the risk into account, someone wants to vote for her anyway, because she is otherwise so good, or the opponent is so bad, fine. But if the decison is close, no one can be faulted for voting against the woman even if the great majority are not affected by PMS. That might not be fair to woman in general but as a voter with kids who doesn't want an increased risk of war,it is perfectly fine for me to change my vote if a statistical, "unfair" fact is good reason to do so. Again, how come nobody says this stuff? [/ QUOTE ] Lots of people said the first thing, more or less. As for why "men" don't say the second it's because they don't want to sleep on the couch. Duh!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
