RE: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a civilizat ion?

[Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM]

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:39 PM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: RE: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
> civilizat ion?

> >> First, why doesn't the Pentagon count as an unbiased source?
> 
> >The Pentagon is one of the parties involved in this matter. They will
> >only make statements that defend their policies, which means they 
> >cannot be anything else but biased. They are not a neutral source.
> 
> But, as I said earlier, they are the source most capable of making
> these assessments.  And your argument is circular - yes, they will only
> make statements that defend their policies.  This is presumably at 
> least partly because they think their policies ar correct.  They did
> not, after all, choose them randomly.  Thus their arguments can equally
> well be characterized as explanations of their beliefs.

The arguments of mr. Rossiter can equally well be characterized as
explanations of his belief. Yet you consider *him* biased, while using the
same argument to say the Pentagon *isn't* biased.


> Your argument that this makes their arguments less valid does not seem
> to be supportable - you need to supply a reason that their arguments
> might be deceptive, then in fact demonstrate that their arguments are
> wrong.  You haven't tried to do the first, and have not, in my opinion,
> succeeded in the second.  

I don't have to do the first, and I have done the second. I can't help it
that you refuse to accept my arguments as valid.


> >> >BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite a few sources that support
> >> >the pro-landmine views of the US.
> >>
> >> The nice thing about this argument, from my perspective, is that I
> >> don't have to do that.
> 
> >Thank you. Your statement is sufficient proof for me that your beliefs
> >are not based on facts -- otherwise you would have had no problem
> >providing sources that contradict anti-landmine sources.
> >
> >(Isn't this wonderful? When I make a statement, I'm supposed to back
> >it up by providing sources, but when Gautam disagrees with me, he 
> >doesn't have to back up *his* claim by providing sources.)
> 
> It might be sufficient proof for you, but I'd be a little surprised if
> it's sufficient for anyone else on the list.

I claim that landmines should not be used in Korea, and back my claim by
providing sources that support my claim. You then claim that my sources
aren't credible ones, but when asked to back that claim with sources that
confirm your claim, you outright refuse to do so. Since you refuse to
provide proof for that claim, the only possible conclusion is that you don't
have that proof.


> You made a remarkable claim - that the United States government was
> guilty of crimes against humanity for failing to sign the Treaty.  To
> borrow a legal term, this imposes no burden upon me to supply an
> affirmative defense.  I need only demonstrate that your claims are not
> proven.

You seem to have a problem reading my posts. I never asked you to prove that
not signing the Treaty isn't a crime against humanity. What I *did* ask, and
what I'll ask you again for the umpteenth time, is to provide sources that
back your claim about my sources not being credible.


> Your distortion of what I write makes it rather difficult to discuss
> something like this with you.

Well, then you should now have at least some idea of what I must be going
through. People like you and Dan are rapidly making a habit of
misinterpreting what I write and putting words in my mouth. This behaviour
makes it necessary for me to repeat myself over and over again, in the hope
that some day you'll actually be able to correctly interpret my writings.


Jeroen

_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website:                    http://go.to/brin-l