At 14:21 18-8-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > This is a set of double standards: I must provide sources to back my
>claims,
> > but when you disagree with them, you apparently don't have to provide
> > sources to back your claims.
> >
>
>Of course there is a double standard. Your thesis was that the use of
>landmines in Korea by the US is a crime against humanity. My thesis, and
>Gautam's, is that this is a subject that is open to differences of opinion
>among reasonable people. Yours is that keeping the land mines is a crime
>against humanity.
You know, Dan, I'm getting quite sick and tired of people (like you and
Gautum) continuously misinterpreting my posts, and sitting on their high
horses believing that while their opponents must provide proof for
literally everything, their own claims seemingly must be accepted at face
value without any proof whatsoever.
I will explain one more time.
I provided sources to show why using landmines in Korea is a bad idea.
Reasons include the fact that there are better weapons available nowadays,
the fact that US troops will be hindered by their own mines, and the fact
that US troops get killed or injured by their own mines.
My sources (and therefore the arguments which they contain) have repeatedly
been called "not credible", or at best "questionable". I have repeatedly
asked to provide sources that back those claims, but this entirely
reasonable request has consistently been met with outright refusal.
As a scientist you know quite well that making claims without providing
data to back them up is bad practice. Yet in this discussion you people
with your fancy college educations seem to think it's quite alright to make
claims without proof when it suits your needs. Either you think your
statements must be accepted at face value, or you simply don't *have* the
proof.
If the current practice is really the best you can and will do, I can only
say that your scientific credibility is worth to next-to-nothing.
>So, if you wish to change the debate from whether the US is in the process
>of committing crimes against humanity to whether the advantages of using the
>mines in Korea outweighs the disadvantages inherent in an exemption being
>given for the use in Korea, I think that would be an interesting debate.
I've been trying to argue advantages/disadvantages from the start, but you
don't seem to have noticed it...
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
