----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: Landmines
> 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.
>
Jeroen, let me quote two posts upon which I based my understanding of your
position:
First we have (actually taking from my post of August 5th, quoting you and
then answering...snipping John's stuff at the start):
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 5:43 AM
Subject: RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a civilization?
>
> How is that relevant? If one single individual dies because of those
> landmines that you don't want to remove, you have all the reason you need
> to get rid of those mines. Heck, IMHO, America's refusal to sign the
> Landmine Ban Treaty should be considered a crime against humanity.
>
A crime against humanity? That is an extremely strong statement. I find it
ironic, because in an earlier conversation concerning solar power, you
seemed to dismiss the possibility of people dying after slipping.
<snip the rest of my stuff
Immediately I called into question what I perceived as a very strong
statement. As you mentioned in a recent post, people are innocent until
proven guilty.
Next, let me quote me quoting you again, to show my initial response. My
post was from August 12th
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Landmines RE: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a
civilization?
>
> Below are links to a few websites that debunk the claim that landmines are
> necessary in Korea.
>
I read the websites you cited, and what they proved is that the concept that
they are needed is not universally agreed upon. How does the existence of
contrary opinions constitute a debunking? It would only be true if one
holds the standards that the US position is false until proven true.
What I wish to point out by this quotation is that, from the very start, I
singled out the word debunking as a very strong word requiring a very high
level of proof. (I'll stop quoting now, and start summarizing, but I'll
quote again if need be.) You then gave an argument for your position and
repeated the debunking claim. A bit later, I posted a fairly long piece
describing what debunking means, and why the standards for debunking are set
high.
How, in all of this, did I consistently misinterpret your posts? I tried to
open up the possibility for a toning down of the rhetoric from "crimes
against humanity" and "debunking" to "bad decisions."
> 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.
I'll get back to the particulars of the discussion in another post. But, I
think we have one fundamental difference that I would like to discuss at
this point. My scientific credibility is based on successes:
My Monte Carlo models match experimental observation
My methodology finds and solves field problems
My designs are copied by others
What I build works.
Your posts make it sound as though you give no added credibility to the
people who actually have to make their ideas work in practice. I do.
One final point, you did indeed establish Mr. Rossiter as a credible source
in my estimation.
> >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...
>
If you had, then why the overwhelming rhetoric? "Crimes against humanity"
is an extraordinarily serious charge. It requires proof beyond reasonable
doubt (at least in the US). Debunking requires overwhelming proof. Arguing
that that disadvantages outweigh the advantages only requires that the
propensity of evidence be on the side of the disadvantages.
If you think my interpretation of these posts is faulty, I would appreciate
a detailed explaination of what you mean by crime against humanity and
debunking. It would aid my understanding.
Dan M.
