[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Suicide Junkie]

i.e. In a messy and muddled situation Gore should be given the benefit of the doubt and be considered to have told the truth not the other way around. If we were to believe that the accused were always guilty before being proven guilty or that all that was necessary to prove someone guilty was to find a couple of reasonable people who thought them guilty then that would be a messed up world indeed.

It seems quite clear from that quote that what he said was definitely not true.

I can easily believe that it was not intentional, and there were no serious consequences of it. The public ridicule was also surely worse than he deserved.

However, his statement is still absurd, and we enjoy a good laugh at the situation.

---

Also, note that while what he said is definitely not true, that does not nessesarily make it a lie.

[geoschmo]

Exactly SJ. And that is exactly what I said, but I still have yet to find very many people who will admit to that which is patetnly obvious. Instead they insist on claiming his words were misquoted or taken out of context, or try to redefine the words he used to make them fit some set of facts that may be accurate. When all that fails they try to change the subject to Bush, or Afganistan, or moldy cheeze.

BM, you obviously just didn't read any of our Posts prior to your post or you could not have come to the conclusions you did. I posted the link to the same interview, and I made the point that Gore was most assuradly not lying, but had merely mistated the facts before you did. My only reason for continuing the debate is I am still waiting to hear Teal admit that that is the case rather then twist the facts or change the subject.

Geoschmo

[teal]

I wasn't trying to change the subject. My only off subject post was the one about Afghanistan complete with many smiles to indicate that I was worried perhaps that others were getting tired of this discussion. Others have been trying to change the subject, perhaps because they are getting tired of this...

You have failed to address my point that people are innocent until proven guilty. People with a different mindset will read that quote differently and not find anything strange about it at all (me and BM). You and SJ read the quote differently. Fine. We still come back to the point that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on YOU. I have great difficutly proving a truthhood because its very hard to do in any slightly muddled situation. I would have great difficulty proving that I had yogurt for breakfast this morning if you chose to be contrarian about the issue... That's why people are innocent until *proven* guilty. The benefit of the doubt rests with the defense *not* the prosecution. You have failed to make your case so that *any* reasonable person would agree with you. Largely because the issue is muddled and reasonable people *will* disagree. This proves my point as I represent the defense in this situation. Once again the ball is in your court or do you have some problem with people being innocent until proven guilty?

[teal]

Oh yeah. And what exactly are we disagreeing about here? What do you mean by "misstatement" anyways? I'll agree that the statement was rather unfortunate and could easily be taken out of context (surely a "misstatement" in that point of view). But will not agree that the statement represents either a lie or a verbal gaffe but rather is something that any reasonable person could say.

[geoschmo]

When I say he made a mistatement I do not mean he made a statement that was technically true but was worded poorly so that taken out of context could appear to mean something it did not. This appears to me to be your and BM's impression of the comment in question. That's what I would call a poor choice of words. A comment that is technically correct but constucted in such a way as to be possibly unclear in it's meaning.

By mistatement I mean that the comment was factually incorrect as he stated it in the context that he meant it. I disagree that it could reasonably be taken any other way. I suppose this means I am saying you and BM are being unreasonable on this point, but I don't have a problem with that.

However a mistatement does not have to be an intentional comment contrary to the facts. That would be what I would define as a lie.

Geoschmo

[teal]

Fine. If you do not share my belief that I am a reasonable human being then there is little that I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm sorry that you can't see what probably a good 15-20% of America would agree with (the percentage of people who voted for Gore minus a few who would agree with you, but still voted for Gore). I think that's your problem. I try often and hard to understand those who support Bush and the right wing to the point of often playing devils advocate for his policies at debating sessions. I do not find that point of view unreasonable, just wrong... I do feel truly sad that the other side does not feel fit to extend the same courtesy.

Over and Out

Teal

Edit: and by your definition I would classify Gore's comment as a "poor choice of words."

[ May 30, 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: teal ]

[Narrew]

I have come to believe that the "TRUTH" is all in the beholder (or point of view or bias). We all see the same thing, but come to different conclusion. Glass half full/empty kind of thing.

My view of that comment from Gore is that he was a politician and he tried to get brownie points by stretching the truth and got caught. But it all comes down to what you think he was getting at, was he smoozing or was he just having a bad day?

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

hat is it about human conversations that they can never stay on a focus?

That's a very good point.

Has anyone noticed how you throw cheese out when it gets mouldy? I mean cheese is just mould anyway, isn't it, so isn't mouldy cheese just mouldy mould? You wouldn't refuse to drink wet water, so why do we throw out mouldy cheese?

(Actually, I usually just cut the mouldy bits off and eat the rest=-)

---

Hey, why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

[geoschmo]

Teal. I didn't say you were an unreasonable human being. I just think you are being unreasonable on this point. That was a poor choice of words on my part.

I would guess the great majority of the people on both sides haven't actually heard what he said to begin with. They are told he said he invented the internet, and so they think he is a liar. Or they are told people say that he said he invented the internet but he didn't really say that, so they believe it's all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

It just suprises me that otherwise reasonable logical people such as yourself can see what he said and some how come up with a scenario where it is a factual statement if taken in the correct context.

Geoschmo

Geoschmo

[ May 30, 2003, 19:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Hey, why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

Their wool shinks, but the sheep thenselves swell up when wet, so the net effect is no change.