| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > > I reject that 500K children in Iraq have died since sanctions were • imposed.
> > > > That statistic itself is questionable. I note you haven't debunked it,
> > > > merely cited it again.
> > > >
> > > > I reject that the sanctions are the REASON that children (however many)
> > > > died. The sanctions do not prevent the flow of food into the country.
> > > >
> > > > I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
> > > > child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
> > > > The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
> >
> > > That is 100% opinion on his part.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> A great explanation of this was given by Dave!
>
> > In this case, I don't particularly recall any valid explanation of how and why
> > UNICEF is lying.
>
> The original cite of "debunk this" deconstructs the UN statistics.
> Statistics have a way of getting cited and re-cited, and those cites get
> recited by those that want the statistics to be what they are because they
> are conveniently in support of their arguments.
Not valid. I cited UNICEF statistics *&* opinion. Free free to debunk it.
>
> Reciting UN statistics does not debunk the deconstruction, you would have to
> attack the logic of the deconstruction to refute it. Not just recite the
> re-cites, which is what some do.
>
> More generally...
>
> I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless
> independently corroborated, and that's a blanket statement. The UN apparatus
> is highly politicised and tends to produce answers that are politically
> correct rather than actually correct.
You are deluded. An argument has been presented by more than just me and
this is the best you can do to counter it? I would have had more respect for
you if you had just failed to answer the point.
>
> Please note that Scott said (effectively) "I don't believe the 500K number"
Not quite. I would phrase my stament as "500K is and unbelievable number".
When I wrote that text I was aware the the death rate right now is ~500 per
month, so I had an idea that the total dead would be very high.
> and also quoted statistics that supported or cited the 500K number as a
> mechanism for debunking the deconstruction, claiming they were correct. That
> seems dubious at best.
Larry. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Lets look at your words:
==+==
I reject that even if the sanctions actually *caused* the death of even 1
child that it's the fault of the imposers of the sanctions for the deaths.
The *fault* lies with the lawless dictator Hussein, not the US.
==+==
Do you still stand by that?
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) Yes. This leg has nothing to do with whether the stat is right or whether the causality link is there. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) A great explanation of this was given by Dave! (...) The original cite of "debunk this" deconstructs the UN statistics. Statistics have a way of getting cited and re-cited, and those cites get recited by those that want the statistics to be (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
