4 ms·
My point was that there are things that are not worth arguing against as there is a prima facie against them. So those arguing for those positions are either ig
by turbojerry 13y ago
My point was that there are things that are not worth arguing against as there is a prima facie against them. So those arguing for those positions are either ignorant of the prima facie case or are trying to deceive, sometimes themselves as well as you and me. If you want a more current example take Irans nuclear program, I have people try to tell me that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, I used to point out that all 17 US intelligence agencies have said this is false, I have since stopped bothering and just avoid those people now.
- rapala 13y agoYeah, I agree that not every subject is worth arguing about. But if discussion is what you are after, then you need to know what you are talking about, or against. The nuclear program of Iran is a great example. You have done the research to know that those who are experts in the matter don't think Iran has a nuclear weapon program. The others are not prepared for the discussion. (This certainty about Iran was actually news to me.)
- turbojerry 13y agoThe 2007 National Intelligence Estimate is where the Iran information originated, nothing has changed in the subsequent years. 'Mr Bush expresses anger that US intelligence agencies played a role in removing the option of military action against Iran over its nuclear programme. He describes the "eye-popping declaration" in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judging with "high confidence" that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11722375 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11722375 Comparing the factual analysis to the propaganda whether on Iraq WMD before the invasion or Irans nuclear programme now is certainly an interesting exercise.