Is waterboarding torture? - Page 72

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

So you don't weigh the lancet study as any more accurate or inaccurate than say iraq body count?

See we feel the lancet study is false do to its extreme difference from other more accepted studies, from the experts such as in that link which you still have not commented on (this is a debate forum right? You post the lancet study, I posted something that anihilates it yet you won't debate how that analysis is wrong, why?).

I do weigh the Lancet report more than IRC because of the reputation of the organization conducting the survey. Your expert, does not have such a reputation.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-10-08, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I do weigh the Lancet report more than IRC because of the reputation of the organization conducting the survey. Your expert, does not have such a reputation.

Quote:

With that being said, all these conclusions are on the table of possibilities. Since we don't know, it is plausible to say, that one of these could be true. My issue comes from you people that are so sure Lancet is false. Because you don't know.

I thought you didn't know?

Anyway I guess your position is that you believe the numbers based on a popularity contest over empirical data and the many estimates that are much closer.

You argued that I did not know because I was not an expert.

Now you are arguing that the expert I provided is not as prestigious as lancet and therefore is not as believeable.

What portion of my lowly's expert analysys do you disagree with?

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

I thought you didn't know?

Anyway I guess your position is that you believe the numbers based on a popularity contest over empirical data and the many estimates that are much closer.

You argued that I did not know because I was not an expert.

Now you are arguing that the expert I provided is not as prestigious as lancet and therefore is not as believeable.

What portion of my lowly's expert analysys do you disagree with?

This is an issue of my personal preference toward the reputation of the Lancet organizations that made the report. It is not about whether your expert is "lowly" or not. The bottom line is, that while I personally put stock in the Lancet report more than others, I do not dismiss the others as you have mine.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-10-08, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

This is an issue of my personal preference toward the reputation of the Lancet organizations that made the report. It is not about whether your expert is "lowly" or not. The bottom line is, that while I personally put stock in the Lancet report more than others, I do not dismiss the others as you have mine.

Why are you avoiding my question? What part of my experts analysis do you disagree with and why?

Or are you basing everything you believe on emotion and what the "experts" you prefer tell you.

You also know there used to be a rule in journalism that one something wasn't true unless two different people confirmed the facts.

And don't give me the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies, as they were the research partner for lancet. thats still one source.

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Why are you avoiding my question? What part of my experts analysis do you disagree with and why?

Or are you basing everything you believe on emotion and what the "experts" you prefer tell you.

You also know there used to be a rule in journalism that one something wasn't true unless two different people confirmed the facts.

And don't give me the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies, as they were the research partner for lancet. thats still one source.

The Lancet survey consisted of Columbia University, John's Hopkins Research Institute and the largest medical insitution in Iraq (it's name alludes me at the moment.

I don't comment on detail about your "source", because I have not had the time to research it more. I am not going to comment on something I have not reviewed in detail.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-10-08, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

The Lancet survey consisted of Columbia University, John's Hopkins Research Institute and the largest medical insitution in Iraq (it's name alludes me at the moment.

I don't comment on detail about your "source", because I have not had the time to research it more. I am not going to comment on something I have not reviewed in detail.

I like how you put it in " " that's rich. As if that somehow minimizes it's legitimacy....

But by all means I will stand down until you read it. I mean you will read it right, afterall you are interested in the truth not agenda, right?

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

I like how you put it in " " that's rich. As if that somehow minimizes it's legitimacy....

But by all means I will stand down until you read it. I mean you will read it right, afterall you are interested in the truth not agenda, right?

Post the link and I will read it.

Reverend_Hellh0und · 02-10-08, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Post the link and I will read it.

I will post it yet again for you:

Michelle Malkin Document drop: A new critique of the 2004 Lancet Iraq death toll study

BTW:

"the 2004 study authored by David Kane, Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University"

I know Harvard is no John Hopkins! but do try to make do.,....

Billo_Really · 02-10-08, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

I will post it yet again for you:

Michelle Malkin Document drop: A new critique of the 2004 Lancet Iraq death toll study

BTW:

"the 2004 study authored by David Kane, Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University"

I know Harvard is no John Hopkins! but do try to make do.,....

Stop hi-jacking this thread! This thread is about water-boarding, not Lancet. I will comment on this in the appropriate thread.

CaptainCourtesy · 02-10-08, 10:42 PM

As I read through this thread, I've noticed something interesting. The debate doesn't seem to be whether waterboarding is torture or not; once side says it is, the other avoids the question. The debate seems to be whether waterboarding is acceptable or not. The side that defines it as torture says it isn't; the side that refuses to define it says it is. Interesting...