[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
Problem is, that "[is] the U.S. [-] winning the war in Iraq ?" is a 
"weasely" question to start with. It presumes simple closed choices - (a) 
whether there is a "war" and (b) whether there is some concept of "winning" 
it. So any answer that doesn't ignore those initial facts is going to be 
equivocal. "What progress are we making in Iraq ?" would be a fairer open 
question, that would deserve straight answers. The presumption of two 
mutually exclusive and simple causal outcomes of every decision is the bane 
of our lives. To let go of that fallacy is to be balanced (enlightened 
even).

dmb says:
You think your approach is more balanced? Enlightened even? I don't. This is 
just another dose of your self-serving drivel. The fact that you're talking 
about matters of life and death only makes it all the more despicable. (The 
word "despicable", in this case, should be pronounced as Daffy Duck would, 
with lots of spit.)

This "balanced" approach is apparently your favorite trope, your favorite 
weapon and you use it indiscriminately against everything. I don't get it. 
How do you figure its a good thing to equivocate on every term and every 
question? What's the point? How is it justified? I think it's nonsense. 
Would you like to try to persuade me that it's not?

And for God's sake, man, stop flattering yourself. It's embarrassing.

_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. 
http://ideas.live.com