TomDavidson wrote:I'm just trying to figure out the logic you're applying, here. You concede that the cases aren't equivalent. Your argument hinges on the assertion that they don't have to be equivalent -- that being "evil" in other ways makes it reasonable to contemplate the possibility that he's "evil" in this specific way.
Since you seem to be making a greater effort to actually argue your point instead of merely relying on cheap rhetorical effect like some dime-store flack, I'll respond in kind.
I think your inability to see my point (since we're now on page six of the thread and you still can't seem to wrap your head around it) comes down to this notion of 'equivalence.' From what you have said, my perception is that you have a very narrow and precise definition of 'equivalence' - the person must have been incontrovertably
proven to have done exactly
the thing in question, and to the exact degree
that it was done in the event being discussed, for it to even merit consideration. Anything else throws open the door to an anarchic world of depthless paranoia.
And I'm saying that, logically, that's fallacious. People's prior behavior has a proven predictive value in regards to the future behavior - as I pointed out above, the FBI bases some of its profiling protocol on this (and you know what a bunch of 'bleeding-heart lunatics' those G-men are). That this principle is predictive doesn't mean it's deterministic
, obviously - as I again aknowledged. However, the escalation from hurting animals to killing people is a scientifically-verified
arc in the progression of a serial killer's pathology - an escalation in degree, not in kind.
So - again, having never
said that Cheney's past behavior proves anything
(just as being cruel to animals does not prove
that you are a nascent serial killer), I did
say that the details of Cheney's work in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush administrations (pere
) suggest to me
a psychological profile that would not be inconsistent with those characteristics necessary for allowing (again, allowing, not planning - so please see if you can refrain from attributing that statement to me this time) the 9/11 attacks to take place in order to pursue political and financial advantage.
That's what I said. I stand fully behind that statement. Attempts to invoke a strawman argument in order to excoriate and belittle a stance I never took are, naturally, beneath contempt.