![]() |
I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Printable Version +- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net) +-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43) +--- Thread: I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... (/showthread.php?tid=5063) |
I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - A Black Falcon - 16th November 2008 It would be great to see CBS lose for what they did to him. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/media/17rather.html?hp (The case, for those who forget, is about the records about Bush's military service... never showing up while probably being on drugs, etc... the records were declared a "forgery" and Rather "discredited", but I've always been sure that the records were either real or copies of real documents. They fit in too perfectly with everything we know about that period of George W. Bush's life for them to be anything else... but the Republican attack machine managed to get Dan Rather fired over telling the truth, because it was inconvenient for Bush's re-election chances. It really was amazing how the press turned on a dime and all started talking about the "forgery" and "how did the story get on the air at all", while no serious, nonpartisan effort was really made to prove the validity of the documents in question... for anyone who really needs any more proof, it was some absolute proof that the so-called "liberal media" doesn't exist. Anyway, Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS for having a partisan inquiry about how the documents got on the air (it was run by a partisan Republican, and CBS had evidently wanted such a person to run it... hmm, I wonder why?) and for damaging his character is evidently progressing along fairly well. Good, and I hope he wins in the end. :) I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Great Rumbler - 17th November 2008 Quote:They fit in too perfectly with everything we know about that period of George W. Bush's life for them to be anything else... lol I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - A Black Falcon - 17th November 2008 What, as if there's some evidence somewhere that at that time he was anything OTHER than a druggie skipping out on his responsibilities? I don't think so... As I said there, the Republican attack machine somehow managed to distract the press and the people away from the report as if it was fake, WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY DISPROVING A WORD IN IT. Very clever... but it didn't fool me, or many other liberals. It was very frustrating to see the press give in like that to the right's lies and deceptions... :( As I said there, Dan Rather's lawsuit is both a well-deserved response to how CBS handled the situation and something that shows that some reporters, at least, still have integrity. :) I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Great Rumbler - 17th November 2008 I made *ahem* found a document stating that ABF is stupid and dumb. Since it hasn't been disproven, and it fits in with everything I know, then that makes it true by default! I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Dark Jaguar - 17th November 2008 ABF, I'm sorry but GR's right on here. Saying "it fits in with what I know about him" is not evidence in any way that the documents are real. Maybe they are, and we might find out, but taking a default position of "it's true until someone falsifies it" is the very essence of anti-science. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - lazyfatbum - 18th November 2008 And the credo of our judicial system. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Great Rumbler - 18th November 2008 Only if you're not rich and white. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Dark Jaguar - 18th November 2008 Trust me one doesn't cut it! I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - A Black Falcon - 18th November 2008 Quote:I made *ahem* found a document stating that ABF is stupid and dumb. Since it hasn't been disproven, and it fits in with everything I know, then that makes it true by default! Oh come on, that's a ridiculous comparison. There's a big difference between something that obviously has no basis in fact and something that perfectly fits the facts, it just isn't conclusively proven to be true, though there was also backup evidence of people who were at that base(in Alabama mostly, but also perhaps in Texas) at the time (including military officers) he was supposedly supposed to be there and couldn't remember ever seeing him... or that, again from other evidence, that we know that during this period W. was an at least occasional crack cocaine user (and drunk, too)... yeah, there's no reason at ALL to believe that he just didn't show up for the minimal time his national guard requirement required! It is amazing how much he turned his life around by becoming an evangelical Christian and abandoing drugs and alcohol... he went from being a drunk who failed at just about everything he wasn't given to a sober person who failed at everything he wasn't given (Baseball, business, politics...). ... It'd be amusing if the results weren't so horrifyingly tragic. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Dark Jaguar - 18th November 2008 I'm not saying that it may not have been true considering the other evidence, I'm saying that you can't just assume that document is true because it fits with what you already know. By that standard, I could just write a speech by Abraham Lincoln about human rights and standing for them and all that noise and you'd say it fits with what we know about him so it must be real. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - A Black Falcon - 19th November 2008 Quote:By that standard, I could just write a speech by Abraham Lincoln about human rights and standing for them and all that noise and you'd say it fits with what we know about him so it must be real. Not necessarily, we know that he didn't exactly say that he thought black people were equal to whites (no person would ever have gotten elected back then if they'd said that), just that they shouldn't be enslaved... And there'd need to be actual evidence (in this case from the text and beyond), like there is here, not something that's obviously just a faked document. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Dark Jaguar - 19th November 2008 A text file can never prove itself to be true. That's silly. "Beyond" is the ONLY acceptable evidence. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - lazyfatbum - 19th November 2008 "it's true until someone falsifies it" "Innocent until proven guilty" Lightbulb now you. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Dark Jaguar - 20th November 2008 Innocent until proven guilty is closer to "it's false until someone truthifies it". Innocense is basically the "null" claim, the default of the vast majority of people. False is the default state of pretty much all claims that don't have evidence. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - lazyfatbum - 20th November 2008 No. *points to the fail* I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Dark Jaguar - 20th November 2008 Explain. How is "guilt" the default claim? Most people did NOT commit the crime in question, therefor innocense is the default null claim. The other must be established. By saying that this document must be true until shown otherwise, you are saying it's "guilty" until proven "innocent". That's just not how science works. Science can't work from a framework of thinking every single claim is simultaneously true until something's falsified. In fact how could you falsify things in that sort of framework? No, they come up with a hypothesis and then attempt to find evidence to support it. An absence of evidence, where one would expect to find said evidence, IS evidence of absence. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - A Black Falcon - 20th November 2008 Quote:A text file can never prove itself to be true. That's silly. "Beyond" is the ONLY acceptable evidence. Well, I did also mention other corroborating facts, of course... so either you're ignoring that or you don't think that's enough, but you should at least address them. But anyway, I don't agree with this at all, written evidence is the most important kind. Other things can support written evidence, but nothing else is as important, or as insightful... Of course you cannot always trust that something is accurate, but when enough things suggest that it is for you to believe it, there's nothing wrong in doing so. In the field of history, studying and analyzing written evidence is the core of what the study of history is about, not other kinds. History doesn't begin until things start getting written down... I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Dark Jaguar - 20th November 2008 I'm not really taking the side of or against this document. My part in this argument is simply about what constitutes proof. If you've got more corroborating evidence to support the document is true, fine, I'll agree to it. I have no real interest in it, I'm already convinced GW Bush has been a terrible president. I just jump in when I see what I think is a poor argument. The fact is, anyone can write anything down. It's a lot more important for the sun to actually BE the gravitational center of the solar system than for someone to simply say it is so, and for that to happen, measurements must occur, so no, a bunch of papers are not evidence of anything other than the opinion of the writer. And, if you can't verify that something actually was written by someone, it doesn't really matter if it "is totally what that guy would have said". Surely historians do full background checks of whatever document they are examining to determine if it actually originated from the era in question? Surely they do fact checks to make sure that the things stated in it were actually true and not merely the ravings of a lunatic? Surely it amounts to more than simply checking to see if the nature of the text matches what the author usually writes? I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Dark Jaguar - 20th November 2008 Anyway, to make it clear, I know you can't expect absolute proof, but rather evidence. If you have established that a book actually is from a specific era and written by a specific author using a good chunk of it, then the remaining pages need not be assumed to be fake, it's a good bet the entirety of it is also from that era, until something about the handwriting or the paper suggests otherwise. However, if you haven't established any of that, and all you can say is this long lost Shakespear play sure sounds a lot like his normal style, then that's hardly convincing evidence at all. I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - A Black Falcon - 20th November 2008 First, this -- did you read the NYTimes article I linked? I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - A Black Falcon - 29th December 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/dan-rather-cbs-lawsuit-bush Laugh all you want now, but I expect that once this goes to trial as it is going to, you'll see that that report, and me, were right all along. Here's the latest news on it... This wasn't just made up, the story was never refuted, and it was true. It's amazing how well the right-wing spin machine conned people into believing that a true story was "false and made up"... Quote:CBS newsman's $70m lawsuit likely to deal Bush legacy a new blow I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - Great Rumbler - 31st December 2008 Quote:Laugh all you want now, but I expect that once this goes to trial as it is going to, you'll see that that report, and me, were right all along. lol I've always thought that Dan Rather's report was accurate... - A Black Falcon - 31st December 2008 Given that there's absolutely no evidence to support any other position, unless the Bush Administration suppresses it somehow (like how they managed to keep Dick Cheney from being charged with leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press, an illegal act he most certainly ordered or did), it's the only logical outcome. Dark Jaguar Wrote:ABF, I'm sorry but GR's right on here. Saying "it fits in with what I know about him" is not evidence in any way that the documents are real. Maybe they are, and we might find out, but taking a default position of "it's true until someone falsifies it" is the very essence of anti-science. How about we try this again... If that were true, Bush would have simply denied the charges. Instead, he used a narrower excuse, that the documents had been faked. He didn't say "it's not true", he said "those aren't real documents"... and then failed to either provide any evidence that the charges weren't true or prove that the documents were faked. And yet everyone believed them anyway. Huh? Why anyone at all would believe the Bush Administration on this is beyond me, that's for sure. And in addition, Dan Rather, one of the great television journalists of recent decades, wouldn't be spending millions of dollars on this if he thought his report wasn't accurate. But the first point is a stronger one, I think. |