Re: OT: Regarding honesty and honor - WAS - Re: I just sold Apple a Mac :)

On May 24, 9:40 am, Steve Carroll <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/nyregion/24dust.html>
-----
For the First Time, New York Links a Death to 9/11 Dust

New York City¹s chief medical examiner, Dr. Charles S.
Hirsch, has for the first time directly linked a death to
exposure to dust from the destruction of the World Trade
Center.

... Dr. Hirsch said that he was certain ³beyond a reasonable
doubt² that dust from the twin towers contributed to the
death of Felicia Dunn-Jones ...

Dr. Hirsch said he had decided to amend Mrs. Dunn-Jones¹s
death certificate to indicate that exposure to trade center
dust ³was contributory to her death.² The manner of death
will be changed from natural causes to homicide.
-----

Keeping in mind that their was no proof but merely a conclusion of
"certainty beyond a reasonable doubt", do you think the medical examiner was
wrong to change the cause of death to "homicide"?

On a legal document he's obligated to write what he feels the evidence
supports... in other's words...

Which "other"? :)

he is giving his expert opinion...(this differs
somewhat from you having given your novice opinion while refusing to admit it
was merely your opinion). In any event, they are both merely opinions.

Of course they are both "merely" opinions... and in both cases they
are opinions that stand without (valid) refutation. I am sure there
are those who disagree with both of the opinions. Does this prove
beyond *any* doubt that they are correct? Of course not... there is
always the logical possibility of error. Still, strong support (even
without proof) is pretty darn good and the best you can hope for in
most cases, thus it is fair to say that Bush *is* guilty and that
Felicia *is* a victim of homicide. The reader can determine who has
the more authoritative opinion here (I would go with the medical
examiner - after all that is her job; I certainly am not a legal
expert).

See how this works YET?

Of course I agree with my point, Steve. And now it seems you do,
too. It is fair to say Felicia is a victim of homicide and,
similarly, it is fair to say Bush is a law breaker... even though in
*both* cases they are "merely" opinions based on strong support and
have not been proved.

Your novice opinion is not an established fact to anyone other than you...

Fact? As in proved beyond any doubt?

it's that simple. You should be writing something along the lines of:

'Yes, Steve... it's merely my *opinion* that Bush is guilty of breaking the
law'.

Just as it is merely an *opinion* that Felicia is a victim of
homicide. OK. Sound like you may be heading to play games with the
word "opinion" that are similar to the games some folks play with
evolution being "just" a theory... but we shall see.

If yes: then you agree with me that it is OK to talk about a crime
and conclude that it has been committed even when you have
"only" very strong support and no actual proof (or, if you
prefer, proof beyond a reasonable doubt but no absolute proof).

If no: then you are likely in the very small minority... and I would
like to hear your reasoning.

You know have it... again. So you do now agree that it is merely your novice
opinion that Bush is guilty of breaking the law, right?

See above... but where do you think I have denied that there is the
logical possibility that my argument could be flawed?

In any case, I thank you - you *did* answer the question and I did not
think you would - and you have shown that you think it is OK for
Felicia to be considered a victim of homicide and Bush to be
considered a law breaker... though, of course, since both are opinions
and not absolute fact, there is the logical possibility that one or
either is wrong.

It is good to see your view mature like this - I am happy we have
finally reached at least basic agreement (you likely still take less
stock of my opinion than I do, and that is fine - you need not accept
it even though you cannot find a reasoned counter - you are, after
all, welcome to your opinion about Bush as well!)

Once again your trolling has pushed you into a corner where you will not be
able to state if you agree or disagree... either answer works against you.
:)




--
? The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
? Things which are not the same are not "identical"
? The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.



.

Relevant Pages