Well?
E.g.
I'm not enriching uranium for military reasons.
I'm not torturing 'enemy combatants'.
E.g.
I'm not enriching uranium for military reasons.
I'm not torturing 'enemy combatants'.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-26 04:32:41)
its mostly done by making the other side look untrustworthy.......or by inviting journalists and these sort of people to take a look for themselves
It's nearly impossible to prove a negative. Which is a real bitch if you're not doing what you're being accused of.
However, in your examples, proof of both is not too difficult:
1. Enrichment techniques for energy-quality uranium vice weapons-quality uranium are different and can be objectively observed.
2. Watchdog groups observing 'enemy combatant' treatment. However, those watchdog groups have to observe and comment based on some objective measure of where torture starts, and not on their own criteria, which is typically biased toward a ridiculously low threshold.
However, in your examples, proof of both is not too difficult:
1. Enrichment techniques for energy-quality uranium vice weapons-quality uranium are different and can be objectively observed.
2. Watchdog groups observing 'enemy combatant' treatment. However, those watchdog groups have to observe and comment based on some objective measure of where torture starts, and not on their own criteria, which is typically biased toward a ridiculously low threshold.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-02-26 04:45:24)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Uh, check level of enrichment? No weapons grade uranium - not for military reasons. Weapons grade uranium - military reasons. Commence bombing runs. Problem is, when person/persons/state denying enrichment for military reasons don't allow full inspections, so you can't check?CameronPoe wrote:
I'm not enriching uranium for military reasons.
Uh, no idea. Outside observers(for torture that don't leave marks)? Full medical upon capture(with pics), and random checks during captivity(physical torture)?CameronPoe wrote:
I'm not torturing 'enemy combatants'.
/crackpot reply
P.S. DAMN YOU FEOS
You cant. Thats why you dont break peoples trust in you. If people trust you they will believe you, if they dont, well then they wont trust you.
I get that a lot.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
P.S. DAMN YOU FEOS
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You can prove if uranium has been enriched to weapons grade yes but failing that how can you prove someone is not enriching it to that level, especially if they one allow inspections of the enrichment process. One can allege that the inspections aren't comprehensive, much as one can allege that inspections of the treatment of 'enemy combatants' aren't full and comprehensive.FEOS wrote:
It's nearly impossible to prove a negative. Which is a real bitch if you're not doing what you're being accused of.
However, in your examples, proof of both is not too difficult:
1. Enrichment techniques for energy-quality uranium vice weapons-quality uranium are different and can be objectively observed.
2. Watchdog groups observing 'enemy combatant' treatment. However, those watchdog groups have to observe and comment based on some objective measure of where torture starts, and not on their own criteria, which is typically biased toward a ridiculously low threshold.
What it takes to enrich weapons-grade uranium is not variable. It's either there or it's not. If one assumes (for the sake of argument) that the party doing the enrichment is truly being open and providing full disclosure regarding their program, then it is fairly simple, from a technical perspective, to determine whether or not weapons-related enrichment is occurring. So, if the people are truly being open, and there is no equipment or processes related to weapons-grade enrichment, then you have proof they are not pursuing weapons programs.
Same assumption would have to apply to the enemy combatant scenario.
If there is NOT full cooperation on inspections in either case by the suspect party, then you can't prove the presence or absence of either definitively.
Same assumption would have to apply to the enemy combatant scenario.
If there is NOT full cooperation on inspections in either case by the suspect party, then you can't prove the presence or absence of either definitively.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well that turns the 'proving a negative' argument into a subjective 'are they being sufficiently open and transparent?' argument. A very grey area.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-26 05:17:49)
There is no god.CameronPoe wrote:
Well?
E.g.
I'm not enriching uranium for military reasons.
I'm not torturing 'enemy combatants'.
You don't and you can't. You just apply the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
The term "proven guilty" has kinda lost the old ring to it the last years tbh ...sergeriver wrote:
You don't and you can't. You just apply the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
It's not just the US you know...
prove a negative?
video.
but then again, im sure the CIA, MI6, Mossad etc. can make all sorts of fake videos.
video.
but then again, im sure the CIA, MI6, Mossad etc. can make all sorts of fake videos.
nice examples. lulz