[eDebate] ans Bach
Sun Aug 5 20:16:50 CDT 2007
Mr. Bach was even trying to be nice, man. What is your problem? This isn't about Iraq for you, is it?
Your camp is both dying off and getting crazier by the day, forced to piece together ad homs and sketchy justifications for the decisions of your pathetically ineffective and arrogant leaders. It's not enough that you wouldn't maybe ask yourself every once in a while why so many people disagree with you; you've preordained our incorrectness. That a person like you who has always valued intelligence, intellectual integrity, and creativity so much would be reduced to beating up on people half your age who question the Bush administration...that should really bother you. Talk about being a bad judge, look what you have been voting for, Mike.
You should tell Jessica to read this and ask her if she agrees with me...just a little.
From: mmk_savant at hotmail.comTo: edebate at ndtceda.comDate: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:50 -0700Subject: [eDebate] ans Bach
i'm not saying you are the single worst judge ever, but you are a damn good reason for MPJ/strikes. just because you are a punk kid that calls himself the 5th International of Democratic Socialism doesn't absolve you from at least trying not to be an ideological drudge. talk about "fractal wrongness"... RB: "Iraq is better off now than they would be if we had not invaded."MK: WOO!!!! you got the resolution sorta right... that's better than Lewis has managed... RB: "MK has one offensive claim: that there has been a net decrease in deaths in Iraq thanks to the invasion."MK: yeah... 1 offensive claim... the liberation has saved about 100,000 human lives NET. that's the one offensive claim ... RB: "JL has defence on this with the sanctions argument."MK: unh hunh... and what "defence" is that? is there a single piece of evidence about sanctions OTHER than the card Lewis had that said the sanctions bad study was a piece of shit manufactured by Saddam Hussein? is there a single attempt to quantify how many of the 100,000 lives saved were just from the sanctions being lifted? is there an answer to "the liberation lifted the sanctions so they count for liberation?"oh and have i mentioned that you are a crappy judge?RB: "MK claims the stats are bullshit, but neither side has convincing evidence that provides a mechanism for improved life expectancy or decreased child mortality."MK: when did i claim "the stats are bullshit"? it sounds like you can't do math so are making shit up. lots of the stats are not contested, including 36,000 iraqi infants alive that would be dead if the 2002 infant mortality rate had held, about 80,000 Iraqi adults alive who would be dead if the 2002 death rate had held, and life expectancy up 2 years per person since 2002. also, the IraqBodyCount stats are uncontested, which conclude that 72,000 Iraqis have died in fighting over the last 4 1/2 years. also, there is no objection to my estimate that Saddam and Sons murdered about 50,000Iraqis a year. also not contested is Lewis's evidence that 3 million Iraqi children died from 1992-2003 was a lie by Saddam to make sanctions look much worse than they were... i accepted that the total was actually about 800,000 which means that there were almost ZERO excess child mortality deaths due to sanctions. I contest only 1 stat. that is the Lancet claim that 655,000 Iraqis have been killed in the liberation. I explain how and why that crazy number was generated and point folks to a discussion of it. Lewis grants the criticism. Lewis never asked for a "mechanism for imporved life expectancy" which is why I didn't provide one. why is that an important part of your decision-making when it isn't ever an issue in the "debate"? And Lewis probably didn't ask for a MECHANISM because it is obvious even to him: Saddam and Sons were vicious butchers who murdered 50,000 Iraqis a year to keep power - when the US liberated Iraq they stopped the vicious murders - true there is still plenty of killing going on but it is MUCH MUCH less than that committed by Saddam's Baathists. RB: "Call me a crazy leftist, but it seems like lifting sanctions on medical equipment would have a more direct, positive effect on health care than military action. I challenge MK to provide a more credible mechanism." MK: no, you call yourself a crazy leftist at your blog. "5th International Democratic Socialist" I believe is what you call yourself. isn't that like a Nazi or something?Why the hell is the "judge" challenging me to provide "a more credible mechanism"? Wasn't that the debater's job? I am beginning to suspect that this critic is an interventionist moron... a crazy leftist interventionist moron unable to judge fairly... HEY JUDGE!!! lookeee there on yer flow at the part where i make the argument "the liberation lifted the sanctions so that should count as a plus for the intervention" and you will notice no answer... now look at the part the says NO EVIDENCE what the effect of sanctions was on child mortality, life span, or the death rate and lookeee... Lewis had no answer there either... finally, look at the part where the only evidence about sanctions he presented was a card that said the studies which said sanctions raised child mortality were crap because they were manipulated by Saddam... and yah... the more credible "mechanism" is getting rid of the worst dictator of the late 20th century, a man that murdered about 750,000 Iraqis in the last 15 years of his rule. or do you not think that getting rid of murderous dictators is a good thing? I guess not, you have to watch the backs of fellow commies like Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, who collectively murdered 100 million + of their own citizens... oh and have i mentioned that you are a crappy judge? RB: "But let's give MK the benefit of the doubt and disregard the "lift sanctions" CP.'MK: yeah, don't do me any favors. there was no "lift sanctions" CP. there was a "lift sanctions and fund a coup" CP that went nowhere. and there was no answer to my mocking of "lift sanctions but leave Saddam and Sons in power" CP because that eats my argument that says Saddam and Sons would have likely kept murdering their 50 thousand Iraqis a year quota, which comes to about 225,000 dead Iraqis so far. Since, say 100,000 Iraqis have been killed during the liberation, that means the CP is behind by about 125,000 human lives. crappy, crappy, crappy... RB: "Let's even, for the sake of argument, grant him the dubious child mortality and life expectancy stats."MK: have i mentioned that you are a really, really, shitty judge? what is "dubious" about them? except that they are based on "numbers" and "math" and "thinking" which is BAD? even if you think you can quibble with them, Lewis sure as shit didn't present any reasons to think of them as "dubious"... RB: "JL has a pretty devastating argument, to which MK's only response is irrelevant. The sectarian violence going on in Iraq today was clearly not happening in pre-war Iraq, and is a pretty huge standard of living decrease."MK: you are a stark raving lunatic, too. Saddam and Sons headed the ruling Baathist Party, an arm of the Sunni minority. They butchered about 750,000 almost exclusively Kurd and Shia Iraqis over the last 15 years of rule. What ISN'T "sectarian" about that? DO YOU THINK ENTIRE VILLAGES WIPED OUT BY POISON GAS LOWERS THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING? what sort of idiot just turns off their brain and pretends that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was some sort of peaceful little place? oh, i know... the same sort of idiot that calls himself a Nazi and pretends the Nazis didn't murder 20 million people or that calls himself a communist and pretends that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are just misunderstood... RB: "MK responds with something about responsibility and killing the terrorists. This is not relevant to the debate."MK: wow, that's putrid... My response was "you are stark raving crazy" followed by the explanation that Saddam and Sons were sunnis who butchered hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia... what is wrong inside your head? RB: "The question is not whether the US or AQ in Iraq are more responsible (honestly, are you setting the argumentative bar that low for yourself?); it's whether or not Iraq is better off now. I don't give a shit who you BLAME for the violence; the violence is occurring, and that's bad."MK: this is stupid. the total number of people dead from the sectarian violence is about 72,000 over the last 4 1/2 years (see Lewis's source, IraqBodyCount). that is a lot less than would be dead by our best estimate of how many would have been butchered by Saddam and Sons (~225,000). even raising the 72,000 estimate to a generaous 100,000 dead Iraqis leaves 125,000 Iraqis alive who would have otherwise been butchered by Saddam and Sons. also, since you "don't give a shit who you BLAME" then I choose YOU. not terrorists, not the US, not religious extremists, not anyone except fucking Ryan Bach, teenage commie twerp. you murdered about 72,000 Iraqis over the last 4 1/2 years, asshole. since you don't care who is blamed... oh and have i mentioned that you are a crappy judge? RB: "To give further benefit of the doubt to MK, let's assume that child mortality and life expectancy stats outweigh terrorist violence daily throughout the country."MK: wow, the benefit of the doubt is rolling in now!!! don't need it, though... the child mortality, life expectancy, and death rates DO outweigh the terrorist violence. we know that because the death rate has been dropping since 2002... that means fewer people have been dying in Iraq from ALL causes taken together... that is what a "death rate" for a country is... why is this so hard for both you and Lewis to comprehend? there are 100s of different causes of death in Iraq: heart attacks, car accidents, lung cancer, terrorist car bombings, etc. taken together, all those causes of death yield a DEATH RATE per 1,000 population for a given year. it is much lower for 2007 than it was 2002. that means that even though there may be a lot more car bombings now, that is offset by a lot fewer extermination of Kurdish villages by nerve gas... and we know that because the overall death rate has been dropping... RB: "I find that hard to stomach, personally; why should we look at mortality rates for one age group only, and why does the number doctors tell people they will live to outweigh actual human deaths?"MK: unh... JUDGE? you have forgotten that there DEATH RATE statistic... that is for all age groups... that doesn't depend on medical estimates of lifespan... that just counts the dead bodies... and there are a lot less dead bodies in 2006 and 2007 than there were in 2000, 2001, 2002... i cite child mortality because many groups consider that a good marker for the overall functioning of a society... RB: "It still doesn't matter to the debate, though, because: JL has MORE offence that MK is flat out conceding. I refer, of course, to the argument about water, electricity, etc. A third of the country is homeless and foodless, and the vast majority of the population lacks consistent access to food, water and electricity. I can't recall whether MK's response was that he was uninterested or that JL is an idiot, but unless I missed an entire post there was no on point rebuttal to this evidenced claim. This is what we call an easy way out, folks. I "pull the trigger" on the lack of infrastructure throughout pretty much the entire country. This is a situation that is clearly much worse, and outweighs child mortality and life expectancy stats pretty handily (I'm pretty sure the THIRD OF THE POPULATION living in homeless destitution will have health problems that, on average, outweigh a 1.9 year life expectancy increase)." MK: wow, have i mentioned that you are a shitty judge? take all those problems together, add up all their effects, and let's weigh how bad that is. neither of us has a calculus that we will agree to: you will magnify the horrors for ideological reasons, turning zits into catastrophic tragedies and i will point out that you are a teenage drama queen. i know one way to weigh those things: if they kill people that's bad, much worse than causing inconvenience or hardship or angst, a dead friend or mother does not compare with a street with trash on it. if those things kill children that's even worse, because losing a child devastates a life much more thoroughly than losing a parent, even. And lifespan is a measure of all of it, including prevalence of disease, violence, health care, happiness, and all of what goes into life. take all those things i don't care about together, and look at what effect they have on the number of deaths of adults and children and how many years of life people might lose. I do that and you know what? yeah, 36,000 living children, 80,000 living adults, 2 more years of life. but that you vote on an amalgam of random, unimpacted junk is just bullshit. finally... RB: "Now, to stop giving MK all this benefit of the doubt and throw in my own responses:" MK: those are stupid. shouldn't you be researching for the new topic or playing with your GI Joes or something?oh and have i mentioned that you are a crappy judge? Michael Korcok
New home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here.
Learn. Laugh. Share. Reallivemoms is right place!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman