Jubbergun wrote:
I think it's funny that for all the grousing about the military and war for oil,' Aestu's basis for believing this is fracking-related is the same as the Bush Administration's was for believing there were WMDs in Iraq: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Everyone (including me) thought there was WMDs in Iraq, and the reason that everyone thought that was that
Bush Senior gave them to Saddam to spray at Persian women and children during the Iran-Iraq War (and for that he should burn in hell).
It was only after the invasion was done and Saddam's advisors were interviewed that it turned out that the only reason there weren't WMD in Iraq was he was so scared shitless after the Gulf War that he got rid of them all. The argument against the war wasn't that there wasn't WMD, it was that it didn't matter, because the situation was stable.
In any event, you are once more behaving in a way that betrays that you are uneducated. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies exclusively towards negative contentions, not positive ones. Your contention is negative; mine (and Bush) are positive. You're quoting what you think is educated-type language but applying it in a way completely opposite what it literally means.
Usdk wrote:
I think he just likes to shit on everyone here who has a job.
This is provably untrue (everyone?) and nothing I said was job-related. Fanta got my angle 100%.