retcopper wrote on Aug 9
th, 2006 at 3:11pm:
Eos:
I think I posted before that I enjoy the philosophical discussions about polygraphy more than the "nuts and bolts" part of polygrapghy that most people here are interested in.
Well, fine. Debate consists of four levels of argument: propositions of definition (most basic), of fact, of values (your preferred mode of discussion), and policy (overarching them all).- source: I debated in high school. Loved it. The regular posters here do not shy from a debate, and some of us will even use rather blunt language and situational similes to make our points. I know I will.
Quote:That is why I do not post evidence or studies to refute a lot of what is posted here.
I find that very interesting for someone who is so involved with the topic. I personally love arguments in the pure style of Aristotle, but give me sound evidence any day of the week to back my assertions up. I love quoting facts. This also, with the utmost respect, seems to be a recurring way for the pro-poly side to beg off a true, intellectual debate. If you have the facts to support your argument (for a proposition of fact argument), lay them out, I urge you! Who knows what you, we together, might uncover? If you have it, by golly, flaunt it! Values only go so far in influencing a discussion on policy, as it's very hard to debate a nebulous concept like a "value".
Quote:On this particular point I have the information regarding studies about increasing usage but do not want to take the time to look for it and post it.
Why not? You took the time to come here and make a case. Do you not believe in it enough, or care about it enough, to see it through? Man, I sure would want to. I love winning. Do you have a URL for it? If it's in your possession, it's a few clicks of the keyboard to post it. C'mon, big guy, humour us
![Smiley Smiley](https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/smiley.gif)
I swear I will read every word of what you post (I already do).
Quote:It's funny how people here complain about the abuse of polygraph and how evil we are but when certain individuals here "mock" handicapped people not one word of disgust is rasied. Kind of hypocritical. Don't you think?
Objection, irrelevant. I don't think that polymen are evil per se, and certainly not all of them. I think a certain number of you truly believe that you're doing a service to the country and that your results are reliable. We here dispute that, but constructively.
The ones I have problems with are the ones who continue to promote the box to be what it is not, and egregiously: able to tell lie from truth. Accurate 90-98% of the time. Objective rather than subjective. Usable by itself, without having to rely on the polyman to divine the results. Omitting that the main purpose of the poly is the facilitation of interrogation. Also, those in the poly community who spread (and intentionally) disinformation about what the human body does in response to being polyed, in response to lying or truth, and about what they expect from an examination (what CQ's and IQ's do, e.g.) I find to be rather distasteful.
The remark about handicapped people is directed at me. I stand by my remarks. I have the utmost sympathy for both disabled people and their families, and it grieves me to my core when I see a person, esp a child, who is handicapped (like those twins in Utah). However, the farce of FC has parallels to polygraphy that cannot be ignored, and I stated my case thereon using mental imagery and descriptiveness that some might balk at. Well, I call 'em as I see 'em, and part of making a case is using every tool at your disposal. I don't hold back, and am proud to say so.
I continue to debate the anti side. Without regret...