Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Occam's Razor..... [View all]Denzil_DC
(9,090 posts)15. Invoking Occam's Razor to present a false dichotomy is manipulative and an insult to Occam.
And razors.
There are far more than two options, including the possibility that very little deep thought or judgment was involved among the Democratic Caucus, rather than kneejerk blind panic and me-tooism (in the old business manual sense, not the current one), as borne out in this OP from Jakes Progress:
I thought Rachel might help.
She had Senator Hirono on to say why she and the gang of vigilantes came to the decision to demand Franken's resignation.
I mean. Okay. Maybe they had some really damning evidence, some first had knowledge of some behavior, something other than republican and anonymous accusations.
But no. Hirono said she just sort of decided it was time, that one more unsubstantiated claim was, you know, just too much.
So. Rachel didn't get it from anyone. Hirono said that Gellibrand put out her statement, so she rushed hers out there too. We seem to be able to find out testimony from inside grand jury deliberations, the contents of CIA wiretaps, the lunch menu for Air Force One. But no one can say why these senators turned on one of their own.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029939174
She had Senator Hirono on to say why she and the gang of vigilantes came to the decision to demand Franken's resignation.
I mean. Okay. Maybe they had some really damning evidence, some first had knowledge of some behavior, something other than republican and anonymous accusations.
But no. Hirono said she just sort of decided it was time, that one more unsubstantiated claim was, you know, just too much.
So. Rachel didn't get it from anyone. Hirono said that Gellibrand put out her statement, so she rushed hers out there too. We seem to be able to find out testimony from inside grand jury deliberations, the contents of CIA wiretaps, the lunch menu for Air Force One. But no one can say why these senators turned on one of their own.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029939174
Since you've persistently told DUers that DU is irrelevant to "the real world" and politics, one wonders why you bother continuing to peddle these straw men to a bunch of people you consider unimportant.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
59 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Invoking Occam's Razor to present a false dichotomy is manipulative and an insult to Occam.
Denzil_DC
Dec 2017
#15
While, yeah, Franken did do some inappropriate things, Occam requires including all evidence
Bucky
Dec 2017
#18
Man, Occam must have been shaving constantly because he had a lot of Razors...
califootman
Dec 2017
#21
Then the correct answer would have been I never touched them inappropriately
brooklynite
Dec 2017
#34
Except that, at that point, Franken's initial response was baked in to the analysis.
brooklynite
Dec 2017
#37