• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Let's make America smart again

caveman1917 said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is also not an argument.

http://time.com/4474619/read-hillary-clinton-american-legion-speech/
Click to expand...

Are you contending that her talking about American exceptionalism, regardless of whether it's a real thing, proves your claim?

Counting the number of people that are considered inferior by each candidate is hardly arbitrary.
Click to expand...

I suggest you look up the definition of that word, then.

Now that is a stupid metric.
Click to expand...

Checking the proportion of someone's claims that are lies is stupid?

Quote what? Her support for sending Americans to go kill people in Iraq? Her support for local militias to kill people in Haiti and Libya?
Click to expand...

Don't alter your own wording. I want you to support the claims that you made.

Are you naive or something?
Click to expand...

Outcome doesn't imply intent. You'll have to do much better than that.
 
Argumemnon said:
Do you think that asking stupid questions like this somehow make for a good substitute for a rebuttal? At least Caveman offered a counter-argument.
Click to expand...

It's a complete rebuttal, if you understand sampling. Politifact's sampling is completely uncontrolled. It's subject to bias, and thus completely unreliable. Inferring statistical meaning from the sample is invalid, and Politifact themselves never actually do so.
 
Ziggurat said:
Note that Snopes never points out that the term "deport" isn't even a legal description. Why is this important? Because aside from being true, its ommission indicates that Snopes doesn't really understand the issue. Here's a more informative look:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...amned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

"One problem is the continued use of “deportation” in virtually all media reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996."
Click to expand...

Who cares what the legal definition of the term "deport" is? Everybody understands this implicitly as "removal from the country by immigration authorities" and that is what's being counted in the claim that Obama has done this to more people than any other president in history.
 
Ziggurat said:
Do you even understand what sampling means in statistics?
Click to expand...

I know that in this case, it means that conservatives have an excuse to ignore the fact that Trump lies more.

I previously suggested that those who claim Clinton lied as much or more than Trump take a recent week or month of her public statements, and list every lie she told. We could then list how many lies Trump told in the same period. Oddly enough, those making such a silly claim never followed through with any support for their claim.
 
wareyin said:
I know that in this case, it means that conservatives have an excuse to ignore the fact that Trump lies more.

I previously suggested that those who claim Clinton lied as much or more than Trump take a recent week or month of her public statements, and list every lie she told. We could then list how many lies Trump told in the same period. Oddly enough, those making such a silly claim never followed through with any support for their claim.
Click to expand...

You have the burden of proof backwards. Responsibility for supporting the claim falls on those making the claim. I haven't made a claim regarding who lies more, I've simply pointed out that the "evidence" used so far doesn't demonstrate what its advocates claim it does.
 
Ziggurat said:
Proof.

They hand-pick claims to check using subjective standards. Do you seriously not understand how this might lead to sampling bias?
Click to expand...

I can. I was asking you to demonstrate your claim. Thank you for at least making an effort, though it's a bit underwhelming.

How would you want them to proceed, exactly? How do you pick statements at random?
 
Ziggurat said:
You have the burden of proof backwards. Responsibility for supporting the claim falls on those making the claim. I haven't made a claim regarding who lies more, I've simply pointed out that the "evidence" used so far doesn't demonstrate what its advocates claim it does.
Click to expand...

You hand-pick claims to dismiss using subjective standards. Do you seriously not understand how this might lead to sampling bias?
 
caveman1917 said:
Everybody understands this implicitly as "removal from the country by immigration authorities"
Click to expand...

If you're turned away at or near the border, should that count as a deportation? Not everybody is going to agree, but even more importantly, the statistics being cited don't even use a common definition about that. The counting methods changed. Which skews the statistics being cited, making many comparisons meaningless. Different numbers are being presented as if they're measuring the same thing, but they aren't.

Which you'd know if you read the link, but either you didn't (lazy) or you did and chose to obfuscate that reality (dishonest).
 
wareyin said:
You hand-pick claims to dismiss using subjective standards. Do you seriously not understand how this might lead to sampling bias?
Click to expand...

I never claimed any statistical significance, so sampling bias isn't relevant.

You really aren't equipped to debate this with me.
 
Argumemnon said:
I can. I was asking you to demonstrate your claim. Thank you for at least making an effort, though it's a bit underwhelming.

How would you want them to proceed, exactly? How do you pick statements at random?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with their basic methods. It's a useful resource if you want to find out about specific claims. All I object to is attempts to assign it significance that it does not have, significance which I will note again that they do not claim it has either.
 
Ziggurat said:
I have no problem with their basic methods. It's a useful resource if you want to find out about specific claims. All I object to is attempts to assign it significance that it does not have, significance which I will note again that they do not claim it has either.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I wanted to know how you'd go around to showing which candidate lied more, if you had to do that. Any ideas? (honest question; not a trap or anything)
 
Ziggurat said:
I never claimed any statistical significance, so sampling bias isn't relevant.

You really aren't equipped to debate this with me.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that when I throw your own argument back at you, you seem unable to recognize it, and insult me for how bad your own argument is. I may not be equipped to debate you because of that, but I do get a lot of amusement out of it nonetheless.

You are still dismissing politifacts numbers because you don't like them. If you have a better source of numbers, please share.
 
Lies in the Guise of News in the Trump Era

Nicholas Kristoff

NOV. 12, 2016

IF you get your news from this newspaper or our rival mainstream news sources, there’s probably a lot you don’t know.

You may not realize that our Kenyan-born Muslim president was plotting to serve a third term as our illegitimate president, by allowing Hillary Clinton to win and then indicting her; Pope Francis’ endorsement of Donald Trump helped avert the election-rigging.

You perhaps didn’t know that Clinton is a Satan worshiper at the center of “an international child enslavement and sex ring.” Or that Chelsea Clinton isn’t Bill Clinton’s daughter, but a love child of Hillary’s by another man — or that Bill has his own love child with a black prostitute.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/o...rginalia&src=me&version=column&pgtype=article

Well worth a read.
 
Argumemnon said:
Fair enough. I wanted to know how you'd go around to showing which candidate lied more, if you had to do that. Any ideas? (honest question; not a trap or anything)
Click to expand...

There's no good way to do that. You could confine it to something more limited, like debate statements or press conferences, and then try examining everything within that smaller set. But there would still challenges in counting what are separate statements or misstatements. And there's really no good way to weight statements for significance. Not all lies are equivalent. "I didn't fart, the dog did" isn't as important as "I didn't kill her, he did". That's ultimately subjective, but it matters to people, and for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom