Let's make America smart again

[Ziggurat]

I've noticed that when I throw your own argument back at you, you seem unable to recognize it

I can recognize it, but unlike you, I also know that it doesn't apply. The claims that were made are not symmetric, and so that reversal simply doesn't work. The fact that you think it should demonstrates (again) that you simply don't understand statistics.

You are still dismissing politifacts numbers because you don't like them.

My motives are irrelevant. My argument is still correct, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.

If you have a better source of numbers, please share.

I never claimed to have better numbers. But then, I never claimed one candidate lied more than another, so I never needed numbers to back up my position.

 

[wareyin]

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.

That sounds an awful lot like my suggestion, but what do I know? I bow down to your superior ability.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Well worth a read.

Amen, this article should be the poster child for not getting the point:

then there was not enough investigation of his business dealings, racism and history of sexual assaults, and too much false equivalency that equated the two candidates as equally flawed.

What a ridiculous loaded sentence and ultimately wrong sentence. The press wasn't shell shocked by Trump's upset because there was too much analysis that Clinton was flawed, but rather because there was too little of her patently obvious flaws, both in her character and her arrogant and ultimately failed campaign strategy.

Ridiculous

 

[Belz...]

What a ridiculous loaded sentence and ultimately wrong sentence. The press wasn't shell shocked by Trump's upset because there was too much analysis that Clinton was flawed, but rather because there was too little of her patently obvious flaws, both in her character and her arrogant and ultimately failed campaign strategy.

Thanks for reminding us that, this election, partisan ideologies won over reality and facts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is this thread still on point?...

No, it's been hijacked.

 

[Ziggurat]

That sounds an awful lot like my suggestion, but what do I know? I bow down to your superior ability.

What do you know? Obviously not where burden of proof properly lies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you are really interested in improving education in the USA, and not Trump bashing, why did you latch on to a political jab from celebrity talking heads?

I tried to address the false information that was a staple of the Trump campaign, but apparently one cannot address fake news and other forms of false information in this forum if one dares to suggest it played a role in the election of a mentally disturbed narcissist.

 

[wareyin]

Thanks for reminding us that, this election, partisan ideologies won over reality and facts.

Indeed. It appears that Clinton's biggest flaw was that rightwing partisans would lie about her, and uninformed people would believe them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Lol, people complaining about fake news who unironically cite unabashed propaganda outlets like media matters.

Chuckles.

 

[Belz...]

You need to refine your character, Dog. At least make him make specific claims and back them up with something that ressembles facts. That way it'll be more entertaining and fresh.

 

[wareyin]

What do you know? Obviously not where burden of proof properly lies.

I know that sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" won't make Trump have lied less. I know that people emotionally invested in the falsehood that Clinton lies more than Trump will refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, or provide their own evidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know that sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" won't make Trump have lied less. I know that people emotionally invested in the falsehood that Clinton lies more than Trump will refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, or provide their own evidence.

Funny thing: I didn't claim Clinton lies more. But you seem emotionally invested in pretending I did.

 

[wareyin]

Funny thing: I didn't claim Clinton lies more. But you seem emotionally invested in pretending I did.

Cute. I didn't claim that you did. I merely pointed out that you refuse to accept any evidence that she didn't. Of course, your reasons for doing so are irrelevant, yet obvious.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Obama has deported more people than any other president in US history. But liberals don't care about that, do they?
..................

Which means what, exactly?

It's kind of like praising a government for actually carrying out the sentences of convicted criminals..

 

[Ziggurat]

Cute. I didn't claim that you did. I merely pointed out that you refuse to accept any evidence that she didn't.

I'd accept evidence if it was in fact real evidence. But what's been presented so far isn't real evidence, for reasons I've already given which you can't dispute. You simply want me to accept it because it reaches the conclusion you want it to, but you can't argue for it on its actual merits.

 

[sunmaster14]

Amen, this article should be the poster child for not getting the point:



What a ridiculous loaded sentence and ultimately wrong sentence. The press wasn't shell shocked by Trump's upset because there was too much analysis that Clinton was flawed, but rather because there was too little of her patently obvious flaws, both in her character and her arrogant and ultimately failed campaign strategy.

Ridiculous

What's really pathetic is that Kristof complains about fake news, but then he propagates his own obvious falsehoods. For example, he writes this:

Even now, only 44 percent of Republicans accept the reality that Obama was born in the U.S.

Even putting aside that the Morning Consult poll he references is likely a pile of crap (as are most such polls which ask silly questions), and also putting aside the fact that polls like this can't ever be tested, and that even polls which can be tested have been shown to have systematic bias (cf the glorious election results and the pre-election polls), he adds the 21% of Republicans who said they didn't know if Obama was born in the US to those who don't accept the "reality" that he was. Virtually nothing is a 100% certainty in this world, so those who say "don't know" may be using a higher threshold of confidence than what Kristof believes is merited. Or perhaps they just don't care. I fall in the latter group, although if I had to estimate the probability that Obama was born in the US, I would put it at about 90%, which is the same probability I assigned to Clinton winning the election. Go figure.

 

[sunmaster14]

No, it's been hijacked.

By Trump supporters of superior intelligence. How embarrassing that must be.

 

[wareyin]

I'd accept evidence if it was in fact real evidence. But what's been presented so far isn't real evidence, for reasons I've already given which you can't dispute. You simply want me to accept it because it reaches the conclusion you want it to, but you can't argue for it on its actual merits.

Yes, I know you refuse to accept any evidence that Trump is a bigger liar than, well, anyone. Of course I can't dispute your reasons for that refusal, as they are your personal dislike of Trump's opponent, combined with a bit of "nuh-uh." How does one dispute that, other than with an equally poor argument of "yuh-huh"?

I don't "want" you to accept the evidence, I'm merely pointing out your refusal to do so. As I did not present this evidence, I need not defend it nor argue for it on its merits.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I know you refuse to accept any evidence that Trump is a bigger liar than, well, anyone.

Only one example of "evidence" that Trump lies more than Hillary has been presented. That "evidence" is fatally flawed, you can't actually contest those flaws, and in fact aren't even trying to.

Yet from this sample of one, you can somehow tell how I would respond to any and all other evidence that might ever be presented. That's some powerful delusional thinking you've got going on.

Of course I can't dispute your reasons for that refusal, as they are your personal dislike of Trump's opponent, combined with a bit of "nuh-uh." How does one dispute that, other than with an equally poor argument of "yuh-huh"?

My personal feelings about Hillary have nothing to do with Politifact's sampling methods, and my explanation of those flaws cannot be accurately categorized as "nuh-uh". But you can't understand sampling, so it shouldn't surprise me that you can't recognize an explanation of sampling problems either.

Like I said, you aren't equipped to engage in this debate. You don't need to keep providing more proof.

 

[wareyin]

Only one example of "evidence" that Trump lies more than Hillary has been presented. That "evidence" is fatally flawed, you can't actually contest those flaws, and in fact aren't even trying to.

Yet from this sample of one, you can somehow tell how I would respond to any and all other evidence that might ever be presented. That's some powerful delusional thinking you've got going on.

Sample of one? Are you attempting to say that this is the first or only thread you have participated in, here? I know (well, with 99% certainty) how you will respond based on years of both interacting with you as well as reading your posts. The strength of the evidence doesn't matter if one refuses to hear or accept it.

My personal feelings about Hillary have nothing to do with Politifact's sampling methods, and my explanation of those flaws cannot be accurately categorized as "nuh-uh". But you can't understand sampling, so it shouldn't surprise me that you can't recognize an explanation of sampling problems either.

Like I said, you aren't equipped to engage in this debate. You don't need to keep providing more proof.

Your personal feelings have everything to do with why you refuse to accept this evidence, even on a conditional basis until better evidence is provided. One can't help but notice that, even after I told you how to get better evidence (which you then presented as your own idea), you remain entirely unwilling to look for evidence which supports your bias, or contradicts it. It's almost like you know what you would find. But, given how neither of us has put forth a positive claim, your claim that you are debating is unfounded, and your claim that I am not equipped to debate any claim that you refuse to make is unsupportable.