• 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.

Bill O'Reilly

Lurker said:
Even if they were exaggerating, how does that make Edwards wrong? He is using a govt source for his numbers and there is no evidence that it is wrong other than your sneaking suspicion. Edwards clearly is doing nothing wrong by quoting govt figures.
Click to expand...

This was sort of the point hinted by my post above. It is especially hypocritical for someone like OReilly to criticize Edwards for using government figures given how readily he accepted the government claims of WMD. Shoot, at least with WMD there were folks in the intelligence community who contradicted the official line, but where are those who have disputed the DVA's estimates?

Bill OReilly may be right. There may not be 200K homeless vets. BUT 1) there is nothing right now that suggests there aren't that many, and 2) even if there were, it is apparently so well hidden that you can't blame Edwards for not knowing about it.

Short answer: Bill OReilly's criticism of Edwards is completely wrong. Even if BOR's gut feeling is right and there aren't that many homeless vets, that is still not grounds for criticising Edwards.
 
Bill OReilly may be right. There may not be 200K homeless vets. BUT 1) there is nothing right now that suggests there aren't that many, and 2) even if there were, it is apparently so well hidden that you can't blame Edwards for not knowing about it.
Click to expand...

3) It's not Edwards' fault that the DVA's estimates are wrong (IF they are indeed wrong)--the DVA seems like the fairest source.
 
jimtron said:
the DVA seems like the fairest source.
Click to expand...
Well, the DVA is an appeal to authority, but I wouldn't consider it an unreasonable one. Given that there are no evidence contradicting the DVA's numbers (other than O'Reilly and pomeroo's evidenceless complaint*), there is no reason to think they might be wrong.



* fantastic phrase, Lurker!
 
pgwenthold said:
Quick question: how many of those who are skeptical of the DVA's homeless claims ate up the whole "Iraq has stockpiles of WMD" nonsense? Count Bill OReilly as one.
Click to expand...


The WMD claims were supported by the conclusions of the intelligence services of all the nations that were monitoring Iraq.
The problem with the DVA estimate is that it presupposes a vastly larger homeless population than anybody imagines.
 
Last edited:
m_huber said:
While the definition of homelessness could be changed to include up to 3.8 million individuals, it currently stands at an estimated 744,313 on any given night (Source). If you take the numbers from that article, 195,827 veterans on any given night, divided by .26 to estimate the number of homeless people the figure is based on, you arrive at the figure 753,180. That is a difference of 8867, which is 1.2% of the actual figure. However, 1,000,000 minus 744,313 results in a difference of 255,687, which is 34% of the actual figure. I don't understand your problem. Perhaps your calculator needs new batteries?
Click to expand...


You are acting as though this particular advocacy group has produced the definitive number when, in fact, the estimate of 744,313 is much larger than the estimates produced by several independent researchers.
 
Upchurch said:
Well, the DVA is an appeal to authority, but I wouldn't consider it an unreasonable one. Given that there are no evidence contradicting the DVA's numbers (other than O'Reilly and pomeroo's evidenceless complaint*), there is no reason to think they might be wrong.
Click to expand...

And citing an authority is NOT automatically a logical fallacy. The fallacy comes if you claim that an authority is infallible, or that the claim is correct solely because of the source.

It is safe to say that the DVA numbers are correct, unless there is compelling evidence to reject their findings. Claiming that they are inherently dishonest IS a logical fallacy. Claiming that your gut tells you that their numbers are wrong IS a logical fallacy. We can accept that the numbers produced by a non-political group on a subject within their authority are correct, and from a practical standpoint the burden of proof falls on others to contradict the numbers from the best source available.
 
JoeEllison said:
And citing an authority is NOT automatically a logical fallacy. The fallacy comes if you claim that an authority is infallible, or that the claim is correct solely because of the source.

It is safe to say that the DVA numbers are correct, unless there is compelling evidence to reject their findings. Claiming that they are inherently dishonest IS a logical fallacy. Claiming that your gut tells you that their numbers are wrong IS a logical fallacy. We can accept that the numbers produced by a non-political group on a subject within their authority are correct, and from a practical standpoint the burden of proof falls on others to contradict the numbers from the best source available.
Click to expand...


It is comical when people who exhibit contempt for critical thinking prattle about "logical fallacies." Claiming that advocacy groups tend to exaggerate problems that fall under their purviews is, of course, no sort of logical fallacy. It is simply an observation that, experience teaches us, is probably correct. Similarly, there is no "logical fallacy" inherent in claiming that a number doesn't "smell" right. When feminist groups claimed that 150,000 American women die each year of anorexia, it wasn't necessary to know that the real number ranges between 80 and 100. It was sufficient to understand why the claimed number was preposterous.
Please--if you want to talk about logical fallacies, learn what the real ones are.
 
pomeroo said:
You are acting as though this particular advocacy group has produced the definitive number when, in fact, the estimate of 744,313 is much larger than the estimates produced by several independent researchers.
Click to expand...
Who are these independent researches and what definition of homeless are they using?

Wikipedia
United States: Chronically homeless people (those with repeated episodes or who have been homeless for long periods) 150,000-200,000 (some sources say 847,000-3,470,000)[46] though a report in January 2006 said 744,000.[47]
Click to expand...

National Alliance to End Homlessness
The data snapshot shows that expanding the definition would increase the current homeless population (744,313 on any given night) by 3.8 million.
Click to expand...

City Mayors Society
Over the course of the year, 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness.
Click to expand...
 
pomeroo said:
The problem with the DVA estimate is that it presupposes a vastly larger homeless population than anybody imagines.
Click to expand...

Wow, "argument by blatent assertion."

Clever.

Dude, the more you talk, the more I think the troothers sound reasonable.
 
Upchurch said:
Can you back that claim? So far, it only appears to be vastly larger than you or O'Reilly can imagine.
Click to expand...


Where are you going with this? O'Reilly is too harsh on John Edwards. Edwards, however, is a sleazy shyster whose class-warfare crap is contemptible rubbish. There aren't droves of homeless vets sleeping under bridges and Edwards is well aware of that fact.
 
pgwenthold said:
Wow, "argument by blatent assertion."

Clever.

Dude, the more you talk, the more I think the troothers sound reasonable.
Click to expand...


I can't comprehend your brilliant rejoinder. To repeat, the problem with the DVA estimate is that it presupposes a much larger homeless population than anybody imagines.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Where are you going with this? O'Reilly is too harsh on John Edwards. Edwards, however, is a sleazy shyster whose class-warfare crap is contemptible rubbish. There aren't droves of homeless vets sleeping under bridges and Edwards is well aware of that fact.
Click to expand...
You've been shown that there are approximately 195,000 homeless vets sleeping in the street. You can either accept this or point to reliable evidence that contradicts the evidence you've been shown.

So far, you've only stuck your fingers in your ears and sang, "La La La I can't hear you!"
 
Upchurch said:
It is, however, a logical fallacy to disregard numerous points of evidence because you don't like what they say.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Edwards tossed around an empty number, one that you will accept because he is running well to the left of the field this time. You were comfortable with the networks running stories on the homeless every night until Bill Clinton got elected. Then the stories stopped, abruptly and completely--only to resume the instant Bush entered the White House, and that doesn't trouble you, which tells me all I need to know.
 
Upchurch said:
You've been shown that there are approximately 195,000 homeless vets sleeping in the street. You can either accept this or point to reliable evidence that contradicts the evidence you've been shown.

So far, you've only stuck your fingers in your ears and sang, "La La La I can't hear you!"
Click to expand...


Sorry, the tendentious estimate you've "shown" me doesn't cut it. The number is obviously too high. Eventually, someone will produce a serious study.
 
LukeB said:
And by serious study you mean a study that backs you up?
Click to expand...


No, I am not a leftist. A serious study is one that doesn't assume its conclusion. I realize that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
 
pomeroo said:
Edwards tossed around an empty number, one that you will accept because he is running well to the left of the field this time.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to accept it because it is in rough agreement with other sources and is contradicted by none.


pomeroo said:
You were comfortable with the networks running stories on the homeless every night until Bill Clinton got elected. Then the stories stopped, abruptly and completely--only to resume the instant Bush entered the White House, and that doesn't trouble you, which tells me all I need to know.
Click to expand...
You're judging me by your predictions of events that have not happened and what you imagine my reactions will be? Do you base anything on anything that is real?


pomeroo said:
Sorry, the tendentious estimate you've "shown" me doesn't cut it. The number is obviously too high. Eventually, someone will produce a serious study.
Click to expand...
Why is it obviously too high?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom