Let's make America smart again

[The Big Dog]

My favorite part? The title of the thread.

Love it!

 

[Roboramma]

Do you think that the actual, non-hypothetical, methodology was valid? Do you think their results are meaningful? Do you think the argument that Ziggurat actually made is valid? If not, in what way?

 

[psionl0]

Depends on what you mean by 'the' votes. If you include all the votes that could have been cast but weren't, nobody got anywhere near half.

I might not know what the meaning of "is" is but I know that "the votes" refers to votes cast.

The truth is, more people didn't vote for either candidate than did, by a wide margin. Therefore according to democratic principles neither Trump nor Hillary deserve to be president.

So what are you recommending? Compulsory voting or taking elections out of the hands of the voters entirely?

(Note that not voting for a candidate is not the same as voting against the candidate. A vote for a third party candidate is not an informal vote).

 

[Ziggurat]

Rubbish, if they had come to the conclusion that Hillary lied more you'd be linking to it with gay abandon and would castigate anyone who dared to criticise their methodology.

Suppose for the sake of argument you're correct. What does this say about the validity of my argument in this case? Nothing. Even if I would abandon this argument if the situation were reversed, that doesn't mean that this argument is wrong. If you want to prove that I'm wrong in this case, then you have to argue the merits of my position, not speculate on how I might change my position if things were different. That's basic logic.

And that's all part of why ad hominems are a fallacy, and why rule 12 exists. Even terrible people can make correct arguments from time to time. Of course, you get to break rule 12 whenever you want to, but ad hominems will remain a fallacy even for you.

 

[Belz...]

Even terrible people can make correct arguments from time to time.

Now, now. There's no need for self-loathing here.

 

[wareyin]

And what does Ziggurat's hypothetical response to a hypothetical situation have to do with the validity of his actual response to the claims made?

The actual response has been to dismiss anything less than perfectly and fully free of the possibility of bias from one side, while promoting and accepting biased and completely unsupported claims from the other side. How shall we address this without pointing out the double standard?

 

[The Big Dog]

The actual response has been to dismiss anything less than perfectly and fully free of the possibility of bias from one side, while promoting and accepting biased and completely unsupported claims from the other side. How shall we address this without pointing out the double standard?

another ad hominem, this one of the tu quoque variety

 

[wareyin]

another ad hominem, this one of the tu quoque variety

Do you never tire of simply rattling of fallacies that have nothing to do with the post you quoted?

 

[Ziggurat]

The "truth" of your argument has been a refusal to accept evidence which challenges your bias.

I gave an argument for why I didn't accept that evidence. You consistently refuse to provide any counter-argument. You have none. That's the truth without scare quotes: you want evidence to be accepted despite having no reason for why it should be.

 

[wareyin]

I gave an argument for why I didn't accept that evidence. You consistently refuse to provide any counter-argument. You have none. That's the truth without scare quotes: you want evidence to be accepted despite having no reason for why it should be.

On the contrary, you wish to dismiss evidence completely despite having no reason to completely dismiss it. Politifact's list is not strong evidence, nor perfect evidence, but weak as it may be, it is still evidence. Evidence which goes against your bias, and so evidence you completely dismiss.

 

[The Big Dog]

On the contrary, you wish to dismiss evidence completely despite having no reason to completely dismiss it. Politifact's list is not strong evidence, nor perfect evidence, but weak as it may be, it is still evidence. Evidence which goes against your bias, and so evidence you completely dismiss.

lol

totally false

Zig gave a specific statistic based reason for his position, only to be met with repeated and baseless and irrelevant personal attacks.

And now we are at the time of the thread where you rail at him for not accepting "weak evidence."

Let's make America smart again? Stop posting. Just a suggestion.

 

[Ziggurat]

<snip>

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content and response to same redacted.

 

[wareyin]

lol

totally false

Zig gave a specific statistic based reason for his position, only to be met with repeated and baseless and irrelevant personal attacks.

And now we are at the time of the thread where you rail at him for not accepting "weak evidence."

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content redacted.

Let's see if I can suss out where you misunderstand this simple concept:

Is "weak evidence" evidence? Yes or no, please.

Did Ziggurat claim that the "weak evidence" was not evidence at all? Yes or no, please.

 

[The Big Dog]

Let's see if I can suss out where you misunderstand this simple concept:

Is "weak evidence" evidence? Yes or no, please.

Did Ziggurat claim that the "weak evidence" was not evidence at all? Yes or no, please.

Let's see if I can suss out where you misunderstand this simple concept:

For the reasons explained at lenghth, what you concede is weak evidence is
not legitimate evidence at all.

Rather than address that fact, you are now reduced to arguing that a poster will not accept you "weak evidence."

Which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's see if I can suss out where you misunderstand this simple concept:

Is "weak evidence" evidence? Yes or no, please.

Did Ziggurat claim that the "weak evidence" was not evidence at all? Yes or no, please.

You still haven't provided an argument for why it's even weak evidence.

 

[wareyin]

Let's see if I can suss out where you misunderstand this simple concept:

For the reasons explained at lenghth, what you concede is weak evidence is
not legitimate evidence at all.

Rather than address that fact, you are now reduced to arguing that a poster will not accept you "weak evidence."

Which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.

Unable to answer simple yes or no questions while calling another poster pathetic. What was that about ad homs?

 

[wareyin]

You still haven't provided an argument for why it's even weak evidence.

Nor have you provided anything but a partisan denial for why it is not evidence.

Eta: nor have you ever specified what you would accept as evidence, except a colossal effort that would be practically impossible.

 

[The Big Dog]

Let's see if I can suss out where you misunderstand this simple concept:

For the reasons explained at lenghth, what you concede is weak evidence is not legitimate evidence at all. Rather than address that fact, you are now reduced to arguing that a poster will not accept you "weak evidence."

Which is equal parts hilarious and pathetic.

Unable to answer simple yes or no questions while calling another poster pathetic. What was that about ad homs?

Looks at thread title, chuckles.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nor have you provided anything but a partisan denial for why it is not evidence.

Sure I have. In addition, my argument was completely non-partisan.

Eta: nor have you ever specified what you would accept as evidence, except a colossal effort that would be practically impossible.

Some things are hard to measure. That doesn't mean you get to make claims about them without doing the measurement right, just because it's hard. The truth doesn't work that way.

 

[wareyin]

Sure I have. In addition, my argument was completely non-partisan.



Some things are hard to measure. That doesn't mean you get to make claims about them without doing the measurement right, just because it's hard. The truth doesn't work that way.

Some things may be hard to measure, but that doesn't mean you get to completely ignore any measurement at all because it's not quite as precise as you claim you require. While accepting far less rigorous measurements for claims which agree with your partisan bias. But, gosh, demanding a higher standard of evidence for a statement you disagree with than you demand of evidence you agree with is not partisan at all, is it?