This is in reference to something that keeps coming up in what I'll loosely call "discussions". It has to do with supporting one's claims and the sources one uses to do so.
As far as supporting one's claims, it's far more likely that a right-leaning person will provide than will a left-leaning person. This seems to be the standard. Now, that's not to say that it's common for a claim to be made by either side and support is provided at the same time. To the extent that it does at all, though, it's more likely the person doing it leans right. It's just that we have such better understanding of reality that it's not likely we're going to make a claim that can't be supported. Indeed, our claims are based on supporting evidence to which we've already been exposed. The left is too moved by appeals to emotion for them to think in terms of whether or not something they claim is true. So to have the supporting evidence as a source for their claims is not likely since it doesn't exist. Only the emotional appeal does.
Now all of that is a particularly general analysis of the reality in "discussions" between left and right. Where the rubber really meets the road is in how each side responds to the source cited for the presentation of supporting evidence. Both sides will immediately balk at the bias of the source. From that point the response is decidedly different. The lefty will simply dismiss the info provided by the source whose bias is in opposition to the lefty, while the right-leaning person will investigate the info, find opposing evidence and then present it...to which the lefty will again simply dismiss it if the source is again, biased towards the right.
I'm often given polling data to be considered as evidence of a premise. But I have a huge problem with polling data. They poll so few people and expect the results to mean something. How do they compute margins of error in a polling of two thousand people in order to assess the position of the adult population of a nation of 330 million? That is to say, if they used some model to compute that margin of error, wouldn't they at some point have had to actually poll the entire adult population to see if their model is accurate? When has that happened? These questions regarding the legitimacy of polling data manifests in so many ways and in so many discussions that, to me, it's somewhat of a joke, which I'll explain a bit later. But some of those questions include the manner in which the question is worded and whether that wording allows for a truly accurate assessment of a population's sentiments. Too often it doesn't. And does the poll truly respond to the issue being debated in the discussion? That, too, isn't always the case. One might say it rarely does. And more often than not, a poll is simply no more than opinions of ostensibly millions of other people, all of whom are idiots for holding such an opinion. That is, millions of people believing something isn't what makes what they believe actually true, so what good is the poll for proving a point other than how many are as buffoonish as the lefty offering the poll as evidence?
I was recently offered two surveys meant to support an opinion of Trump's ranking as president against all other presidents we've had. The problems were many.
1. Again, the small number of respondents. One from from less than two hundred political science people. The other less than two hundred historians. I looked up how many working historians there are in the United States and it's around 3000. Again, this survey had less than two hundred. Both were allegedly a survey of Democrat, Independent and Republican voters, which could account for the low amount of respondents given how few conservatives there are in academia these days. But this leads to the next point:
2. Being Republican doesn't mean one isn't totally and completely a Trump-hater. So for this "debate", political affiliation is no guarantee the respondent isn't as biased against Trump than were those who always vote for the Dumbass party. This is important.
3. Both of these surveys ranked Trump after only his first year in office. Apparently that's a thing with these surveys, but I don't see how anyone would give it the time of day. To compare a president with one year in office against all others having served full terms? Doesn't seem just. But here's the thing: one of them ranked Trump lower than William Henry Harrison. Look him up and tell me survey is worth a shit.
4. The categories of qualities used to measure the presidents strangely omits any actual accomplishments, policies enacted or things of that nature. Seems to me those are the things that most impact the nation. How well one speaks not so much. In his first year, Trump got a lot of stuff done and none of it was mentioned or weighed against the policies of others. I think it was crystal clear that by the end of that first year, Trump did far more good for the country than did Obama in eight years. That might be subjective, but I'm willing to have that debate because the arguments can actually be measured. (That Lilly Ledbetter Act will really put me to the test!)
The bottom line here is that when it's all said and done, this poll is simply a compilation of opinions, none of which is evidence of regarding whether or not Trump was actually good or bad as a president.
Another problem with sources is of course bias. But bias alone isn't a problem if the source gives good, accurate and complete information. That's kind of redundant, because if the info isn't complete, it's neither accurate nor good. I'm routinely given links to leftist sources that leave out important details or repeat details that have been proven false or irrelevant. I still see leftist sources referring to Trump's "false" or "debunked" claims of voter fraud, without ever providing information regarding the court case or investigation that has proven any claim false or without merit. In the meantime, I provided a link to a report regarding a fellow who catalogued all election fraud cases that actually got time in court, was seen all the way to their conclusions and reported that of these 18 cases, 15 were ruled in Trump's favor. I saw no leftist news source who reported it, but my buffoonish opponent...we'll call him, Dan Trabue...rejected this evidence because it was reported in the Epoch Times, which he rejects as being unreliable due to...get this...it's relationship to members of Falun Gong and a section of it's publication that reports on wacky psuedo-science! Now, let's assume Falun Gong has a reputation for lying like Dan does, and that it really takes the psuedo-science it is said to report as entertainment totally seriously. Does this mean that the report regarding these election fraud cases is crap? Wouldn't it mean that a serious seeker of truth might want to do some research to validate or invalidate the information? That's what I try to do...because it seems logical to assume nothing about anything I read regardless of who presents it.
Now, let's be honest. Each of us decides for ourselves what news sources we can assume are going to be actually honest and accurate. We can draw comfort from those sources that have proven themselves willing to make corrections and do so as soon as they find the mistake is made and do so with some degree of honor, as opposed to the bottom right corner of page 14. If Rush Limbaugh realized he reported something wrong, he would lead off his radio show with the correction.
I found a few websites that ranks news sources, generally according to bias and reliability. With regard to the latter, I've found nothing that explains how they go about it, other than by having equal shares of Republicans, Independents and Dumbasses (usually no more than around about a half dozen of each) all reviewing the same random sampling of stories. None of them actually investigate the stories for themselves, which to me would seem the only way to truly assess whether or not the story or issue was covered reliably and accurately. And so many news sources do no more than basically copy/paste what others, like the Associated Press, reported. I mean, are there that many actual journalists who actually leave their computers and investigate stories? But keep in mind, that's no guarantee, either. We saw idiots standing before burning buildings last summer saying the BLM protests were "mostly peaceful". And I've seen a shot of someone sitting in a boat reporting on a hurricane, only to have some guy walk by behind the reporter with the water only up to his knees. Finding reliable sources can be tricky.
But even if an organization is doing decent reporting, there's also the problem of what they choose to report and how. Lefties went out of their way to find and report on anything they could spin into negative Trump stuff. That's more than simply letting one's bias manifest. That's lying and that sort of crap has led to the accurate assessment of the lefty media being enemies of the people. No news source is honest if it reports nothing good about Trump as if he never did anything good at all. We know he did. There was plenty to report in that vein.
I was asked if I thought NPR and the BBC were were reliable. I don't spend any time with them. But one story to which Dan linked from NPR had a decided lefty spin that was deceitful in how it reads. I didn't delete it. But Dan deletes pretty much every link I offer with absolutely no attempt to disprove anything within the link, simply because it's from a right-leaning source.
I don't care about bias. I care about accuracy, details and truth. The lefty cares only about agreement.
14 comments:
Case in point: Claims...
1. "...it's far more likely that a right-leaning person will provide than will a left-leaning person. This seems to be the standard."
2. "To the extent that it does at all, though, it's more likely the person doing it leans right. "
3. " It's just that we have such better understanding of reality that it's not likely we're going to make a claim that can't be supported."
4. "Indeed, our claims are based on supporting evidence to which we've already been exposed."
5. "The left is too moved by appeals to emotion for them to think in terms of whether or not something they claim is true.
6. "So to have the supporting evidence as a source for their claims is not likely since it doesn't exist."
One paragraph. SIX dubious claims with ZERO documentation.
He made each of these dubious claims with NO data to support them. And given that conservatives tend to be less educated and citing sources and not relying upon emotion are all things you should really have hammered in throughout college and schooling. NOT that everyone does. I'm just saying that ONE bit of evidence that raises flags on each of these claims is that conservatives tend to be less educated than liberals.
The source for that:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/27/study-finds-those-graduate-education-are-far-more-liberal-peers
And not only those with more education tend to be more liberal, but the MORE education you receive in college, the MORE consistently liberal you tend to be.
Now, none of that is in any way denigrating those with no college education, at all. It's just one bit of real world data that would raise red flags about Marshal's dubious claims. To be sure, I'm not saying that the data says that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to cite sources or form opinions that are well-informed. I don't know that to be true (or to NOT be true). It's just one bit of data that raises questions about Marshal's six claims in one paragraph that are unsupported and I find highly unlikely to be factual.
As to Marshals' claim about "emotional" appeals from liberals (this from the party whose last president BEGAN his campaign by appealing to an emotional and irrational fear of immigrants... and who kept the emotional appeal going throughout his campaign, adding to it an irrational and emotional appeal to fear of "the media" and others), Marshal's claim is, of course, unsupported by data. One bit of data that raises questions about it (aside from Trump's endless appeals to emotions with his ridiculous unsupported xenophobic campaign against immigrants and attacks on the media and 'making America great again...,' etc) are the studies that show that more conservative brains tend to have enlarged amydala - the fear and anxiety center of the brain.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
People who can be reached more easily by appeals to fear and anxiety (and again, LOOK at Trump's endless campaign... if nothing else, Trump is smart about appealing to fears and anxieties and hatreds and bigotry) are people more controlled by emotions than reason and data. I think the research bears this out. With the note that this is an area of ongoing study. But it certainly would explain things.
So, I respond to your six empty and unsupported and irrational claims by pointing to real world data which may not 100% make my case against Marshal's empty claims, it is at least real world data which bolsters my case.
Score:
Dan: 2
Marshal: -6
Taking just a moment while I have one to take, I had to laugh at Dan's suggestion regarding college education and liberals. This shouldn't take a college degree for even a liberal to understand, but college degrees indicate no more than a proven understanding of the subject matter...not that a graduate has cultivated wisdom. Wisdom is far more important and impactful than rote knowledge. Indeed, it can easily be argued that leaving college leaning left is proof wisdom is still greatly lacking.
Further proof of this is the mere argument with the attendant "proof" (the link provided). Nothing in my post relates to knowledge, but rather to wisdom as regards one's position, how one comes to it and how one defends it...as well as to how one deals with the position in contradiction to it. I don't need a college degree to know a professor is full of shit on a given subject. If the prof is speaking of his own area of knowledge, that's one thing. But that expertise is rather distinctly limited to his specific subject. Even so, even that knowledge doesn't guarantee what will leave his mouth regarding that subject will convince another of his wisdom. The following link touches on this notion of wisdom lacking in the educated under the heading "Skepticism over Certainty", and it will have to do given my lack of time at the moment:
https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/20/science/
The question is, does Dan have the wisdom to understand it?
Marshal put out at least another suggestion of a false claim when he IGNORED ALL the unsupported claims I pointed out and instead said...
"This shouldn't take a college degree for even a liberal to understand, but college degrees indicate no more than a proven understanding of the subject matter...not that a graduate has cultivated wisdom."
Of course folks without college degrees can be wise. And folks without college degrees can be idiots. IF Marshal read my words and thought, "Dan is saying that people wihout college degrees can't be wise..." then Marshal misunderstood (or deliberately made a false suggestion).
No, having less education doesn't mean you're not wise and having more education doesn't mean that you will be wise or more wise. BUT, what it does mean is that you have had more opportunity to learn the vital importance of supporting your claims with data. You can't go through high school, then college, then grad school (and especially college and even moreso, grad school) without having it drilled into you that you can't make unsupported claims and be taken seriously.
Can you acknowledge that reality? That this is one thing that colleges and grad school reinforce in class after class after class...?
Marshal linked to yet another far right source to cite a far right white man with degrees in philosophy and art criticism who is speaking about how bad "science" is and how badly college professors do at teaching science.
He leads with... "Since two prominent science fraudsters, the egregious Michael “hockey stick” Mann and St. Anthony “mask theater” Fauci, have recently received gratifying comeuppances..."
That is, he leads with the exact same sort of inane, bullying, irrational, UN-scholarly grade school attacks on actual scientists (reminder: The author is NOT a scientist and did not study science in school. The author is an art critic and a far right talking head... what is his authority to speak to matters of science?) because, why? Oh, because Mann is "hockey stick Mann" and Fauci is "mask theatre Fauci..."!
In other words, he attacked them based on NOTHING. He didn't cite any data to suggest that either of these scientists are mistaken. Just an empty, Trumpian, brainless, grade school level attack.
Mann's credentials:
"Dr. Michael E. Mann is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC).
Dr. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University."
Fauci's credentials:
"Dr. Fauci is an immunologist and has served as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, where he oversees research to diagnose, prevent, and treat infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis...
Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health. Since his appointment as NIAID director in 1984, Dr. Fauci has overseen an extensive research portfolio devoted to preventing, diagnosing, and treating infectious and immune-mediated diseases. Dr. Fauci also is chief of the NIAID Laboratory of Immunoregulation, where he has made numerous important discoveries related to HIV/AIDS and is one of the most-cited scientists in the field. Dr. Fauci serves as one of the key advisors to the White House and Department of Health and Human Services on global AIDS issues, and on initiatives to bolster medical and public health preparedness against emerging infectious disease threats such as pandemic influenza. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has already been responsible for saving millions of lives throughout the developing world. Dr. Fauci is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and has received numerous awards, including the National Medal of Science, the Mary Woodard Lasker Award for Public Service, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has been awarded 38 honorary doctoral degrees and is the author, coauthor, or editor of more than 1,200 scientific publications, including several major textbooks."
And yet, the far right grade school level writing art critic says these distinguished scientists are doo doo heads. Hm. Who should we listen to?
Also, I'm very curious about this guy's art criticism... I can imagine how that might look...
"Here we have Mona Lisa by Leonardo "the turtle!" Da Vinci. Should have been called "Moaning Stinka!" Cowabunga!..."
Nice try, Sparky. Let's look at your comments preceding your first link:
"He made each of these dubious claims with NO data to support them. And given that conservatives tend to be less educated and citing sources and not relying upon emotion are all things you should really have hammered in throughout college and schooling. NOT that everyone does. I'm just saying that ONE bit of evidence that raises flags on each of these claims is that conservatives tend to be less educated than liberals."
So, your "education" failed you in composing a premise that suggests it was all about sourcing one's opinions. But your "education" also failed to lead you to providing a source that stands as evidence that conservatives don't provide supporting data for their positions. This is mere assumption...wishful thinking, actually. Just consider all the citations and links of mine you've deleted at your blog. That alone proves your claim is bullshit.
I would also point to your lame attempt of listing six "claims". I'm really not required, nor do I require, evidence to support every little claim that anyone makes. YOU, on the other hand, demand it every time you're confronted with a truth against which you're unable to logically and honestly argue against. You think if you can force the other guy to try and dig up "data", you win and don't have to answer for the stupidity of your words. But as is so well known, you don't do what you demand of everyone else. Look at all the claims you make about Trump. When have you brought "data" to support any of it? Answer: YOU DON'T. More precisely, you provide far less than you demand and don't seem to care to try.
No reasonable person would believe these stupidly false claims about a stolen election. No. Reasonable. Person. That is what the Trump types/ Con artists are saying about the useful idiot types. Do you recognise yet that you are being played for a fool, Marshal?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html
No doubt this extremely slanted report from an known unreliable source would send a tingle to your lady parts. But millions of reasonable people reject the claims of Christianity. How reasonable people respond to extraordinary realities doesn't make the claims untrue. So Powell isn't necessarily saying the claims aren't true, but that their extraordinary.
Morons like you don't realize you're being played by enemies of the people like CNN. They count on sheep like you who won't expend the slightest effort at due diligence.
Good Lord. You are just full on delusional. Are you saying you don't believe the story? Or that you acknowledge that Trump's allies said no reasonable people would believe the claims because they are so outlandish... And you view that as a good thing?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/03/22/sidney-powell-argues-her-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-should-be-dropped-because-no-reasonable-person-would-believe-her/amp/
Marshal... "How reasonable people respond to extraordinary realities doesn't make the claims untrue. So Powell isn't necessarily saying the claims aren't true, but that their extraordinary."
Craig? Neil? Are there ANY rational, right-thinking, non-delusional conservatives who can explain reality to Marshal?
Marshal, do you REALLY think that Powell was suggesting that "NO REASONABLE PEOPLE" would believe these inane, idiotic, unstable, conspiracy-theory-laden, tin-hat-wearing claims... that this was code for "and that's a GOOD thing..."?
Marshal, Marshal, Marshal... you've been on the idiot end of a con. They've taken you for your credibility, for all that's worth. They've played you for a fool. They're TELLING YOU YOU ARE IRRATIONAL for believing these nutty claims... and you're STILL saying, "thank you, ma'am... give me another..."? You're STILL believing them even when they spit in your face, call you an idiot and throw you under the bus... then spit on your mangled body?
Man, have some pride in yourself. Pick yourself up and wipe the spit off your face. It's a pity that you've been played for a fool by a bunch of low-rate, low-intellect cons... but the only thing that will make it worse is if you stand by them after the rape they've committedd on your mind.
Marshal is still denying he's been played for a fool. Still believing the Big Lie, even when the con artist have called him a fool.
And keep in mind to ALWAYS follow the money:
"After President Donald Trump lost his re-election campaign, he immediately began asking his supporters for money, a plea that he insisted was necessary to bankroll his fight built on the false claim that the election was stolen through rampant fraud.
James Uptmore, like hundreds of other people, opened his wallet. Weeks later, he was among those who stormed the U.S. Capitol, federal prosecutors say.
An NBC News analysis of campaign finance filings found that in the five weeks after the election, those charged in the Capitol riot increased their political donations by about 75 percent compared to the five weeks leading up to the election. Many had made very few or no donations at all in previous years, but they began escalating their numbers of contributions as Trump was trying to overturn Joe Biden's victory.
Trump and his aligned groups, including the Republican National Committee, raised $207.5 million in the 19 days after the election."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/first-answered-trumps-call-open-080200376.html
Trump's getting rich. True Believers in the scam are going to jail/being fleeced or just been made into a gullible idiot.
And still, the True Believers believe.
Always follow the money. It helps explain why a con is happening.
How moronic! Only an idiot would try to make a connection between donating to fight a stolen election to participating in the Jan 6 incident. Only a hater would accuse Trump of "scamming the gullible" in order to increase his personal wealth without evidence. So provide it, liar.
It's no surprise to learn the many "irregularities"...to say the least...of this election would compel donations from those who never donated before. Natural disasters result in the same response, and Trump losing in the manner he clearly did rises to that level, as the first two months of the Biden admin and Dem control of Congress has proven.
So I've been reading The Defendents' Motion to Dismiss, from which CNN thinks it has found some admission that Sidney Powell was lying or some shit in accusing Dominion as she did. As I suspected, context is lacking in what led to Dan's orgasmic response to the CNN piece and the Forbes piece presented the legal documentation I perused to find that context. And just as my analogy with regard to the claims of Christianity, Powell is simply stating the reality that no reasonable person would believe the claims because the FACTS are so hard to believe...that there would be this level of fraud in an American election. She's not saying the claims are false. She's saying the truth is beyond what any reasonable person would believe could be true without having the claims litigated to make the case and prove the truth of it.
I thank Dan for once again providing ammo to prove what a buffoon he is. He's so often helpful and illustrates why reading is FUNdamental. Had he taken the time to read, rather than react, he'd have been compelled to provide a false argument to support his initial contention that Powell was admitting something she clearly wasn't.
I got through most of The Defendents' Motion to Dismiss. I found the Powell statement in the context in which it was presented and read well beyond (falling just a few pages short of that which involved Powell) and it turns out things were exactly as I suspected: Dan's a moron.
Below are relevant snippets providing more context that makes my point with regard to what Powell was saying, and why what she was saying was absolutely not what Dan desperately wishes it was:
"3.The statements at issue are protected and not actionable (page 27) (page 46 by PDF file)
Determining whether a statement is protected involves a two-step inquiry: Is the statement one which can be proved true or false? And would reasonable people conclude that the statement is one of fact, in light of its phrasing, context and the circumstances surrounding its publication. Keohane, 882 P.2d at 1299. This inquiry is determined as a matter of law. Bucher v. Roberts, 595 P.2d 235, 241 (Colo. 1979) (“Whether a particular statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law.”). Analyzed under these factors, and even assuming, arguendo, that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.
snip
Reasonable people understand that the “language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes ... is often vituperative, abusive and inexact.”Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). It is likewise a “well recognized principle that political statements are inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.”Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 244 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterize the statements at issue as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.”Id. at ¶¶ 2, 60, 97, 111. They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible.”Id. at ¶¶ 110, 111, 114, 116 and 185. Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process."
more...
The first part before the "snip" speaks of how reasonable people view the charges of the plaintiffs. I included it both to provide context for what follows as well as to make it easier for others to find and know what that context is. It's what comes after the snip that is of most relevance. The real problem is in Dan's inability to grasp what "reasonable" is or looks like. Powell isn't saying the claims she makes aren't true and factual. She's saying they're so outrageous as to compel reasonable people to question them on the surface. It's as if she said, "Listen to the stupid shit Dan says. You won't believe it." It doesn't mean that Dan's shit ain't stupid. It means it's so stupid is not likely to be believed without closer scrutiny. The same is true for her claims of election fraud. It's why they needed to be litigated in a court of law. It's what reasonable people would expect in order to determine whether their outrageous nature is indeed the reality.
Again, I point to the claims of my faith, Christianity. Reasonable people find them hard to believe. It doesn't mean they're untrue or that those who do believe them have been conned by Jesus of Nazareth and His followers. But by Dan's hilariously desperate attempts to pretend he's even examined the evidence, that's exactly what a Christian is: duped people who bought into a con based on the extraordinary nature of the claims of Christian advocates.
Truly reasonable people can be taken aback by a claim yet still have the maturity to hear out the arguments pro and con. Dan doesn't want that discussion to take place because he knows the election was stolen or he'd welcome that scrutiny. Dan is pathetic in his attempts to con himself.
Now, he'll continue to pretend his false characterization of Powell's comments stand as further evidence that the claims of election fraud are "stupidly false", which is a ironic thing for a stupid boy to say.
Post a Comment