• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Romney claims five studies back up his tax plan - Politifact says "mostly false"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
To avoid such logical problems you need to avoid the fallacies of appeal to authority and address the substance of arguments regardless of sources and supposed bias. I think I've explained that already.

So basically if PolitiFact cites three biased experts and totally ignores the contrary claim of another biased expert that's enough to establish the burden of proof in PolitiFact's favor?

Are you quite certain that you're qualified to set the rules for what is needed to refute PolitiFact?
Welcom to Anantech P&N.

Next, you will discover that libs will claim to have given you proof and claim to have answered questions even those they have done neither...and they will stick to that lie as if Obama himself told them to do so...
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
I definitely dislike it when people jump to conclusions based on their own preconceived political notions. That's a big reason I DIDN'T automatically judge your site as unfairly biased without checking it out (I had honestly not heard of the site until it was linked here). And I did take the time to look around the site and read a number of your front page articles before I made a decision, you didn't even have to suggest it ;)
So you checked seven out of about 200 and figured that was good enough without checking the "About/FAQ" page.

What a scientist.

Even in the group of seven there's material that goes against conservatives. Human Events published a story on PolitiFact's Bias. I address a criticism of that story, allowing that the central point has some truth to it (I go on to show that the reasoning the critic used to reach his conclusion was flawed).

The problem is that doing so is exactly why I posted what I did. ALL the posts I read (I think pretty much every post on the front page) defended conservative positions and/or Republican politicians, almost always with links to conservative (mainly opinion) sources like Breitbart, Weekly Standard, National Review, etc.
Again, that's seven stories out of many. The best opinion pieces are not solely opinion but deal also in fact. Indeed, a good number of PolitiFact's critics from the left (persons whose critiques we have featured at PolitiFact Bias, by the way) have noted how PolitiFact's system invites the inclusion of opinion. How does PolitiFact escape your dismissal as a "opinion" source?

And while this is a more subjective judgement, the articles on Politifact seem far more neutral, factual and comprehensive in tone and content while Politifactbias is clearly working towards a particular conclusion.
As the FAQ makes clear, our conclusion about PolitiFact is evidence based. It is a fact that journalists as a group are well left of the general population. It is a fact that PolitiFact routinely makes errors in its supposed reporting of fact. It is likewise a fact that conservatives bear the brunt of the harm from PolitiFact's mistakes. We've compiled an unrivaled list of examples.

And in almost all of the articles, there is a much more general conclusion being put forward as well...specifically, "Don't trust in mainstream fact checkers like PolitiFact." Now whether they are wrong or not on specific issues, that seems like an extraordinarily broad statement to make.
It is a broad statement. And it occurs in the context of a story in which PolitiFact has again ignored evidence running contrary to its conclusion. If you read the general content of PolitiFact Bias it will become clear to you why we caution against accepting the determinations of fact checkers like PolitiFact (we rate Annenberg a notch higher): They are journalists. They are largely ill-equipped to judge on many of the issues on which they choose to pass judgment. They end up relying on a relatively small sampling of expert opinion and display a tendency to arbitrarily prefer some opinions over others.

Glenn Greenwald on the scam of neutral expertise.


To be 100% fair, I think the idea of fact checking fact checkers is a good one...if it's approached with the right motivation and right methods. But I posted what I posted based on checking out Politifactbias, and I didn't really see anything on there that made me think it would be a good place for me to go for my political fact checking.
Good. It's not a fact check site. It's a site designed to highlight the best criticisms of a fact check site. Now quit spreading false information about us based on your extensive survey of seven front page stories. Thanks.

Does PolitiFact use the right methods to check facts, IYO?
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
I guess the bigger point would be the world would benefit more from a 'better' fact-checker than it would from a site attacking an existing one. If Politfact doesn't use evidence well, do a better job. Not only will you show them up, you'll have political relevance and be doing voters a better service.
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
We're still waiting for you to do exactly that. :rolleyes:
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, Harvey, but you're making it difficult.

You have learned well from Karl Rove, a desciple of Hitler's propoganda minster, Joseph Goebbels, credited (truly or falsely) with postulating "The Big Lie."
I don't pay much attention to Karl Rove. And even if I did, the degree to which your comparison has anything to do with me depends entirely on your ability to give an example of me telling a big lie (we should expect at least one example). So. Where is that example, please?

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
(could really use an example here)

I have yet to encounter any reasonable argument from you.
I suppose that's supposed to pass for a clever mirroring back of what I addressed to you. But there's a difference. I invited you to provide an example of something I missed. Though you included no such invitation, I can provide you an example:
If Heritage Foundation says the sky is blue, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any level of bias you think you perceive. You're committing a fallacy if you assume the information is bad because of the source.
What is your disagreement with my reasoning, if any? If you do not have any disagreement with my reasoning, then please explain your failure to think of an example of a reasonable argument from me.

The same is obviously true to others in this thread who have handed your ass to you for your dining pleaure.
The appeal to the people is also a fallacy. Maybe it's an appeal to their expertise? Do we get proof that the "others in this thread" possess appropriate expertise?

I believe the medical term for your condition is "anal-cranial inversion." :biggrin:
I believe the Latin term for your primary approach is this thread is argumentum ad hominem, though certainly there's a powerful thread of the appeal to ridicule.

Ummm... Let me think... Truth, reality and facts come to mind.
You're apparently responding to my query "I think I've yet to encounter any reasonable criticisms of my arguments from you. Could you remind me of any I've missed or forgotten? "

Your reasonable criticisms are "Truth, reality and facts."

You're safely lacking in specifics. Great job.

Let us know when you find them.
Right, because if I ask you for an example of a reasonable criticism you've offered of me, it is my burden of proof to provide that example or examples. It makes total sense.

Then, if you have half as much balls as it took to put up your ridiculous POS website, you'll post an apology on your site for just how full of sh8 you are, and you'll come back here to do the same.
Right, because as you've pointedly shown all of us, ""Truth, reality and facts." How can I argue against that intellectual tour de force?

Until then, you're a total waste of time and effort, and I'm through trying to discuss anything with you. To repeat my previous advice...

GO HOME AND PRACTICE... little boy. :colbert:
"Truth, reality and facts."
"Truth, reality and facts."
"Truth, reality and facts."

How am I doing, sensai?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, Harvey, but you're making it difficult.
Don't bother. I'm not interested the benefit of your doubt. I have no doubt about what you are.

I'm not interested in your pathetic pseudo arguments and setups, and if I had nothing better to do with my time, I'd have no interest in making things anything other than difficult for wingnut liars. I can find anything and everything you have to say by tuning into the far more experienced liars at Faux Noise or listening to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for 15 minutes... if I could stomach it that long without puking. :hmm:

Sorry to have met you. :thumbsdown:
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
So, what it boils down to is what Stephen Colbert offered in his ever prescient way- "facts have a liberal bias."

The Romney camp has even said they won't let the fact checkers or the facts influence their campaign, so there it is.

If Repubs had facts to back up their positions, they'd use 'em, rather than emotionally charged issues of their own manufacture.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
The Romney camp has even said they won't let the fact checkers or the facts influence their campaign, so there it is.
The exact quote from Romney pollster, Neil Newhouse on August 28th, 2012 was, "We&#8217;re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

Bryan White's posts and site suggest that's the source of marching orders, as well, or at least a first generation restatement of them directly from the Romney campaign, itself.

No matter how much Romney and Ryan try to duck, cover, bob, weave, lie and flip flop, they can't run away from their own contradictory statements.

If they duck when they lie, and they lie when they duck, they're F... errr... DUCKING LIARS! :sneaky:
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
You know, Harvey, if Bryan was as wrong or dishonest as you insist, I'd think it would be easy for you to demonstrate it. His site contains reasonable arguments, documented with references. Your posts contain nothing but screeching and insults. Frankly, they're embarrassing.

I say the above as someone who likes Politifact, dislikes pretty much everything having to do with Repulbicans, and hopes Romney loses every state on November 6th.
 
Last edited:

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
I guess the bigger point would be the world would benefit more from a 'better' fact-checker than it would from a site attacking an existing one. If Politfact doesn't use evidence well, do a better job. Not only will you show them up, you'll have political relevance and be doing voters a better service.
That's not a bad point, though it also skips over the fact that offering criticism is one way to make an existing product (including a literary one) improve.

The key to that result, assuming the criticism is legitimate, is in the response of the party responsible for the work in the first place. That's one of our longstanding criticisms of PolitiFact, by the way. Regardless of whether it is criticized from the left of the right, its attempts to defend itself and/or address problems with its approach are almost invariably very far from satisfactory.

There's also the fact that Annenberg Fact Check is a pretty decent product. It's not perfect, but it has a better claim to the "gold standard" for fact checking than any other popular fact checker.
 

hardhat

Senior member
Dec 4, 2011
356
54
91
This isn't college policy debate. It isn't a game. You can't blugeon people with false equivalencies and restated opinions to convince others that you are right. People will decide what the truth is by using their own wits. Your only cited evidence in the article is that Nile Gardiner, who wrote the originally refuted piece said
"Apologizing for your own country projects an image of weakness before both allies and enemies," Gardiner said. "It sends a very clear signal that the U.S. is to blame for some major developments on the world stage. This can be used to the advanage of those who wish to undermine American global leadership."
You need citations from experts that prove Obama apologized for US actions in order to refute the politifact article.
Why do I need that evidence? Or, should I say, what is the evidence that I need that evidence in order to refute PolitiFact? Are we just going to assume that having three liberal apology experts with no apparent expertise in foreign relations were sufficient to support PolitiFact's original rating?
This is the kind of argument that people reject at face value Bryan. You are trying to argue that fact check is incorrect, yet you present no evidence and when people point this out you either argue you don't need evidence or blindly accuse anyone with another opinion, regardless of how qualified, of being biased. Stop playing games and produce rebuttal evidence that refutes the claims made by fact check. Your general arguments throughout your piece all revolve around character assassination, clouding the issue, and false equivalencies. There isn't one shred of evidence that the analysis by the experts that politifact presented is incorrect.

So basically if PolitiFact cites three biased experts and totally ignores the contrary claim of another biased expert that's enough to establish the burden of proof in PolitiFact's favor? Are you quite certain that you're qualified to set the rules for what is needed to refute PolitiFact?
Bias is not the issue! Why can you not understand that. Politifact refuted Gardiner's opinion of the President's statements by consulting qualified experts in the linguistics and foreign policy and submitted their opinion. That is evidence. You have no qualifications, and you refuse to address even one of the instances in the politifact article to state your claim. You have no evidence to support your claims, other than to say the experts politifact used were biased. When your only argument is "everyone that disagrees is biased" you aren't going to convince anyone of anything. Facts, please.
 

hardhat

Senior member
Dec 4, 2011
356
54
91
Do you know how we escape the "blame everything on bias" game? We weed out opinion and just state the facts. That is what Politifact did in their article. They gave us a full transcript of what they were addressing, and gave us direct quotations from experts to evaluate. They even gave us the OPPOSING VIEW. Of course, we can't do that with your article-because you don't address or even mention ONE of the specific cases Politifact addresses, nor do you present ANY evidence.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/



I was watching a Mitt interview and he threw out the "5 studies support me" line....I decided to Google it. I tell you, I was **shocked** to find out that it was just another fabrication :colbert: :rolleyes: lol

Why do conservatives keep giving him a pass when it comes to policy proposals that are almost complete lies? I'm starting to get the feeling that ALL of his supporters are willing to overlook it because they really don't care who the Republican candidate is - anyone but Obama. It's a real shame....
I am sure I can find five "studies" that back up the notion that all the Moon Landings were staged. Some just 'cause they are bat-shit crazy and some just tongue in cheek, but I am sure there are five to be found.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,298
127
106
I'd just like to see this line of argument carried over into the real world. "Well, honey, I did, in fact, sleep with that woman, which is often considered immoral."
"Are you not even going to apologize for it?"
"I just did! Didn't you hear me admit to having done something imperfect?"
THIS!!!

thank you poster. Perfect summary of this ridiculous issue.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,298
127
106
Bryan White, thanks for joining and contributing. I wonder what your thoughts are on this quote:

"Politicians using facts to persuade and not giving the entire context is to be expected, and there&#8217;s nothing wrong with it."

http://bearingdrift.com/2012/09/04/who-watches-the-watchers/

Edit: comment on the OP

When lies are told over and over again, eventually people take it as the truth.

At this point, Romney's campaign has nothing to lose.

I listen to the echo chamber on my commute to work (Lars, Medved, Hugh, Sean H....Bill Bennet is actually my favorite) the amount of bullshit flying over the airwaves the closer we get to election time has me smiling all the way home...its disheartening that the right continues to dumb itself down, but it is equally satisfying to listen to the fear and desperation. And now, I am not the least bit surprised that there is an attack on fact-checkers both online and in print.

demonizing fact checkers is sensible strategy when facts are not on your side.
 
Last edited:

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,392
31
91
No, really. Somebody make a reasonable comment. People aren't wrong because of who they are or because they are biased. It's not logical to assume a wrong conclusion because the person is biased. That's fallacious reasoning.
And that's a complete strawman. Human information processing isn't strictly deductive from known true premises. Instead, a rather useful shortcut is used: judgments are made on liklihood, or usefulness in a human context.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. This does not make it a useful timepiece. And argumentum ad ignorantiam is not a valid support for it being right in the absence of disproof that it is wrong every other second.

That you can't see that you pulled out such a ridiculous strawman and that you reached for it only because it was convenient to defending your bias proves that your reasoning cannot be trusted. Your clock has been proved to be geared wrong, therefore I (and anyone else) is justified in dismissing you.

Byebye. Thanks for playing. Have a pony on your way out.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
And that's a complete strawman. Human information processing isn't strictly deductive from known true premises. Instead, a rather useful shortcut is used: judgments are made on liklihood, or usefulness in a human context.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. This does not make it a useful timepiece. And argumentum ad ignorantiam is not a valid support for it being right in the absence of disproof that it is wrong every other second.

That you can't see that you pulled out such a ridiculous strawman and that you reached for it only because it was convenient to defending your bias proves that your reasoning cannot be trusted. Your clock has been proved to be geared wrong, therefore I (and anyone else) is justified in dismissing you.

Byebye. Thanks for playing. [ul=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5p58tegW3U]Have a pony on your way out.[/url]
lol
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
This is the kind of argument that people reject at face value Bryan. You are trying to argue that fact check is incorrect, yet you present no evidence and when people point this out you either argue you don't need evidence or blindly accuse anyone with another opinion, regardless of how qualified, of being biased.
That's an inaccurate characterization. I'm trying to point out that I've already given the right evidence to undermine PolitiFact's conclusion. I pointed out that they cherry-picked which sources they'd listen to when giving Romney his grade. What we're seeing is somebody challenging my evidence by arbitrarily giving me an extra portion of burden of proof. It isn't enough to undermine PolitiFact's conclusion. I have to prove the conclusion wrong, supposedly, but I'm trying to point out that you shouldn't have accepted that conclusion in the first place.

Stop playing games and produce rebuttal evidence that refutes the claims made by fact check.
If I did that I'd be playing a game (somebody else's game). I'll accept a reasonable burden of proof. But I don't jump through hoops for would-be ringmasters.

Your general arguments throughout your piece all revolve around character assassination, clouding the issue, and false equivalencies.
I don't engage in personal attacks and I don't know what you're talking about with the latter two charges. Give examples.

There isn't one shred of evidence that the analysis by the experts that politifact presented is incorrect.
That's the burden of proof game. As already discussed, each of the three experts PolitiFact preferred are known to favor liberal causes. If you toss out Nile Gardiner because of bias then it seems reasonable to toss the other three as well unless one can find a legitimate rationale for favoring the three over the one (expert consensus is not an attractive option since it puts us over the threshold for the appeal to popularity fallacy). Nobody's attempted to argue from the evidence that the three experts are correct in comparison to Gardiner. I've argued that Gardiner is right.

Bias is not the issue! Why can you not understand that. Politifact refuted Gardiner's opinion of the President's statements by consulting qualified experts in the linguistics and foreign policy and submitted their opinion. That is evidence.
lol Check that list of experts again. They were "apology experts."

"John Murphy, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who studies presidential rhetoric and political language,"

"Lauren Bloom, an attorney and business consultant"

"Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, a professor who studies international human rights and maintains the website"

Not a foreign policy expert in the lot. Gardiner was the only one.

Here's an apology from Howard-Hassmann's list at her website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/424984.stm

See it? The tag line is "My ancestor traded in human misery." Is that an apology or a condemnation?

More: http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/details.php?table=docpress&id=57 http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/details.php?table=docpress&id=453 http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/details.php?table=doc_press&id=126

It looks like sometimes an admission of error or responsibility suffices as an apology for Howard-Hassmann. That either makes her inconsistent or shows that PolitiFact took her comments out of context. Either option isn't good for PolitiFact.

You have no qualifications, and you refuse to address even one of the instances in the politifact article to state your claim.
Hmmm. To get qualified maybe I should start up my own website for political apologies. It seems to have worked for Howard-Hassmann. Seriously, where have I refused to address a serious point somebody has tried to raise on this issue? Romney's specific examples aren't as important as the criteria the experts would bring to bear. The presence of the word "sorry" is preposterous as a qualification.

Not a single one of the experts has a degree in apologies, I'll warrant. What are the qualifications, that you feel confident in declaring that I lack them?

You have no evidence to support your claims, other than to say the experts politifact used were biased. When your only argument is "everyone that disagrees is biased" you aren't going to convince anyone of anything. Facts, please.
The fact is that your summary is a straw man. I've been over more than once the fact that it's okay if PolitiFact favors one set of experts over another if it provides a solid rationale. The rationale from these so-called experts is silly. They say nobody said "sorry" and declare that it wasn't an apology. Hang the fact that one of them makes up a list of apologies where taking responsibility or admitting fault appear to qualify as apologies. And in the latter example, as noted, there's the theme of insisting that it's a condemnation instead of an apology. I've pointed out that we're not getting reasoning there that keeps it from being an apology. A condemnation and an apology can be delivered together. So this "explanation" as to why it's not an apology amounts to "It's not an apology." That's why they're the experts, I suppose.

Here's my qualification, btw: I know how to find good information and I know how to reason from it without making mistakes.

The evidence that supports my claim is that an admission of guilt or responsibility intended to smooth things over with the audience serves exactly the same purpose as an apology. That being the case, PolitiFact can't justify a "Pants on Fire" rating for Romney regarding Obama's apology tour and the story on the embassy statement commits the same error. You can forgive PF for ignoring its most qualified expert source and they're still wrong.

http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/370/Coherence.htm
Robin Lakoff on Apologies: • The main point of the chapter? • Why apologies? (psychological burden) • Exercise: How many ways can you think of apologizing for something? • What might influence your choice? • Unambiguous apology: • I apologize that I ate your hamster. • &#8595; responsibility &#8593; regret • I’m sorry about your hamster. • Shift responsibility • Well, someone left the hamster in the refrigerator • Deny any wrongdoing • Well, that’s what hamsters are for, right? [What does “well” tell us here?] • Accept responsibility – I admit I ate the hamster • Admit wrongdoing – It was wrong of me to eat the hamster/ I shouldn’t have eaten the hamster • Wish for forgiveness – Can you find it in your heart to forgive me for eating your hamster? • Abjuration of bad behavior – I’ll never eat another hamster again as long as I live

(bold emphasis added)
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
THIS!!!

thank you poster. Perfect summary of this ridiculous issue.
Yeah, that's tremendous. Except it forgets that I've dealt with the problem of apologies not intended to smooth things over. Saying that some people think it's wrong undermines the perception that the person accepting responsibility is admitting fault. Rather, he's just saying that some people (not necessarily him) think it's wrong. But that isn't what Obama did and it isn't what the embassy did. Is it?

Must be perfect, then.
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
And that's a complete strawman. Human information processing isn't strictly deductive from known true premises. Instead, a rather useful shortcut is used: judgments are made on liklihood, or usefulness in a human context.
If what you say is true, then how can Harvey say that "anything" I say is discredited to the point that he is relieved from having to take it seriously?

It's the fallacy of the jumping to conclusions, even if you dress it up and pretend it's heuristic reasoning.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. This does not make it a useful timepiece. And argumentum ad ignorantiam is not a valid support for it being right in the absence of disproof that it is wrong every other second.
Is Breitbart.com right more or less than twice per day? Is Harvey rightly free from providing any evidence that my statements are not to be taken seriously simply because I link to Breitbart?

Are you serious?

I link to unreliable left-wing sites. So I'm probably doubly unreliable even if I put a .cbo or a .edu or another .gov in there somewhere.

Seriously, I don't see why you'd try to defend such specious reasoning, much less aid it with a rigged analogy.

That you can't see that you pulled out such a ridiculous strawman and that you reached for it only because it was convenient to defending your bias proves that your reasoning cannot be trusted.
lmao.

So it's a contest between you and Harvey as to who can produce the most outstanding example of drawing a hasty conclusion. The judges may need more time.

At minimum, the critic needs to show that something I cited is wrong. Otherwise it's the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Your clock has been proved to be geared wrong, therefore I (and anyone else) is justified in dismissing you.
Proved by what? The fallacy of jumping to conclusions?
It is not always a mistake to make a quick decision, but when we draw a conclusion without taking the trouble to acquire enough of the relevant evidence, our reasoning uses the fallacy of jumping to conclusions, provided there was sufficient time to acquire and assess that extra evidence, and provided that the extra effort it takes to get the evidence isn’t prohibitive.
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
Bryan White, thanks for joining and contributing. I wonder what your thoughts are on this quote:

"Politicians using facts to persuade and not giving the entire context is to be expected, and there’s nothing wrong with it."

http://bearingdrift.com/2012/09/04/who-watches-the-watchers/
The observation is essentially correct, though it doesn't stand well as a generalization. There's always missing context because we don't have the time to provide the full context for everything. A fact checker should show concern if the missing context is particularly important and communication can't come through accurately without the context. PolitiFact often appears to judge quite arbitrarily as to what context is important and what isn't. That's the point of the portion you quoted (it's quite a bit clearer in context, IMO).
What Ryan said in each statement he made was factually accurate. Politifact claimed what he said was misleading, which is their opinion, not a fact. Politicians using facts to persuade and not giving the entire context is to be expected, and there’s nothing wrong with it. We can’t expect a politician to act like a journalist or a lobbyist, presenting both sides of every story.
PolitiFact might rate you anywhere from "True" to "Mostly False" for that quotation. Your grade will probably be better if you're a Democrat.

demonizing fact checkers is sensible strategy when facts are not on your side.
Who's demonizing fact checkers? Most of them are okay most of the time. PolitiFact is just especially awful. Even the left understands that when it's not in their best interests to just look the other way. When the left blew up over the 2011 "Lie of the Year" much of the criticism was stuff I'd been saying about PolitiFact for years. But it's only accurate if it comes from the left? Is that it?
 

hardhat

Senior member
Dec 4, 2011
356
54
91
That's an inaccurate characterization. I'm trying to point out that I've already given the right evidence to undermine PolitiFact's conclusion. I pointed out that they cherry-picked which sources they'd listen to when giving Romney his grade. What we're seeing is somebody challenging my evidence by arbitrarily giving me an extra portion of burden of proof. It isn't enough to undermine PolitiFact's conclusion. I have to prove the conclusion wrong, supposedly, but I'm trying to point out that you shouldn't have accepted that conclusion in the first place.
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit-the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
Your charge is that politfact's analysis is incorrect. You have not provided any proof or evidence to support your contention, but instead try to use your own rhetorical attacks and analysis to refute their arguments, which are based on expert testimony.

If I did that I'd be playing a game (somebody else's game). I'll accept a reasonable burden of proof. But I don't jump through hoops for would-be ringmasters.
The only game you play is to make accusations of bias with no evidence that would not even necessarily refute politifact's argument. You refuse to provide any evidence, therefore your assertion is baseless.

I don't engage in personal attacks and I don't know what you're talking about with the latter two charges. Give examples.
character assassination, "The sources used by politifact are biased"
clouding the issue, "A condemnation can also contain an apology"
and false equivalencies, "The point of the story was clear despite the lack of a specific statement" (Obama did not release the embassy's statement, and it was not the topic of debate)

That's the burden of proof game. As already discussed, each of the three experts PolitiFact preferred are known to favor liberal causes. If you toss out Nile Gardiner because of bias then it seems reasonable to toss the other three as well unless one can find a legitimate rationale for favoring the three over the one (expert consensus is not an attractive option since it puts us over the threshold for the appeal to popularity fallacy). Nobody's attempted to argue from the evidence that the three experts are correct in comparison to Gardiner. I've argued that Gardiner is right.
No, you toss out Gardiner because he does not address the specific claims addressed by politifact in his statement. You are responding to politifact's assertion. Nile Gardiner has not.

lol Check that list of experts again. They were "apology experts."

"John Murphy, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who studies presidential rhetoric and political language,"

"Lauren Bloom, an attorney and business consultant"

"Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, a professor who studies international human rights and maintains the website"

Not a foreign policy expert in the lot. Gardiner was the only one.
They were analyzing the President's statements, which was well within the purvue of their field of expertise. You still have no experts contradicting their claim.
Here's an apology from Howard-Hassmann's list at her website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/424984.stm

See it? The tag line is "My ancestor traded in human misery." Is that an apology or a condemnation?
From that same website, "
The United States has never formally apologised for its participation in the slave trade."
More: http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/details.php?table=docpress&id=57 http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/details.php?table=docpress&id=453 http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/details.php?table=doc_press&id=126

It looks like sometimes an admission of error or responsibility suffices as an apology for Howard-Hassmann. That either makes her inconsistent or shows that PolitiFact took her comments out of context. Either option isn't good for PolitiFact.
Why don't you contact her and ask her to comment on the specific comments in contention here? That would be actual evidence! Then we could have a discussion because we have conflicting arguments from experts, instead of your attempts at character assassination and rhetorical shenanigans.
Hmmm. To get qualified maybe I should start up my own website for political apologies. It seems to have worked for Howard-Hassmann. Seriously, where have I refused to address a serious point somebody has tried to raise on this issue? Romney's specific examples aren't as important as the criteria the experts would bring to bear. The presence of the word "sorry" is preposterous as a qualification.
More of your own conjecture, more avoidance of actual analysis of the specific arguments brought by Politifact's expert testimony.

Not a single one of the experts has a degree in apologies, I'll warrant. What are the qualifications, that you feel confident in declaring that I lack them?

The fact is that your summary is a straw man. I've been over more than once the fact that it's okay if PolitiFact favors one set of experts over another if it provides a solid rationale. The rationale from these so-called experts is silly. They say nobody said "sorry" and declare that it wasn't an apology. Hang the fact that one of them makes up a list of apologies where taking responsibility or admitting fault appear to qualify as apologies. And in the latter example, as noted, there's the theme of insisting that it's a condemnation instead of an apology. I've pointed out that we're not getting reasoning there that keeps it from being an apology. A condemnation and an apology can be delivered together. So this "explanation" as to why it's not an apology amounts to "It's not an apology." That's why they're the experts, I suppose.
You can't speak as an expert as to what constitutes an apology, because you have not presented yourself as an expert with reasonable qualifications to make that assertion.
Here's my qualification, btw: I know how to find good information and I know how to reason from it without making mistakes.
This is the closest thing you have presented to evidence, and it can be rejected at face value. Are you more or less of an expert than me? And why have you not presented arguments pertaining to the specific cases that Politifact brought into question?

The evidence that supports my claim is that an admission of guilt or responsibility intended to smooth things over with the audience serves exactly the same purpose as an apology. That being the case, PolitiFact can't justify a "Pants on Fire" rating for Romney regarding Obama's apology tour and the story on the embassy statement commits the same error. You can forgive PF for ignoring its most qualified expert source and they're still wrong.

http://my.ilstu.edu/~jrbaldw/370/Coherence.htm
Robin Lakoff on Apologies: • The main point of the chapter? • Why apologies? (psychological burden) • Exercise: How many ways can you think of apologizing for something? • What might influence your choice? • Unambiguous apology: • I apologize that I ate your hamster. • &#8595; responsibility &#8593; regret • I’m sorry about your hamster. • Shift responsibility • Well, someone left the hamster in the refrigerator • Deny any wrongdoing • Well, that’s what hamsters are for, right? [What does “well” tell us here?] • Accept responsibility – I admit I ate the hamster • Admit wrongdoing – It was wrong of me to eat the hamster/ I shouldn’t have eaten the hamster • Wish for forgiveness – Can you find it in your heart to forgive me for eating your hamster? • Abjuration of bad behavior – I’ll never eat another hamster again as long as I live

(bold emphasis added)
And the very next line shows why you are incorrect. Accepting responsibility and admitting wrongdoing are different concepts, and neither constitutes an apology on its own. Present evidence pertaining to the specific cases that Politifact analyzes. Meet the basic requirements for a de facto assertion. Stop rhetorical attacks.
 

Bryan White

Member
Sep 15, 2012
36
0
0
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit-the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
Your charge is that politfact's analysis is incorrect. You have not provided any proof or evidence to support your contention, but instead try to use your own rhetorical attacks and analysis to refute their arguments, which are based on expert testimony.
I've been over this already. PolitiFact doesn't have its own argument except for an appeal to authority where the experts are of dubious qualification. PF arbitrarily ruled out the testimony of its lone expert with foreign policy experience. It gave no rationale for preferring the three over the one.

The only game you play is to make accusations of bias with no evidence that would not even necessarily refute politifact's argument. You refuse to provide any evidence, therefore your assertion is baseless.
Awesome irony. I keep giving evidence and you keep insisting (without evidence) there's no evidence. But the topic isn't PF's bias. I don't care if you believe that or not. The point here is that PF's fact checking isn't up to snuff. Neither "Pants on Fire" nor "False" can fit. It's only after you see PF's pattern of big mistakes mostly harming conservatives and benefiting liberals that you should lean toward the view that PF is biased.

I've presented an argument based on the meaning of "apology" and applying it to the statements PF rated as well as to the supposed argument of the three experts. Apparently it's your intention to pretend the argument doesn't exist.

character assassination, "The sources used by politifact are biased"
lol
You'll have to do better than that. That's not character assassination, and you're taking it out of context. I've said repeatedly that it's okay for PF to use its three biased sources if it uses a solid rationale. It doesn't. It presents both views and then picks one of the two. PF doesn't tell you if it was because of a 3:1 vote or if they didn't use "sorry" approach was incontrovertible proof. They just headed for the conclusion. That's a problem. And it ought to concern you.

clouding the issue, "A condemnation can also contain an apology"
I'm clarifying the issue, demonstrating that the so-called experts explain nothing when they say it's a condemnation and not an apology. If a condemnation and an apology can occur in the same statement (and I've demonstrated it can) then the rationale from the experts boils down to "It's not an apology." That's not reasoning, it's assertion. You've got me repeating myself. This shouldn't be difficult.

and false equivalencies, "The point of the story was clear despite the lack of a specific statement" (Obama did not release the embassy's statement, and it was not the topic of debate)
And I'm supposedly drawing an equivalency between the embassy story and what? We need at least two things for an equivalency. And we should be able to tell that I'm drawing an equivalency without piggybacking on your imagination. It looks to me like my statement stands on its own in response to the statement of another:
1. Politifact did not make any statement about the libyan embassy in their article "Obama's remarks never a true 'apology'", nor was it a topic in Nile Gardiner's article.

The point of the story was clear despite the lack of a specific statement.
The article by Shapiro was about PF's story about the embassy apology and links to the earlier one about Romney's apology tour. I'm not drawing an equivalency. I'm just pointing out that PF had a clear POV it expressed through the three experts it quoted.

No, you toss out Gardiner because he does not address the specific claims addressed by politifact in his statement. You are responding to politifact's assertion. Nile Gardiner has not.
I don't toss out Gardiner, and in the paragraph to which you were responding I was talking about the fact check where PF chose the opinion of the three experts instead of the one. Gardiner was quoted in that story, and I have since argued that Gardiner is correct. There's nothing wrong or fallacious in that.

They were analyzing the President's statements, which was well within the purvue of their field of expertise. You still have no experts contradicting their claim.
Nile Gardiner directly contradicted their claims. Where were you?

From that same website, "
The United States has never formally apologised for its participation in the slave trade."
Looks like a non sequitur. What's your point? Is a non-apology an apology? If so, why was it not the tagline for the document?

Why don't you contact her and ask her to comment on the specific comments in contention here? That would be actual evidence!
We already have actual evidence. We have a website that she runs that classifies admissions of responsibility as apologies (unless you want to argue that they constitute reparations).

Then we could have a discussion because we have conflicting arguments from experts, instead of your attempts at character assassination and rhetorical shenanigans.
It's not character assassination to show that somebody's wrong or inconsistent. You need to learn to distinguish between arguments directed at a person's behavior or arguments as opposed to those directed at the person (that is, their character).

More of your own conjecture, more avoidance of actual analysis of the specific arguments brought by Politifact's expert testimony.
http://subloviate.blogspot.com/2011/02/grading-politifact-mitt-romney-and.html

Doubtless you have proof positive that I avoid the specific arguments brought by PolitiFact's expert testimony.


You can't speak as an expert as to what constitutes an apology, because you have not presented yourself as an expert with reasonable qualifications to make that assertion.
So if I present myself as an expert with reasonable qualifications then I can speak as an expert as to what constitutes an apology?

Seriously, are you napping when you read the testimony of those experts?

"He said Obama is using conciliatory language for diplomatic purposes, not apologizing."

That's quite the argument. It's in keeping with his pattern for the embassy statement. An apology can be "conciliatory language for diplomatic purposes" so the explanation explains nothing. It like he's telling you it's not a Mustang, it's a Ford. He's not telling you why it's not a Mustang at all. There's no argument to address.

"(Bloom) said Obama's words fall short of an apology, mostly because he didn't use the words "sorry" or "regret." "I think to make an effective apology, the words 'I'm sorry' or 'we're sorry' always have to be there," Bloom said."

Silly? Of course. Did Obama give an ineffective apology for lack of the term "sorry"? No worries. PolitiFact tells you that Bloom says it's not an apology and you can trust PolitiFact even without the evidence of Bloom's actual words. PolitiFact never flubs a paraphrase (?).

"To say the United States will not torture is not an apology, it is a statement of intent," Howard-Hassman (sic) said. "A complete apology has to acknowledge something was wrong, accept responsibility, express sorrow or regret and promise not to repeat it."

But Obama in his Cairo speech didn't merely say that "the United States will not torture." Here's the statement with more context (bold emphasis added):
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
We have an acknowledgment that something was wrong, implicit sorrow/regret (reflected in the change of course) and the promise not to repeat it. But she says it's not an apology.

This is the closest thing you have presented to evidence, and it can be rejected at face value.
Sure, if we don't mind the fallacy of the hasty conclusion.

Are you more or less of an expert than me?
I'm probably a better researcher than you are. And I can properly recognize character assassination when I see it.

And why have you not presented arguments pertaining to the specific cases that Politifact brought into question?
I did that back in February of 2011. As I've already explained (not that you'd notice), the criteria of the three experts are the important thing. And there's not much there. They effectively leave you to trust entirely in their credentials. But Gardiner has the best credentials (most applicable) in the bunch. Do you reject his testimony because of his bias?

And the very next line shows why you are incorrect. Accepting responsibility and admitting wrongdoing are different concepts, and neither constitutes an apology on its own.
Wow! You're the expert!

The list showed different styles of apologizing. You're correct that accepting responsibility and admitting wrongdoing are different. But they're related in that both constitute forms of apology. Lackoff is as qualified to speak to the issue as any of three PolitiFact interviewed.

And here's another one:
Complex speech acts like apologies actually consist of a set of routinized patterns or strategies typically used by native speakers of the language. There are five possible strategies for making an apology (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981. pp. 119-125).
(...) (B)
Acknowledgement of responsibility. The offender recognizes his/her fault in causing the infraction. The degree of such recognition on the part of the apologizer can be placed on a scale. The highest level of intensity is an acceptance of the blame: "It's my fault." At a somewhat lower level would be an expression of self-deficiency: "I was confused/I didn't see/You are right." At a still lower level would be the expression of lack of intent: "I didn't mean to." Lower still would be an implicit expression of responsibility: "I was sure I had given you the right directions." Finally, the apologizer may not accept the blame at all, in which case there may be a denial of responsibility: "It wasn't my fault," or even blaming of the hearer: "It's your own fault."
So no more mangling Lackoff with your wild interpretation, okay?

Here's one from somebody who wrote a book on apologies (makes one an expert, I hear):
Three implicit or explicit apologies, occurring between the end of World War II and 1990, are particularly noteworthy because of their breadth and precedent-setting impact. All three apologies are in some way the result of World War II. The first of these apologies was Pope John XXIII&#8217;s decision to eliminate all negative comments about Jews from the Roman Catholic liturgy.
An apology just by removing critical references? Why, that's crazy! You have to say "sorry" for an effective apology, don't you?


Present evidence pertaining to the specific cases that Politifact analyzes. Meet the basic requirements for a de facto assertion. Stop rhetorical attacks.
Let's just see how much evidence you're willing to ignore.
 
Last edited:

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,345
278
126
Am I wrong in saying, this whole argument is based on one guy being butthurt that Nile Gardiner didn't get included in one article; therefore, all work done at the place is completely biased?

Sounds like poisoning the well. (Not so well I may add)

Edit: So basically if we have a thread like this one about Romney Tax policy, it will turn into pages and pages of crap about the apology article?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY