Sure. But it also occurs to me that to know for sure we'd have to do accurate and objective fact checking on a randomized sample of statements categorized appropriately according to the ideology reflected in the statement.Has it occurred to you, that perhaps Conservatives are getting caught more often than Liberals simply because Conservatives are committing more infractions?
It, however, is not in itself evidence of Bias.Sure. But it also occurs to me that to know for sure we'd have to do accurate and objective fact checking on a randomized sample of statements categorized appropriately according to the ideology reflected in the statement.
Some people apparently think that the numbers from PolitiFact or the WaPo fact checker serve as appropriate evidence that conservatives are committing more infractions. But that's far short of a scientific measure because of selection bias and bias in the reporting/grading. It's not a good evidence.
It can serve as a pretty good measurement of the fact checkers' selection bias, though. Though that kind of depends on whether the fact checkers tell the truth about their criteria for choosing stories (and whether they apply the criteria consistently).
Yes, you're wrong. But (on the plus side) imaginative.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?
No, it's not poisoning the well. It's great to see that this discussion board is just as enthusiastic about playing "Wheel-O-Fallacy" as are so many others.Sounds like poisoning the well. (Not so well I may add)
Why don't you try it and see?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?
It's a better evidence of ideological bias than, say, concluding that my arguments should be dismissed because I link to sites like Breitbart.com.It, however, is not in itself evidence of Bias.
Even more, they have repeatedly been shown to be blatantly, willfully dishonest, fabricating stories to meet their agenda. In my book, this makes them a presumed source of fiction, not fact. Nothing they say can be accepted as accurate without additional independent corroboration ... which makes them as useless for legitimate fact checking as the National Enquirer.Breitbart is biased as all hell.
I don't think your analysis of Lackoff is correct. He does not say that acknowledgement in and of itself constitutes an apology.(These are arguments worth considering. Try to do more of this )
"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.
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."
Get the fuck out of my face with your little "play."Do you really think that we should reject any possibility of compromise, or our own imperfect reasoning?
I personally don't think that stance, as has been demonstrated by congress, really does us any good.
Reaching the conclusion that you are illogical and biased and thus an untrustworthy source based on the evidence presented by your skewed reasoning is not jumping to said conclusion.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.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/16/conservative-bloggers-salute-culture-warrior-andrew-breitbart-at-rightonline/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?
Let's pull up one of their articles:“Andrew taught us that we could use social media effectively for our cause,” Phillips told a crowd of several hundred conservative bloggers and activists gathered inside the Venetian Hotel on Friday night.
“Oh, did the liberals hate him for it,” Phillips said, “But that’s OK because we loved him and still love him.”
Shall I break down the forced conclusions and wild insinuations above, or can you handle that much on your own now that I've pointed them out?The Obama administration this morning sent out Ambassador Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, to flack for(1) the administration’s utterly feckless(2) Middle Eastern foreign policy. Her task was difficult(3): she somehow(4) had to spin(5) the administration’s cowardly(7) foreign policy, resulting(8) in a maelstrom of violent Islamist action around the world, as a result of something not Obama-related(9).
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.
I join you in condemning that view. We (PFB) recently downplayed evidence that some PolitiFact writers and editors have a history of voting for Democrats. That's fine as a reminder that all individuals possess certain biases, but it isn't a sufficient reason to dismiss the content they produce.having a liberal bias has been used as a reason to dismiss just about every argument and position across the political spectrum that isn't agreement with conservatism.
I'm not in the habit of succumbing to the "fallacy fallacy," as it's called. I'm eager to know where my vigilance failed, if in fact it did (example?).(though I do not appreciate your consistent rhetorical fallacy attacks. A mistaken or fallacious argument is not inherently untrue unless it is being used to advance an idea maliciously, in my opinion).
Well, yeah. ;-)I'm going to give your site another chance. I might not always agree with you, but it was worth talking to you. Please remember to refute the actual claims, and use evidence, as those are the two things I feel will convince people that you have a point.
She defines a "true apology" thus: "a statement acknowledging wrongdoing, to the person hurt by it."I don't think your analysis of Lackoff is correct. He does not say that acknowledgement in and of itself constitutes an apology.
If you're correct then it should be an easy matter to provide an example of my illogic. I eagerly look forward to it. I think we can dispense with the rest of what you wrote until you present your example.Reaching the conclusion that you are illogical and biased and thus an untrustworthy source based on the evidence presented by your skewed reasoning is not jumping to said conclusion.
You want the information you provide to be judged based on its accuracy and not on its source, while you want Politifact's articles to be judged based on its sources without even considering the accuracy of its information.If you're correct then it should be an easy matter to provide an example of my illogic. I eagerly look forward to it. I think we can dispense with the rest of what you wrote until you present your example.
Correct ...You want the information you provide to be judged based on its accuracy and not on its source,
Huh? Where did I write anything like that? Ever?while you want Politifact's articles to be judged based on its sources without even considering the accuracy of its information.
I don't only care about their accuracy. A fact check can end up correct for the wrong reasons. Fact checking should be done right, and that includes looking for balance in the sources used.The methods at which they arrive at their conclusions are irrelevant if you ONLY care about the accuracy.
That is all I've been doing. So this is another example.If you're correct then it should be an easy matter to provide an example of my illogic. I eagerly look forward to it. I think we can dispense with the rest of what you wrote until you present your example.
But you are still only relying on your opinion. As is politifact relies on opinions of experts (take it or leave it, you don't have to like it)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.
Welcome to politics, where republicans claim that "libs" exist in US politics and are to blame for everything, despite only one liberal senator and a moderate/right Democratic party!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...
Let me get this straight, you use crowdsourcing when it agree with your opinion, but in general don't like it. Sounds like.. selection bias.It's not working. A new operation called "AllSides" rates news sources on a bipartisan crowd-sourced basis and located PolitiFact well on the left. Not that I'm a huge fan of crowdsourcing.
They created a bad system, can't seem to apply their standards consistently and have chronic problems with selection bias.
Your response begs the question as to whether you have presented any legitimate example. Choose your best and c&p it into your response, please. Otherwise it looks like you're deflecting and feigning blindness (make that feigning wearing a fabulous set of new clothes).That is all I've been doing. So this is another example.
Yeah, thanks.Deflect, deflect, feign blindness. Wow, that's some hard-hitting examination you have there. Really deep. You've really got one up on me there, son.
You are so close to understanding reality, yet so far away. Give it time...as you age you will gain wisdom. As you gain wisdom, you will stop being a liberal. Those who age but stay liberals simply failed to gain wisdom as they aged...or are like those in Congress who remain liberals because they get rich off the schmucks who believe their lies. It is simply how reality works.Welcome to politics, where republicans claim that "libs" exist in US politics and are to blame for everything, despite only one liberal senator and a moderate/right Democratic party!
The republican model is that if you repeat a lie enough times, it magically becomes true. Disagree with the now super fringe GOP? You are automatically "liberal" and therefore, wrong!