QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Who wants to deal with the reasoning? Anybody?
You must be new here.
Who wants to deal with the reasoning? Anybody?
We're doing serious work.
Haha, nope. It was just a bit of deductive reasoning based on the tone, length, and content of your post. I hadn't clicked on your site yet. Since you replied, I have, and I see your poster name on the right column. Suspicion confirmed. I'll make my way to the FAQ page soon, as I'm typing this while simultaneously eating lunch.
If you have a problem with that, it's your problem.
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.
No, it's your problem.
Let's see if your analysis maintains your own standards.
In your site's study Ben Shapiro: "Politifact Cites Three Liberal 'Apology Experts' to Condemn Romney" you argue that politifact is hiding some of the opinions of experts about the nature of apology.
There's no assumption. It's solid reasoning and it looked like this:In particular, you assert that politifact didn't include the opinion of Nile Gardner. You present no evidence whatsoever that politifact tried to contact Nile Gardner, you just assume that he was the expert that did not respond.
Follow the link and it's obvious Gardiner is the missing expert.To explore whether the statement represented an apology, we sent it to the four experts we interviewed for our previous fact-check on Romney's claim about Obama's apology tour. Here are the comments of the three who responded:
Disregarding your baseless claim that my claim was baseless, we have the same dynamic at issue with the pre-existing conditions claim. It was one of the authors of the study Obama was apparently citing who claimed it could technically support Obama's claim. Other experts, PolitiFact said, disagreed. It's an extraordinarily close parallel.Disregarding your baseless claim, what was Gardiner's actual opinion on the politifact fact check? Well I'd expect him to oppose politifact's ruling considering that HE WROTE THE ARTICLE THAT POLITIFACT REFUTED!
PolitiFact didn't really give an argument. Instead, it simply offered three experts who said it wasn't an apology but rather a condemnation. By showing that a condemnation can have the effect of an apology, I executed what in logic is known as a reductio ad absurdum. I showed that the reasoning of the three experts, as far as we have it, is not logical (maybe the embassy statement was a condemnation, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also an apology). In reality, of course, the experts present no real reasoning in support of claiming that there was no apology. You're just supposed to take their word for it because they're like experts and stuff. And their support for liberal causes does nothing at all to color their expert opinions. Clear?Your article does not even refute one of the arguments made by politifact, but instead tries to muddy the water between condemnation and apology by giving an example where someone can both apologize and condemn an action.
I'm pretty sure I covered this already.Does that mean that there is an implicit apology contained in every condemnation?
Right, but the issue here is whether the embassy statement was an apology. If the statement was intended to help smooth things over with the population of the country in which the embassy was located then the statement operates exactly like an apology. Do you think they were trying to smooth things over by condemning the film critical of Mohammed?(A) country does not have any kind of responsibility to support and endorse every action of its citizens. We elect the people who decide what the rules of our nation are and what our foreign policy should be.
Incorrect. I showed via logic that you have no (logical) reason to accept the opinions of the three experts PolitiFact cited. I showed the existence of an expert with an opinion opposite the ones PolitiFact cited (and PF somehow forgot to mention that oops sorry and all that). And I've just gone over with you how PolitiFact doesn't really have an argument supporting its position while also showing you a solid argument why a condemning statement can fill the role of an apology. That reasoning addresses the implicit argument (the only one we've got) from PolitiFact's three liberal experts.Your article is missing any actual facts to refute the arguments politifact made,
1) What sources do I need other than the ones I cited? If I don't need more sources then your objection is pointless.it's only source is of one of the authors of the article that was refuted, and you did not actually prove that Obama apologized for any of America's actions. Those are the facts and the evidence. Your articles don't measure up.
The difference is, I can verify for myself that the sky is blue without having to rely on historically grossly biased, unreliable sources.
But not PolitiFact. They're neutral. Ignore the cutout of President Obama in Bill Adair's office. The Koch brothers probably planted it there in order to undermine your trust in glorious non-partisan Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.OTOH, the political and social agendas the authors published such sites are critically important to understanding their intentions and evaluating the veracity of their words.
Read the flippin' FAQ.Tell us -- Are you getting any support from organizations funded by the Koch brothers, Karl Rove or Sheldon Adelson? :\
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?I decline it. You're stuck with it... along with the ridiculous track of your arguments, both here and on your lame site, and the lying losers you're pimping for public office.
Who is "we" exactly?
I don't have my degrees posted, and I don't do that for any of my current online projects because degrees aren't relevant. Content always ought to trump qualifications. People who can't deal with the content have a tendency to dismiss it based on a perceived lack of qualifications. Often anything will do, and the Nile Gardiner example serves as a fine example. Gardiner was the only apology expert among those cited who specialized in international relations. So naturally we need to dismiss his expert opinion since he writes for the Heritage Foundation.There is precious little on your blog and searching around reveals very little information except for a few lengthy critiques of your "work" from other blogs. In short...nothing useful to establish your qualifications.
We're perceived (pretty reasonably) as a very arrogant nation (USA #1!!! Questioning American exceptionalism kills political careers, etc), so even admitting "Hey, we haven't always been perfect" is a step towards showing some humility. Apologies also serve this function, which doesn't mean admitting imperfection and smoothing things over constitutes an apology.Heh. What's diplomatic about admitting imperfection unless the admission fills the customary role of an apology (smoothing things over)? Would admitting imperfection prove diplomatic, for example, if one declared "Yeah, we bombed your embassy by mistake. So what? Get over it." See the point? Admitting imperfection strongly tends to convey regret implicitly. Compare: "We bombed your embassy by mistake." The latter, if intended to help smooth things over with the offended party, is an apology.
"Rainsford" is giving inaccurate information.
PolitiFact Bias highlights the best criticisms of PolitiFact from both the right and the left. We find better criticism from the right, though we're not shy about pointing out problems with those criticisms regardless of the source or the target.
Despite criticizing both sides (just like PolitiFact does), we get criticized for our bias. That's understandable to a point. We admit our bias up front. It's right in the FAQ. People are entitled to take it into account, hopefully not in a way that blinds them to the good information we're providing. But there's a contrast with PolitiFact on this point. Everyone is biased. But PolitiFact doesn't tell you about its bias, unless we count the evidence in the finished product.
PolitiFact editor Bill Adair doesn't reveal his voting record because he doesn't want you to get the supposedly false impression that he's biased. If that's the kind of honesty you want, then PolitiFact is the place to get it. And you can just ignore things like the cardboard cutout of President Obama that stands behind Adair as he works in his Washington D.C. office.
No I'm not kidding.
Please do us the favor of reading our FAQ or a representative selection of posts from the site itself before jumping to conclusions and posting bad information about us. Thanks.
You need citations from experts that prove Obama apologized for US actions in order to refute the politifact article."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."
(E)ven admitting "Hey, we haven't always been perfect" is a step towards showing some humility.
If admitting error has the same effect as an apology then why would it be ridiculously false (as PolitiFact ruled) to consider the admission of error an apology? I don't follow your reasoning.Apologies also serve this function, which doesn't mean admitting imperfection and smoothing things over constitutes an apology.
Well, it actually does fit the definition of an apology, which is an expression of regret. When Homer admits he was wrong it implicitly communicates that he regrets his action.It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer forgets to pick up Bart from soccer practice, then says, "I know you're mad, and I'm kind of mad too. We could go on debating who forgot to pick up who all day, but let's just say we both were wrong and that's that." It's admitting failure, but it sure as heck isn't an apology.
Great, then by analogy you can confirm what Shapiro wrote, that PolitiFact relied on three liberal experts who really had no reasonable support for their conclusions. You don't need to rely on Shapiro. You don't need to rely on me. You can see it for yourself.
I'll give you some time to complete your review.
Done? Great! It's pretty obvious that PolitiFact relied on three experts who used spurious reasoning, isn't it?
But not PolitiFact. They're neutral. Ignore the cutout of President Obama in Bill Adair's office. The Koch brothers probably planted it there in order to undermine your trust in glorious non-partisan Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.
Read the flippin' FAQ.
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?
"Rainsford" is giving inaccurate information.
PolitiFact Bias highlights the best criticisms of PolitiFact from both the right and the left. We find better criticism from the right, though we're not shy about pointing out problems with those criticisms regardless of the source or the target.
Despite criticizing both sides (just like PolitiFact does), we get criticized for our bias. That's understandable to a point. We admit our bias up front. It's right in the FAQ. People are entitled to take it into account, hopefully not in a way that blinds them to the good information we're providing. But there's a contrast with PolitiFact on this point. Everyone is biased. But PolitiFact doesn't tell you about its bias, unless we count the evidence in the finished product.
PolitiFact editor Bill Adair doesn't reveal his voting record because he doesn't want you to get the supposedly false impression that he's biased. If that's the kind of honesty you want, then PolitiFact is the place to get it. And you can just ignore things like the cardboard cutout of President Obama that stands behind Adair as he works in his Washington D.C. office.
No I'm not kidding.
Please do us the favor of reading our FAQ or a representative selection of posts from the site itself before jumping to conclusions and posting bad information about us. Thanks.
Read the flippin' FAQ.
I don't have my degrees posted, and I don't do that for any of my current online projects because degrees aren't relevant. Content always ought to trump qualifications. People who can't deal with the content have a tendency to dismiss it based on a perceived lack of qualifications. Often anything will do, and the Nile Gardiner example serves as a fine example. Gardiner was the only apology expert among those cited who specialized in international relations. So naturally we need to dismiss his expert opinion since he writes for the Heritage Foundation.
Perfect.
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?
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....
Serious work??? Seriously??? Buahahahahahaha!!!
< cough > Fap! fap, fap!
I was thinking of you when I wrote the title song for this movie...
Seriously (if anything about your site can be taken that way), you can't be serious. :biggrin:
The long history of the beliefs expressed by the vast majority opinions on breitbart and the Heritage Foundation are anything but unrelated to the idea of influencing the outcome of the coming elections. I could do a search for specific articles by a long list of authors appearing on both sites, but it's easier just to remind everyone that, just prior to his death, Andrew Breitbart was most recently seen as the unhinged, fulminating maniac starring in videos pimping the specious charges against ACORN and Shirley Sherrod Brown.
Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation sports the voices of neocon traitors from from Bush era and their Fox Noise cheerleaders who pimped wars, wars and more wars based on lies.
How'd those WMD's in Iraq work out for ya?
Didn't ya just luv the torture? :hmm:
Those same morons pimped Bush's deregulation of the Wall Street robber barons and the oil industry. Maybe you think we haven't had enough good financial collapses or environmental disasters for one decade. :\
Now, they're pimping the disastrous Ryan/Romney budget, but they refuse to put forth any concrete descriptions of what they would actually do or where the funds would come from to cover the revenue lost by continued and further tax cuts for the uber-rich. :thumbsdown:
Referring the sources of the statements and underlying goals of those who offer their opinions on Breitbart's and the Heritage Foundation's sites is hardly ann ad hominem attack. It's just full disclosure of who these people are and what their agenda is.
If you have a problem with that, it's your problem.
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 You need citations from experts that prove Obama apologized for US actions in order to refute the politifact article.
Right, but somebody on this board chose to make false statements about the site I helped create. I think I have a reasonable right to respond to such statements.Second, your argument that the libyan embassy's statement was an apology isn't even topical to the debate about the article.
The point of the story was clear despite the lack of a specific statement. I can make a post and say it's about you and then quote a bunch of disparaging remarks from others and it would be clear my point was to disparage you.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.
Thanks! I'm honored to have your permission communicated at such length.2. By your own argument, there were good reasons for the embassy to release their statement, to defuse anger at the United States. If you want to debate the merits of their statement, and whether it was an apology for our government's action or a condemnation of the movie that was released attacking the Islamic prophet, go right ahead.
Your argument is self-defeating unless you link to unbiased sources to back up your own biased opinion.Finally, your article cannot be used to measure anything but your own opinion because it consists mainly of your own biased opinion and links to biased and unreliable sources, as was shown above in this thread.
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?If you want to refute politifact's article, refute each claim made and use evidence to support your claims. Don't generalize, don't try to cloud the water. Then there could be an actual argument about whether politifact is correct, based on the evidence.
I wonder when the Repubs will realize that selling the same steaming turd in layer after layer of pretty wrapping paper and frilly ribbon can't work too much longer as the stench will eventually seep through the tiniest cracks and crevices faster than they can rewrap it.