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’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.
Facebook
Twitter