Trump explained - because you all are blind

[metatron]

Thanks for the illustration buddy. Lord knows I appreciate that

Oh, jebus. Come on.
You really want to base all politics on a foundation of truthyness and factyness, with these things being determined by a daily newspaper in Tampa?
You really can't see how that is obviously ridiculous and cannot possibly elicit any degree of respect or circumspection from our opposition?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh, jebus. Come on.
You really want to base all politics on a foundation of truthyness and factyness, with these things being determined by a daily newspaper in Tampa?
You really can't see how that is obviously ridiculous and cannot possibly elicit any degree of respect or circumspection from our opposition?

I'm really reacting to an overreaction.

Since maybe you didn't bother reading on: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ou-all-are-blind.615832/page-20#post-14859395

But I still do appreciate the illustration

(tip: if you would be less strawmanny shrill over the top "You really want to base all politics on a foundation of truthyness and factyness" to a post that was sparked by the words "pants on fire", I might take any of your objections seriously. Until then ...)

 

[metatron]

Well, it's a naked appeal to authority and a bad authority at that.
There's little to strawman about that.
You also didn't indicate in any way that you disagree with the premise (Obama having "lied" abouth them 25/whatever things).
So i'm gonna take some latitude responding to that.
You're wellcome.

 

[Zkribbler]

Erm... yes?
Politifact is a liberal biased partisan organisation.

Yes, but "Facts have a well known liberal bias."
Yours was certainly an impassioned temper tantrum. But do you have any facts to support your conclusions?

Here is Politifact's latest post. It analyzes Joy Behar's assertion where she ...: Says PolitiFact reported that "95 percent of what (Donald Trump) says is a lie." PolitiFact rates this statement as "False." What part of PolitiFact's analysis do you find based or false? http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...har-politifact-said-trump-lies-95-percent-ti/

If you think my question is unfair, then here's a link to Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/ Choose ANY of the thousands of posts and USING FACTS demonstrate why it is false or biased.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, it's a naked appeal to authority and a bad authority at that.

It's a play on the words "pants on fire"

There's little to strawman about that.

Perhaps, the strawman however was the part I quoted again, where I base all my politics on the results of politifact.

You also didn't indicate in any way that you disagree with the premise (Obama having "lied" abouth them 25/whatever things).

I never even watched the clip. I'm sure Obama lied about a number of things.

You're welcome.

Pip pip!

 

[metatron]

If you think my question is unfair, then here's a link to Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/ Choose ANY of the thousands of posts and USING FACTS demonstrate why it is false or biased.

I'm arguing that they are biased and not that terribly competent.
So i can hardly point out one rating and say it was outrageously off; i'd rather have to go through hundreds of them and argue whether the middle-ish category is correct or i'd have rather picked a neighboring middle-ish category etc.
This is often incidental to "bias". If they did what you want me to prove to you they wouldn't be biased, but liars.
I have to admit that there is some erosion of terms at work here, since clearly willfully lying for propaganda's sake is often euphemistically called "bias" (e.g. Fox News).

 

[Zkribbler]

"When I use the word 'biased'," said Humpty Dumpty, "it means exactly what I wish it to mean, no more, no less."

You'll excuse me if I'm not bowled over by your argument.

 

[metatron]

"When I use the word 'biased'," said Humpty Dumpty, "it means exactly what I wish it to mean, no more, no less."

You'll excuse me if I'm not bowled over by your argument.

Well, if you thought "biased" means to diametrically misrepresent things, that's not exactly my problem.

 

[metalhead]

I'm arguing that they are biased and not that terribly competent.
So i can hardly point out one rating and say it was outrageously off; i'd rather have to go through hundreds of them and argue whether the middle-ish category is correct or i'd have rather picked a neighboring middle-ish category etc.
This is often incidental to "bias". If they did what you want me to prove to you they wouldn't be biased, but liars.
I have to admit that there is some erosion of terms at work here, since clearly willfully lying for propaganda's sake is often euphemistically called "bias" (e.g. Fox News).

No you aren't. You are stating that, repeatedly and hysterically, but I have yet to see an actual argument on that point.

I don't agree with some of their ratings. But wholesale discounting their work because they have biases is a patently absurd argument. Every human being has biases that affects every aspect of how they think and express themselves. It's not a reason to discount anyone's work.

Of course, when charged with actually lifting a finger to go and find where their bias is overwhelming, to the point it might actually be a sound basis to discount their work, you balk. Because you want to be able to chuck grenades at them from the sides but probably realize, like many before you have, that if you actually tried to make a reasoned case against them, you'd fail miserably. Ditto with competence. These are just things you are saying, probably without having ever even bothered to read their reporting at length. Sad!

 

[metatron]

No you aren't. You are stating that, repeatedly and hysterically,

Nope.
I rate this statement "pants on fire".

I don't agree with some of their ratings. But wholesale discounting their work because they have biases is a patently absurd argument. Every human being has biases that affects every aspect of how they think and express themselves. It's not a reason to discount anyone's work.

Yeah, that's fine.
And i actually rather often deem the analysis they write good work.
The ratings though are a dubious mess.
This becomes more problematic when these ratings are condensed into statistic such as the ones employed by Ziggy.

Of course, when charged with actually lifting a finger to go and find where their bias is overwhelming, to the point it might actually be a sound basis to discount their work, you balk. Because you want to be able to chuck grenades at them from the sides but probably realize, like many before you have, that if you actually tried to make a reasoned case against them, you'd fail miserably. Ditto with competence. These are just things you are saying, probably without having ever even bothered to read their reporting at length. Sad!

*ringring*
*ringring*

You should pick that up.
It's Kansas.

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, that's fine.
And i actually rather often deem the analysis they write good work.
The ratings though are a dubious mess.
This becomes more problematic when these ratings are condensed into statistic such as the ones employed by Ziggy.

No it doesn't. Your logic here is faulty. If the error in a given rating is random, then aggregating the statistics helps to remove the error. Looking at 5 statements could give you a distorted picture, but looking at 50 or better yet 500 statements will give a you a pretty accurate picture.

Now of course, if the error is not random, that is a different story. But that is where deeper analysis is needed. You can't just say, "Oh Politifact is biased and their ratings are garbage!" If the bias has a noticeable impact on their ratings in one direction, than that would be demonstrable and you would be able to show us a case, backed by evidence, that backs up your assertion. If they are writing solid and thorough analyses, as you concede they are, then chances are they assign error in an honest way - i.e., in a way that attempts to be fair to the person whose statements they rate. Making it likely that your disagreement with their ratings is merely that, well, you disagree with them sometimes.

But that in no way invalidates their use as at the very least, a blunt tool with which to assess who tends to say more factual things.

 

[metatron]

No it doesn't. Your logic here is faulty. If the error in a given rating is random, then aggregating the statistics helps to remove the error. Looking at 5 statements could give you a distorted picture, but looking at 50 or better yet 500 statements will give a you a pretty accurate picture.

Now of course, if the error is not random, that is a different story. But that is where deeper analysis is needed. You can't just say, "Oh Politifact is biased and their ratings are garbage!" If the bias has a noticeable impact on their ratings in one direction, than that would be demonstrable and you would be able to show us a case, backed by evidence, that backs up your assertion. If they are writing solid and thorough analyses, as you concede they are, then chances are they assign error in an honest way - i.e., in a way that attempts to be fair to the person whose statements they rate. Making it likely that your disagreement with their ratings is merely that, well, you disagree with them sometimes.

But that in no way invalidates their use as at the very least, a blunt tool with which to assess who tends to say more factual things.

Yeah, this has increasignly little to do with my claims.
So i trust you can (and likely will) carry on without me.

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, this has increasignly little to do with my claims.
So i trust you can (and likely will) carry on without me.

I don't see how. You claimed Politifact is liberally biased. Either you can show the evidence supporting your conclusion, or you can't. If you can't, then your attacks are quite ridiculous and you should probably rethink them.

 

[metatron]

I don't see how. You claimed Politifact is liberally biased. Either you can show the evidence supporting your conclusion, or you can't. If you can't, then your attacks are quite ridiculous and you should probably rethink them.

This is not what you asserted in your last post.
And there we were already long past a point where i'd owe you anything.

 

[Gori the Grey]

One test case of their general competence might be their follow-up of one of the debates. That format allows each speaker a limited number of assertions, so selectivity on Politfact's part would be less of a problem.

If there we find Trump making way more untrue claims than Hillary, then the principle that he's the bigger liar is probably pretty effectively established.

 

[metatron]

One test case of their general competence might be their follow-up of one of the debates. That format allows each speaker a limited number of assertions, so selectivity on Politfact's part would be less of a problem.

If there we find Trump making way more untrue claims than Hillary, then the principle that he's the bigger liar is probably pretty effectively established.

I don't exactly deem that a good test of my scepticism regarding Politifact (nevermind how much trouble they would have overstating Trump's lying in the debates), but i deem this very useful in doing what Ziggy wanted to do in response to Bernie's post - demonstrate Trump's extraordinary degree of dishonesty. As in we could technically do so ourselves.

 

[metalhead]

This is not what you asserted in your last post.
And there we were already long past a point where i'd owe you anything.

Look, I know you can't be bothered to check if what you believe has any basis in reality. That's fine. But don't act like what is holding you back is the absence of any kind of duty to me. Because that's just silly.

 

[metatron]

Look, I know you can't be bothered to check if what you believe has any basis in reality. That's fine. But don't act like what is holding you back is the absence of any kind of duty to me. Because that's just silly.

*ringring*
*ringring*

You should pick that up.
It's Kansas.

5char

 

[bernie14]

I'm really reacting to an overreaction.....

no, after three pages, you are overreacting to a reaction.....ARRGGHH…. @Ziggy Stardust, explaining things logically is a long, boring and tedious matter…. the point was never meant to be a comparison of who lies more, it was specifically showing obama lying on multiple occasions (same lie on multiple occasions still only counts as one lie though ) about the immigration issue (brought up by @Zkribbler), using of all arguments, "separation of powers"….what does it matter if 90% of what one says may be true but either completely irrelevant or worse, completely contradictory to what one ultimately does?

it's like one guy comes home and tells his wife 10 lies about "the one that got away" while out fishing with his buddies and another guy comes home and tells his wife 10 facts about the weather, traffic and sea conditions….but wasn't out fishing at all

so, you know what you can do with politifact "statistics"? actually, you would have to print them on some sort of paper for them to actually be of some use. It's like digging through horse dung to find out what the horse ate when you have a camera on the horse 24/7 ….. don't be so lazy people, look at the sources, analyze things for yourselves to form your OPINIONS instead of letting the pundits feed you horse dung .

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Says the guy who used a youtube Well, to your credit, you can't print that out.

Thanks for your tips on fact checking buddy!