No. of Recommendations: 2
Democrats need to make it worse...or pretend to...

https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1097020092791934...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The diff is that the press promotes the left's spin
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not according to Lara Logan.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Covington kids were MAGA wearing brats ... that was a headline

Until the truth came out that put them into a good light while showing what there real actions were about... no longer news
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Stupid does have a liberal bias.”

Fixed that for ya. Yer welcome.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why do you change fool names. It wastes people's time who have decided it's not worth discussing things with you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why do you change fool names. It wastes people's time who have decided it's not worth discussing things with you.

So was salaryguru banned? This handle has been around since 2005 and only follows one person...salaryguru. I'm assuming it's a doppel of his as 99% of its activity prior to Feb 14 is...

...rec'ing salaryguru's posts.

LOL@the left claiming no doppel usage. Well, here's another one.


Sat Jul 8
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Political Asylum board. 6:54 PM
Re: We dodged a bullet
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Retirement Investing board. 6:54 PM
Re: New Bill Bernstein Interview
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Political Asylum board. 6:53 PM
Re: Dr. Pence's Pre-Existing Condition Cure
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Political Asylum board. 6:53 PM
Re: Do you wish Hillary was President?
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Retire Early Liberal Edition board. 6:53 PM
Re: I keep wavering
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Political Asylum board. 6:52 PM
Re: Dr. Pence's Pre-Existing Condition Cure
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Retire Early Liberal Edition board. 6:52 PM
Re: I keep wavering
Fri Jul 7
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Political Asylum board. 12:02 PM
Re: Well there is always the "Y"
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Retire Early Liberal Edition board. 12:02 PM
Re: Illiberal Democracy
Recommendation
sgeeeee recommended salaryguru's post on the Retire Early Liberal Edition board.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Stupid does have a liberal bias.

I understand why an uneducated person might think that.

But, as it turns out, Democrats are more educated than Republicans.

Which only proves what I’ve been saying all along:

Facts have a liberal bias.

AW


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-m...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
”Which only proves what I’ve been saying all along:

Facts have a liberal bias.”


I can see where the less educated would believe that but it is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that stupid has a liberal bias.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
”So was salaryguru banned? This handle has been around since 2005 and only follows one person...salaryguru. I'm assuming it's a doppel of his as 99% of its activity prior to Feb 14 is...

...rec'ing salaryguru's posts.

LOL@the left claiming no doppel usage. Well, here's another one.”


Hmm. Verystablegenius aka goofnoff disappeared shortly before this guy showed up too. He is clearly an old hat so my money was on goofnoff. Can we still see VSGs profile? You make a good point but I am sticking with goofy for now. Lurkermom? Thoughts?

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Democrats are more educated than Republicans.
And are also more prone to the appeal-to-authority fallacy.

Facts have a liberal bias.
Facts have no bias. They simply are.
Individuals who claim otherwise all along, well...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not according to psychological testing.
Sigh. It would help if you would learn how to parse a sentence.

Let's go to the tape:
Conservatives also emphasize loyalty and authority>, values helpful for maintaining a stable society.
...(liberals) were willing to betray group loyalty, disrespect authority or do something disgusting, such as eating their own dog after it dies, for cash. Conservatives said they were less willing to compromise on any of the moral categories.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-pol...

Which is to say that conservatives are more likely to respect authority and cultural norms while liberals are more likely to shake their fist in moral indignation.
It says nothing about how they frame their arguments.

Let's consider climate change. Liberals love to cite the "97% of scientists agree"* argument, which is nothing more than social proof.
Tell me, what is the equilibrium sensitivity for CO2? IPCC says it is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, but the University of Oslo concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2013/03/30/...

Liberals can't have reasonable discussions about this. Instead they push arguments about how "all the experts" know and we have to do something now. Post-normal science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

Try to suggest that thus far global warming has been a boon to Mankind. Oh, that's fun. But it's true. The last great weather-related European famine occurred 1866-1868.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_famine_of_1866%E2%80%9...
Want people to go back to eating tree bark to survive? Not so much.


So, ymmv and all that, but I stand by my statement.


-------
In fact, I am part of that 97% - the planet is clearly warmer now than it was 300 years ago.*
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
And are also more prone to the appeal-to-authority fallacy.

I take it you haven't changed your opinion that all appeals to authority are fallacious. That's wrong. An appeal to authority CAN be a fallacy, but by no means always.

An appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is an expert in the relevant field. The reason is pretty obvious: an expert's opinion is a proxy summary of all the relevant evidence available.

Fallacious appeal to authority: Sean Hannity says climate change is a hoax.

Non-fallacious appeal to authority: 97% of climate scientist have concluded that the earth is warming as the result of greenhouse gases produced by man.

Here's one of many explanations available:

"This argumentative technique is correct when appealing to an expert in the field that you are arguing about; for example, when speaking about ones mental illness, appealing to a psychiatrist would be logically correct and not fallacious, and when speaking about ones teeth, appealing to an orthodontist is also not fallacious.

...When one appeals to authority, but the subject that they are speaking to is outside of that authorities field of expertise, it is fallacious. An experts opinion is only to be appealed to in the field that they are an expert in;..."


http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
without a shred of data or evidence to support it.
Your request for an authority figure that agrees with my statement pretty much proves my point.
Thanks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I can see where the less educated would believe that but it is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that stupid has a liberal bias. -vile

You don't know anyone with two brain cells to rub together, do you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I take it you haven't changed your opinion that all appeals to authority are fallacious.
Nope.

An appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is an expert in the relevant field.
LOL.
It is a fallacy if that is your ONLY justification. Experts can inform, but they are not of themselves actual proof.

Non-fallacious appeal to authority: 97% of climate scientist have concluded that the earth is warming as the result of greenhouse gases produced by man. <?i>
First, that statement is untrue. 97% agree the Earth warming, but the extent of that warming and the extent of human impact are significantly debated.
Second, even if the statement were entirely true it is a social proof. Social proofs are fallacious. Appeal-to-authority is a flavor of social proof.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But, after all, your method of simply stating what you would like to believe without anything to back it up is a pretty strong argument . . . that you should not be taken seriously.
An interesting statement from someone who didn't even understand their own article.
But at least you actually tried to present evidence this time. I suppose that's progress. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
”You don't know anyone with two brain cells to rub together, do you?”

Ty=tying to find out what someone like that looks like?

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Apologies for the double post.
Format correction.

I take it you haven't changed your opinion that all appeals to authority are fallacious.
Nope.

An appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority is an expert in the relevant field.
LOL.
It is a fallacy if that is your ONLY justification. Experts can inform, but they are not of themselves actual proof.

Non-fallacious appeal to authority: 97% of climate scientist have concluded that the earth is warming as the result of greenhouse gases produced by man.
First, that statement is untrue. 97% agree the Earth is warming, but the extent of that warming and the extent of human impact are significantly debated.
Second, even if the statement were entirely true it is a social proof. Social proofs are fallacious. Appeal-to-authority is a flavor of social proof.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
”You don't know anyone with two brain cells to rub together, do you?”

Ty=tying to find out what someone like that looks like? -vile

LOL. I can't...I just can't. Just going to let this one go. Too funny...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you bother to read Wayne's linked book excerpt, you should be able to correct your misunderstandings about 'appeal to authority' arguments.
Do you understand that this is itself an appeal-to-authority? And therefore fallacious?

You use a passive-aggressive attack on me based on lies that do not apply to me.
This is an untrue statement.
I demonstrated that you did not understand your article. I later used that fact in response to your personal attack.

You should really invest in a mirror.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. It isn't. You clearly do not understand the concept.
Heh.
The logic is circular. Please explain how that is anything other than fallacious.

Appeal to data collected by authorities is not "appeal to authorities".
True, but that's not what is happening.
If you were to appeal to the data, then you would have an explanation as to why IPCC says equilibrium sensitivity for CO2 is likely (meaning "above 66%") to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C while University of Oslo concludes there is a 90% probability* it is only 1.2-2.9°C.

But gee, that doesn't happen. It turns out that I'm the only one appealing to data. Why is that?

I'm sure if you bothered to read and study up a bit, you could learn the difference. But you have to want to.
And of course, the de rigor personal insult.
Again, TMF finds that some animals are more equal than others re: civility.


---
*I mean, a 90% probability that IPCC is overstating... that's kinda significant. Seems like that would get brought up occasionally. Huh.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Now you are trying to change the entire subject of this thread.
Nope. I'm responding directly to your comments.
Notice how I have your statement and my response? That's called "dialogue".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
LOL.
It is a fallacy if that is your ONLY justification. Experts can inform, but they are not of themselves actual proof.


A fallacy is an error in thinking. It is not an error in thinking to accept expert opinion because that opinion is based on objective, scientific evidence. I provided multiple links here and in the previous thread which completely refute your ludicrous claim. Provide a link to a reputable source on critical thinking that supports your position.

No one is claiming that the conclusions themselves are evidence. But the conclusions are based on evidence, and more importantly, they are drawn by people trained to evaluate that evidence. Therefore, when you accept the conclusion of an expert, that acceptance is based on evidence which is being transmitted through the expert's evaluation.

The idea that accepting the conclusions of science is relying on "social proof" is one of the more laughably stupid claims I've seen in a while.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
”And, no, my logic isn't circular. And, yes, you are wrong about what "appeal to authority" means.”

Well, there you go Wu, the resident PA genius said you are wrong on his authority alone so you must be wrong. May as well pack your schtuff up and go home.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you except what Wu claims about 'appeal to authority', then almost all reason is 'appeal to authority'.

Scientific consensus represents the current best knowledge we have of any topic. Accepting that consensus is what rational people do. The idea that each person should conduct his own evaluation of evidence in a field for which he has no expertise is ridiculous.
Print the post Back To Top