bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,443
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
-
Features
Trump voters incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face
- Thread starter RavenSky
- Start date
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
laughing dog
Contributor
Yes, it is. The stock market outcome is reported daily. It is readily available to anyone who cares or even pays attention. Once again, you are simply wrong.
Except his points have no empirical merit and rely on the implicit assumption that Trump supporters are either ignorant or plain stupid.
The rounding is irrelevant to the issue. If 42% knew it, then 58% did not. So, do you have an actual point with that?
The OP did not say every single Trump supporter, so your nitpick is wrong. And since the fact is staring them in the face and they could not acknowledge (59% could not), it is rational to conclude that they are incapable of acknowledging the fact.
Objection: There is a tiny percent who don't know what the stock market is so you don't get to simply do 1-x. Your basic logic is sound, though--anyone who doesn't know the stock market went up during Obama's era is seriously out of touch and not able to make an informed vote.
laughing dog
Contributor
If someone does not know what the stock market is then that person cannot know it went up. Which means they are including in the 59% (or 58% depending on one's arithmetic).
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
1. No, the performance of the stock market over Obama's terms (let alone performance vs. inflation) is not reported daily.laughing dog said:
2. It's readily available to anyone who cares. But that's not what "staring them on the face" means, as I already showed conclusively - as if that were necessary.
3. Again, there are plenty of people who do not care whether it went up or down, but it would be irrational to conclude on that basis that those people are incapable of acknowledging facts, even when they're staring them in the face.
a. I already pointed out that he did not need to provide empirical evidence of something that is a known fact - or should be - to any competent English speaker, namely that when people hear the word "unemployed", they do not understand "a person looking for a job and not getting it".laughing dog said:
b. He actually did explain that, when he said:
That should have persuaded you - assuming you hadn't realized that he was right earlier, which you should have.Bomb#20 said:
c. If you wanted empirical evidence - which was not needed, given that you and the others are competent English speakers and have access to dictionaries anyway - you could have easily found it, by looking up the words in a dictionary.
d. While added empirical evidence was unnecessary, I provided plenty (but this is not a problem in B20's posts, since you and the others are competent English speakers and have access to dictionaries anyway ). Again:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unemployment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unemployed
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unemployment?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unemployed
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/unemployed
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unemployed
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=unemployed
Dictionary definitions might not match common usage exactly, but they approach it, since that's the function of a dictionary - to reflect what people ordinarily mean - , rather than coming up with an artificial term, like the technical definition.
Yes, the rounding is relevant. I might as well say: if 57% did not know it, then 43% did.laughing dog said:
The OP did say "Trump voters" in an unqualified manner. If that didn't mean "all Trump voters", what did it mean?laughing dog said:
Most Trump voters?
Normal Trump voters?
Is it in the nature of Trump voters?
Regardless, in any case, as B20 explained, the claim about unemployment provides no good reason to reach any of those conclusions, and as I explained, neither does the other claim.
For example, for the "most" interpretation, even if most of them did not know that the market had risen, it does not support the conclusion that most are incapable acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face (obviously, since that was not a fact staring them in the face; well, it should be obvious anyway), it does not support the conclusion that most Trump supporters do not care about facts - at most, that they probably do not care about that particular fact -, or that they do not know facts - rather, they do not know that particular fact.
In any event, none of this would affect any of B20's point about fact that using unemployment beliefs against Trump supporters in this context was unwarranted, and none of this would change the fact that his posts have been, and continue to be, misrepresented.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Angra Mainyu said:
Hold on there....
The OP isnt the title and the title is qualified by the op content. The meaning of "Trump voters" and whether it's most or whatever is clear upon reading that the op contains percents. None of the percents are 100%. Therefore, to claim it might or definitely mean "all" is to take the title out of context of the op content. It's not that different than taking the title of a book out of context of the book.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
The OP makes the following claims:Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
"Trump voters incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face" (the Title is part of the OP - else, pick your terminology, but it's a claim as well -, and is claimed repeatedly in other posts as well).
"His supporters don't know and don't care about actual facts."
1. The claims in the OP do not contain percentages. The articles it offers as evidence of the unqualified claims does. An unqualified claim suggests either 100% or a normal situation (e.g., "horses have four legs", usually doesn't mean all horses, but it is usually about normal horses), or relative to some standard if that's clear. But in this case, it's obvious the claim is not that 39% of Trump supporters, or such-and-such percent of Trump supporters, are incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it is staring them in the face, don't know and don't care about facts.
2. Even if the claim were limited to the percentages in the articles the OP linked to, the fact would remain that for the reasons B20 has been pointing out, their answer about unemployment does not provide any good reason to believe that those people are failing to acknowledge a fact staring them in the face, or that they do not care about facts.
3. The claim about the stock market would not fare much better. As I have been explaining, if the OP had been about 39% or 39% + 19% of Trump voters (which it wasn't), a conclusion would be that they do not know that particular fact, or that they do not care about it. But that does not provide any good reason to suspect that they do not care about facts in general, or that they do not know facts in general, or that they are incapable of acknowledging facts even when they're staring them in the face.
Strange that Bilbys post didnt get a stronger reception: at least 40% must have guessed and thus guessed wrong. Since the possibility to guess wrong is 50% the totalt amount that guessed must have been 80%. Thus 80% didnt had a clue but answered anyway despite having the possibility to answer "I dont know".
So 80% of them are liers and idiots!
So 80% of them are liers and idiots!
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
Is the out of work steel worker couldn't give a rat's bottom about the stock market because up or down makes no difference to the value of his food stamps. Now Germany on the other hand protects its steel manufacturing and its workers may be encouraged to take an interest in the shares of Thyssenkrupp steel. Will it take an orange baboon to protect the US against the Chinese government's funding of steel below cost price to undercut the US market? Noe one else did.
Elixir
Made in America
You just watch - the baboon will do NOTHING but drive up consumer prices and Corporate profits, while said worker's food stamps will be worth ever less. I stand to benefit greatly from what Don the Con says he's going to do, but we all know that what he says and what he does are two different things.
None of that matters, though - in the new alt-reality, DtC will try to take credit for every benevolent act of god or man, while blaming Obama, Clinton, terrorists or immigrants for all of his own failings - and trumpsucking morons will swallow every bit of it unquestioningly, just as you have accepted his conspiratorial "explanation" for the fact that everybody who knows anything about it says Russia interfered with the US election to get their puppet elected.
laughing dog
Contributor
In the USA, it is reported daily and the comparisons of the changes are reported daily by a wide variety of media.
Just because someone MAY use a different concept does not mean he or she DID use that different concept. It is not a known fact that the average person uses a different concept of unemployment that the official concept. It is not a know fact that the average person is a Trump supporter. So you are repeatedly wrong on all counts.
You could. And it would still mean
1) that most of them do not know it, and
2) you confuse pedantry with cogent analysis.
Does your pedantry never end? It is a generalization.
None of this changes that your defense of Bomb 20's claims have no merit and that Bomb 20's argument is unconvincing for a number of reasons.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
The daily change is reported by a wide variety of media. I did not know that the change over all of Obama's term was also reported daily. If it is, I would ask for a link (a quick Google search was not successful). But in any case, it would have to be searched for thoroughly, it's not remotely staring people in the face (even if it turns out it is reported daily, that would not imply it's staring them in the face of course; many things are reported daily, and many people do not care about them. In fact, no one can pay attention to most of the things reported daily somewhere in the US).laughing dog said:
No, it's not that someone may have a different concept. It's that the usual concept is different, and the official concept is not widely used by the public. There is no good reason to suspect that most people even know what the official concept is.laughing dog said:
No, pointing to the that detail was justified due in reply to the way you were treating me, suggesting I was making a mathematical error or didn't understand English and/or deploying sarcasm, etc., while you ought to have conceded long ago that you were mistaken.laughing dog said:
It's an unwarranted and unjust generalization - though the assessment about 39%, or most, etc., voters not knowning facts, not caring about facts, and being incapable of acknowledging a fact even when it's staring them in the fact would be also unwarranted and unjust, as I have been explaining. A conclusion would be that most do not know that particular fact about the stock market, or that they do not care about it. But that does not provide any good reason to suspect that either all or most or 57% or whatever do not care about facts in general, or that they do not know facts in general, or that they are incapable of acknowledging facts even when they're staring them in the face.laughing dog said:
No, that's not remotely true. His claims were successfully defended by him, even if you will never realize that, and then by me, even if you will never realize that, either.laughing dog said:
laughing dog
Contributor
Pedantry mixed with handwaving.
You are making unsubstantiated claims of fact.
You are now defending your pointless pedantry with even more pointless pedantry.
That is your opinion. Too bad it is neither justified by the data nor reason. -
Meta-irony is not your forte.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I don't think I've seen someone be so pedantic over idioms before. I mean, there are plenty of free websites such as yahoo where you can look up stocks, dow jones industrial average etc. They're readily available. Likewise, stock market performance is reported regularly as discussed. News reports on unemployment as well and everyone ought to know unemployment figures are not literal. If they were then we'd count dead people as unemployed. Trump, meanwhile only counts adults. So he's not literal either! Once you realize unemployment rate is not literal, then you use common sense that there is a technical definition and further it's most important for that definition to be used consistently.
Last edited:
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
laughing dog and Don2,
As usual in on-line debates on political issues (and/or ideological, and/or religious, etc.), you (as it happens more or less often to the vast majority of humans who engage in such debates in my experience, unfortunately) do not and will never realize how mistaken you are, how bad you lost the debates, or that you're treating your opponents unjustly. But you win in the sense you get the last word, at least if you do not introduce new ways of unjust attacks (as opposed to repeating the ones you already did). You managed to outlast me.
As usual in on-line debates on political issues (and/or ideological, and/or religious, etc.), you (as it happens more or less often to the vast majority of humans who engage in such debates in my experience, unfortunately) do not and will never realize how mistaken you are, how bad you lost the debates, or that you're treating your opponents unjustly. But you win in the sense you get the last word, at least if you do not introduce new ways of unjust attacks (as opposed to repeating the ones you already did). You managed to outlast me.
laughing dog
Contributor
That's because truth trumps nonsense in the end.
hurtinbuckaroo
Contributor
Most Trump voters believe he won the popular vote.
Nearly half of Trump voters STILL believe that the pizza parlor in DC was Hillary's child sex slave ring.
About half of Trump voters still believe Obama was born in Kenya.
More than 1/3 of Trump voters believe that fewer people have health insurance now than in 2009.
They'd need to gain at least 20 IQ points to reach moron status.
Nearly half of Trump voters STILL believe that the pizza parlor in DC was Hillary's child sex slave ring.
About half of Trump voters still believe Obama was born in Kenya.
More than 1/3 of Trump voters believe that fewer people have health insurance now than in 2009.
They'd need to gain at least 20 IQ points to reach moron status.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Perhaps you ought to stop viewing political expression as always "claims" in a "debate" with "opponents" and then maybe you will have a happier time interacting with people. Maybe then you won't be so anal about idioms and red herrings and you can relax. Likewise, when people disagree with your "rebuttals," you perhaps ought to view it as a discussion. Maybe then you will not view it as "getting the last word," but instead expressing your thoughts to peers--yes, equals-- who can take it or leave it.
RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
Apparently they didn't outlast you, because here you are still posting in this thread. But truly Angra, you shouldn't talk about yourself like this:
(because all of that describes you in this thread - not Laughing Dog or Don.)