They still ruled it “False” (not “Half True” or even “Mostly False”) despite his not having said anything about a “ban”. How can you justify that?
They never claimed that he said anything about a “ban”. What they claimed is that the stuff he did say was false.
Can you explain to me why you thought PolitiFact’s ruling on the Scott op-ed was inaccurate without using the word “ban” (which AFAICT doesn’t even appear in any of the documents under discussion, so I’m not sure why you’re making it the centerpiece of your argument)?
I have already explained this at length upthread, both directly and using a sort of satirical version that was flipped the other way. I don’t know what else I can do to explain to you that when there are “Mostly True”, “Half True”, and “Mostly False” options between “True” and “False”, it’s ridiculous to go all the way to “False”. Citing “climate advocates” outside of Congress who aren’t ready to sign on to “getting rid” of cows or airplanes, or saying that her calls to do so were “perhaps in jest” or whatever it was? That’s special pleading, pretzel logic.
ETA: And yes, I already stated upthread (are you actually reading my posts??) that I was in error to use the “ban” framing. It was in no way helpful to my argument, and actually undermined it; so my belated recognition that it was wrong (and BTW, you and others here also used the word in this thread) *strengthens *my argument.
Here’s a contradiction in the PolitiFact ruling that I haven’t mentioned yet:
NEITHER of them are binding, so the FAQ has just as much “weight” as the resolution! :smack:
Well, the Scott op-ed states that the resolution “calls for rebuilding or retrofitting every building in America in the next 10 years, eliminating all fossil fuels in 10 years, eliminating nuclear power, and working towards ending air travel (to be replaced with high-speed rail).”
PolitiFact states that the resolution says nothing about air travel and “makes no mention of airplanes at all”.
I think that your level of indignation about the level of falsity assigned by PolitiFact to Scott’s statement is just another example of your endless capacity for pitching tempestuous fits over not much.
If Scott’s claim had been that the resolution is “working towards cutting back on air travel”, I would agree that it would be incorrect to describe the claim as “false”.
If he said that, it would not be justified to call it anything but just plain True! What IYO is the purpose of “Mostly True”, “Half True”, and “Mostly False”?
ETA: And this is even if we accept this idea that the FAQ officially attached to a nonbinding resolution that is just a statement of principles means absolutely nothing. And I believe you know in your heart that this is bullshit, but are engaged in your own kind of reflexive circling of wagons around your left wing “team”. You’re not that stupid, but you are certainly that disingenuous.
I think you’re mixing up “weight” as in importance with “weight” as in legal force. “Non-binding resolution” is a technical term for a motion that can’t become law but is still a formal expression of the legislative body’s opinion or support.
Yes, of course critics of the resolution should direct their criticism to what the official text of the resolution says, since that is what would be officially voted on, not to a supplementary FAQ about it.
Agreed, but he did not say that.
Kimstu, I continue to believe that you are likely a lawyer (or at least have gone to law school, not necessarily the same thing). Do you realize that in tying yourself in knots this way, you are channelling Antonin fucking Scalia? :smack:
Well, like most of your expressed beliefs, that belief is founded on no actual evidentiary support and bears no relation to the truth.
Textualist.
Holy fuck, the gloves just came off!
