A more useful poster? Why? You first argue that you make mistakes just because you’re human and that’s what people do. O.K., that’s understandable. Then you wonder why people get mad at you because you make mistakes. Getting mad at other people is something that people do all the time too, just like making mistakes. Accept that other people will sometimes get mad and we’ll accept that you sometimes make mistakes. In the meantime, slow down in your posting and check your facts very carefully.
I do accept it. I’m just arguing that a) it’s a greater offense to get personal with another poster than to be wrong, and b) while everyone is wrong, not everyone gets personal. And c) while they are busy being hypocrites, they are often admiring people who are also wrong a lot, as in a lot a lot, yet cite their pronouncements as reliable sources.
Appealing to authorities that are wrong a lot, in very public ways, and who almost never admit their wrongness, doesn’t make for a very convincing argument.
That is wrong. Many people work hard to ensure that the facts they post are correct. The vast majority of posters are less wrong than yourself.
Only that, at least in my case, I have not cited Obama for scientific issues or expert opinion. In fact I do not remember if I ever quoted him to support any issue other than at elections or diplomacy.
So, one big point is still present, you are pumping up this accusation too much. You are trying to Equate Obama with many experts cited before by me and others, you bet one should demand support for that accusation as it is not a very convincing argument.
Maybe. Impossible to prove, since we don’t keep track as Politifact does, nor do we have an unbiased person to judge such things. I obviously feel that I get it right a lot more often than others, but then there are some here who admit that they think conservatives in general are wrong more often than liberals. So they are disagreeing with me and thinking that in itself proves that I am wrong.
However, even people who work hard to be accurate are often not. Sometimes it’s because of carelessness, but most often people just have faith in authorities they should not or find some facts too good to think about very hard.
How about Krugman then? His credentials are sterling. His grasp of the facts, not so much(although he’s better than politicians).
What I’m trying to get at, is if a source is demonstrably wrong, frequently, does that discredit the source? Because that seems to be what many posters imply. Heck, it’s what Krugman himself says directly very often, which shows that he’s a much more famous example of your average nasty Doper.
Am I understanding your position correctly? Just because I’m wrong all the time doesn’t mean you should point out my wrongness. I should be able to spread my ignorance with impunity because other people, especially Obama, have been wrong on occasion?
Or is it more: just because I’m ignorant is no reason to point it out all the time?
Or is it the equally stupid: just because I am admittedly wrong more than half the time doesn’t mean I can be discredited?
Help me here. I’m trying to find an angle that doesn’t make you look like a stubborn idiot.
You are not quite understanding. My argument is that the correct way to respond to wrong arguments is to demonstrate their wrongness. It’s called a rebuttal. Then the other poster responds to your rebuttal. Preferably you should have several rounds of give and take on a particular point before saying that the person you are debating with is stupid. If you have to do so at all.
The reason I invoked the President was to ferret out a standard here. If it could be proven that I was wrong half the time, would that make me discredited? How about a quarter of the time? And wouldn’t that standard also apply to the sources we cite? For example, is Krugman’s error rate enough to label him as an unreliable source? Is a poster expected to do better? If so, it seems to me that SMDB posters themselves would be more reliable than many of the sources they cite.
This has been stated over and over and adaher refuses to look within and consider where he may be wrong and make changes. This is a personal and moral arrogance.
Nice goal post moving, shit head. You cited a ‘fact’ and were proven wrong. At some point perhaps some form of modesty might be in order and some minor admission that you may have been wrong. Your earlier statement that ‘most’ people don’t admit they are wrong is in error, as is pretty much everything you ever write.
Some epic levels of butthurt going on, Ignorance Boy. I hear there’s a cream for that.
As further evidenced by attempting to throw back the same labels on the people ‘attacking’ you.
I have cited the numbers in the other pit thread showing that you’re still wrong. The majority of Swedish immigrants are NOT from neighboring Scandinavian countries.
Again, there’s a cream for that.
As I said in the other thread, this is the Age of the Internet. All of the world’s knowledge is at your fingertips. Taking a few seconds to research your claims before you attempt to speak out with authority may educate you and stop you from making broad and false claims. But of course, this sort of modesty and common sense isn’t in you. No, better to be angry and blame everyone else for your own butthurt.
And that, son, is the true demonstration of your character.
You never make false claims? You’re either a hypocrite or lack self awareness.
It is a fact that Scandinavian countries do not have as liberal an immigration policy as the United States. It is a fact that this has consequences for economic indicators like poverty, unemployment, and wage growth.
You pulled up % of foreign birth figures as a refutation. It is NOT a refutation at all. Now the intelligent and civilized way to handle that would have been to discuss the relative merits of the two ways of measuring immigration flows, and I’m sure we’d also probably start getting into the difference in laws between the US and northern EU countries. Instead, you made a completely wrong claim, called me ignorant in the process, and are STILL sticking to your contention that you’ve proven me wrong when you’ve done nothing of the sort.
I think this is the crux of your problem. You post a cite that backs up your claim and then when your cite is discredited because it doesn’t back up your claim (even though there’s nothing wrong with the cite in and of itself) you blame the cite.
Here’s an example.
I argue that spiders are insects:
Clearly, another poster will come along and tell me that a spider has 8 legs, so it’s not an insect. It would sound silly for me then to say “Well, your beef is with Oxford dictionaries then” No, the beef would be with me since I made the claim, not them.
That’s because you never made a bet.
Adaher,
Would you say you are good at admitting error when it’s demonstrated you’ve made an error?
Well then you’ve set standards for what makes a “useful poster” that very few, if any, accept.
I don’t know. I’d like to think so, but I can be stubborn like anyone else. But that’s one reason why I try to keep it civil. I know I’m not perfect, so why would I get mad when other posters aren’t? Why would anyone?
I’m actually disheartened that so many posters in this thread think that attacking other posters for being wrong is a-okay. Even if I’m a complete moron and not worthy to debate on this board, it simply does not justify that kind of behavior. I recognize it is what it is, this is the internet, but if Dopers would frown on personal attacks as much as they frown on ignorance, that would be a good thing.
Most of you are acting like pointing out that someone is stupid is not only okay, but the obviously right thing to do. I hope you guys aren’t like that in your jobs and personal life.
I didn’t say it would make me useful. Just relatively more useful, unless you also believe that personal attacks on posters contribute to the discussions.
It is the crux of the problem, but not in the way you think. Politifact judges statements that are not necessarily obvious and could be in dispute. More than half the time, the President comes out looking pretty bad. So I believe that my cite proves exactly what I said it did. I’m sure any other fact checking cite that compiles the numbers of true and false statements would also find that the President says a lot of very false things.
But what happens is that those who disagree with the cite will just assume they are right and no further discussion is warranted, it’s settled, case closed, and oh, by the way, you suck.
That’s an example of a clear statement of fact. Most arguments made, at least regarding political issues, are not even close to that clear cut.
By the way, that link about Obama does say he’s wrong half the time. Even if you believe their claims, it only proves he’s wrong on half of the statements they checked. He says hundreds of things. And, I spot checked a few, and disagree.
Let me lend you a “not” to put after “does” in that first sentence!
To paraphrase Dr. Who - You don’t alter your views to fit the facts, you attempt to alter/interpret the facts to fit your views. So yeah, most of your posts come off as horribly disingenuous.