Izzy,
I am aware that you disagreed with the collaborator != moderate part of xenophon41’s rebuttal.
Which in effect throws the definition of moderate back to the Op part of his Op Ed cites, since it asks us to go there and swallow whatever spin there might be around the term ‘collaborator’. It might be correct that the killed were moderates, but we get no factual indication in that direction, only opinion.
Sparc
Sorry, I don’t any reliance on a definition described in an Op-Ed here. (This specific instance is not of tanamount importance anyway - I’m parrying because you happened to throw it up as an example - there are many others that could supporteither position).
Wowa Izzy,
You’ve lost me. I’m not arguing against you here. I’m arguing that december usea Op Ed in a way that I don’t think suits your description of when an Op Ed becomes a reliable source. In other words; the cites in this case can be relied upon as a source for the information that many Palestinains have been killed - since this is factual. They cannot be relied upon for a definition of moderate, since this is opinion.
Sparc
Sparc,
I ask you again to amend the first quote that I cited - it appears to be a typo, but I’m not sure which way to correct it.
As for your last post, again, I don’t see that december relied on a definition of moderate from an Op-Ed - nor do I see such a definition provided. The Op-Eds said that “collaborators” were killed - december himself interpreted this as “moderate”. Thus the only problem is him own interpretation, not his reliance on the Op-Ed.
Uh, what the fuck difference does it make if they were ‘Moderates’ or ‘Collaborators’? Are people suggesting that if those Palestinians did indeed sell land to Israel (making them ‘collaborators’ in the eyes of the PA), that they deserved to die?
Some are trying to make a distinction without a difference.
I am frightfully sorry Izzy, but I still do not understand what you are taking about. I only gather that some terrific misunderstanding is under way, but I can neither discern from this post nor from your previous posts where and how this misunderstanding resides.
If you like. The effect is the same though. In any case the cites themselves although they stop short of claiming the murderes were ‘moderates’ do provide spin to the effect of december’s interpretation. This is in my view one of the inherent risks with Op Ed as cites. Op Eds are not written with the intent to inform, but to rally support or sway opinion. Journalistic integrity should demand that the underlying facts are correct, although not even this is guaranteed, more importantly, as already stated an Op Ed will by definition contain spin and this will cloud the clarity of the piece and color the facts therein given.
Errr,
Brutus, right now the question is not the issue of moderates or not, that has been dealt with in the original thread. We have never disagreed whether murder was a condemnable act or not and on that it is counter productive to any peace process and erodes foundation for support of the Palestinian Authority. At present we are discussing the possible dangers of using Op Ed as source. It might be a nitpick as re the previous debate, but it’s just an example Brutus, and I use it only because it is the most recent case of a continuous behavior.
Sparc
Very well then. Too much espresso, not enough reading on my part 
Seeing that December cited an OpinionJournal source, I would be curious if it was an OJ article, or from their ‘Best of the Web’ daily mailing. The Best of the Web mailing is simply commentary on other news sources, to which they link, so I would guess that it would be a valid news source, if taken back to the original source.
On OJ articles themselves, I may consider them newsworthy, but not cite-worthy. Higher burden-of-proof in GD and all that.
That’s quite a condemnation of the Wall Street Journal news sections there, Izzy.
More generally, one might think an actual fact could be found somewhere in a source devoted to recording actual facts. An argument that has to depend on quoting opinion pieces instead is already shaky.
What? You want us all to subscibe to the wire services Elvis?
Relying on OpEd for facts requires a balancing act. There’s nothing wrong in quoting the opinion of well respected editorial writers to substantiate your claims. As long as you don’t obfuscate its opined and factual statements. December either unintentionally or maliciously has a tendence to do this as the whole thing with the “moderates” vs. “collaborators” shows.
Sparc,
You said:
This is incorrect - I actually agreed with this part, as you noted previously. I was unsure if you meant to say that “that you agreed” or meant to say “OpEd piece != credible cite”. Or some other meaning.
I’m not sure what you mean with this - of course the effect in the same - we are discussing examples of defects in debating style - this is not a valid example of the op-ed issue. (In any event, if it is or isn’t, it is only one example - there are others - right or wrong I don’t intend to debate this particular case further, after you respond.)
Elvis,
It might be a condemnation if you said it - I would trust either source.
As for finding it in a “news” source - this point has been previously made by wring - it’s not always as easy, and I don’t think the difference is significant.
Hey Izzy…
I thought I was misunderstanding you, but I wasn’t. Not originally at least - I have no idea what happened after that, but I obviously expressed myself way out of whack.
In other words I understood all along that you agreed with “collaborator != moderate” if I seemed to infer anything else, I’m sorry and I hope this clears it out.
I agree that we are beating an equestrian animal that has long ceased respiration, so let us stop. The point has been made and I think we won’t come any closer in agreement than we are at present. That being said, we seem to be arguing shades of gray at the moment.
Sparc
This article explains how those numbers could get all screwed up. One person’s “moderate” is another’s “collaborator.” CSM
So, as usual, confusion reigns supreme in the Middle East.
ok, ruling needed, Izzy - in this thread, december makes a cite-less OP, some one else chimes in with a single reference to an article from the CATO organization (founded "think tank dedicated to the American principles of liberty and limited government ") where as I referenced the US Department of Labor, plus a few others (including Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Sears Corporation), in reference to costs of the ADA.
december equates the CATO org and the DOL as both
I think they’re both legitimate. I would agree that the Cato Institute could be biased, based on their viewpoint. However, the CI is quoting a Price-Waterhouse study, as well as one from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Unless they lied or misrepresented the study, it should count as a very legitimate cite (which doesn’t mean that another cite can’t be brought up to counter it). And a government agency is not likely to lie outright, but they too have a bias in the direction of performing their mission. An Office of Disability Employment Policy is going to encourage people to employ disabled people, and while they won’t make up bogus numbers and publish them, might be tempted to emphasize those that conform to their viewpoint.
In particular, I would question whether calls to toll-free hotlines are representative - I would tend to think small businesses are more likely to employ this service than large corporations, which tend to have in-house experts. Also, the data is presented as “information related to these calls for advice, as well as examples of accommodations that were implemented as a result of the advice”. So it sounds like the costs given refer to the accommodations related to the specific calls for advice, not the total accommodations for all ADA related expenses (some of which may not have necessitated a call for advice). (I’m uncertain what “Company Savings Because Accommodations Were Made” means).
In general, that website is more along the lines of a “don’t worry it’s not as hard as you think” encouragement for employers - it does not purport to be a comprehensive study of the total cost of ADA, ala the CI PW & USCM ones.
I’m not sure why you reference Sears - the study you refer to is a study of - not by - the corporation, by the “Annenberg Washington Program”, apparently some sort of think tank (as is the CI).
Your cite about the cost of people with disabilities (from the Office for Students with Disabilities) is misleading as a cite, as you seem to assume that a substantial portion of this cost can be alleviated by the ADA. This has not been demonstrated - it is likely that the vast majority of the disabled - particularly those with more severe disabilities - continue to be disabled even under the ADA (as per the figures from the National Organization of the Disabled) so that cost cannot be directly compared to the cost of ADA.
All your cites are legitimate in terms of accuracy, if not definitive in terms of the debate. So is Sam Stone’s. What are you suggesting?
Is this becoming the ‘first circuit court of refuted cite appeals thread’ of the SDMB?
I like that idea, we should have a thread where debating parties can offer their cites up for independent judgement in case of conflict…
The CATO cite references the studies, but makes assumptions and conclusions based on the data w/o presenting the data itself.
The DOL presents the data.
That to me, is absolutely the same issue as the op/ed vs. news article issue. Here they advance the CATO cite as evidence of great costs, (which is the conclusion of the CATO cite), w/o allowing us to examine the evidence which leads to the conclusion.
I don’t think that anyone claims that the ADA will some how take away the effects of a disability, just that: with the ADA, citizens w/ handicaps will have access to the same services available to those w/o handicaps (equal protection under the law), and that a prospective or current employee will be afforded reasonable accomodations should they be or become necessary.
The OP in that case concludes that the ADA has done ‘more harm than good’, and I conclude they’ve not met that burden at all. The costs, according to my cites are not unreasonable, the ‘good’ was acknoweledged by the OP, and need not be proven
I included the Sears comments as an example of how a major retailer could deal with the same issues of ADA as (presumably) other businesses and instead of looking at it as yet another burden, but as a means of assisting both customers and employees to better avail themselves of the product/services available at Sears. (*IOW, not all businesses conclude that the ADA is burdensome and problematic, detrimental etc.).
wring,
I don’t know what makes you consider one “data” and one “conclusions”. The CI gave numbers from the PW and USCM studies. You gave numbers from a DOL website. Saying “X Institute calculated the total cost at $YB” is as valid as saying “N Government Agency says the average cost of compliance is $M”. I don’t see a difference. A conclusion would be “therefore it is not worth it”. But that is not what is being brought from the cite. Sam is not saying “the Cato Institute has concluded that it is not worth it so all must accept this judgement”. He is saying “the Cato Institute has provided the following financial estimates from the following studies - on this basis I, Sam Stone, conclude - and believe others should conclude - that it is not worth it”.
Unless you are saying that you don’t trust the ability of PW or the USCM to study such matters. I don’t know about that - these are pretty professional groups, particularly the former.
As for Sears, again, we don’t know that Sears does not find the ADA “burdensome and problematic, detrimental etc.” We only know that the think tank that studied Sears arrived at that conclusion. (It may be the case that Sears agrees with them, but we don’t know this).
I’m not sure what you mean with this. My point was that since we don’t know that the ADA will take away the costs of disabilities, a cite showing the costs of disabilities is irrelevent to a discussion of the pros and cons of the ADA.
I love this place.
well, Izzy for example, the CATO cite refers to “needless lawsuits”, differentiates between one form of disability (deaf, blind, using a wheelchair) and ‘others’ (some how if the disability isn’t in that first list, it shouldn’t be classified the same way?)
It also goes through the lists of lawsuits, noting how many (relatively) were about wrongful termination or not providing accomodations. Now, why is that at all pertinent? they go on to opine that the ADA’s main purpose is to provide for hiring those w/handicaps, and point out this piece of data as if it has nothing to do with it ("so, these people were already employed!!! )
To provide for equal protection under employment, one needs to protect the hiring process but post hiring process, otherwise, all a company would have to do in order to comply w/EOE would be hire a bunch of folks and fire 'em a week later. So, again, yes, they’re presenting data, but extrapotlating inferences from it, instead of merely presenting it (as the DOL does).
It also makes this claim
which doesn’t necessarily folow (IOW needs to provide the source data) since many claims are resolved pre court, through arbitration and other settlements. To suggest, as they do here, that those claims ‘lacked merit’ is not substantiated at all.
In the GD thread, Kimstu points out yet another important piece of info. That these conclusions by the CATO org that employment among the disabled population didn’t improve, were made at a point where many of the ADA regs had just been implimented, later data does suggest an improvement.
that’s what I mean/meant by interpreting the data instead of presenting it.
OK. So there were parts of the CI cite that were factual, and some that were opinion/interperetation. It seems pretty clear which are which. I would say that the cite is valid for the factual information contained therein. And as for the opinion, it is no better or worse than anyone else’s opinion - anyone can point out why they feel the CI opinion is wrong - I don’t think anyone would reject you or Kimstu doing this on the grounds that you cannot disagree with CI opinions. So I don’t see a problem with it.