PLXTO
Toronto Escorts

Politifact Lie of the Year award

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Too funny, "rating the accuracy of claims",... does anybody actually realise how ridiculous that is.

And who the hell are these obviously biased, nothing more than news paper writers, who have no more access to documments than anybody else at some self proclaimed rag.

Its one thing to report confirmed facts,... quite another to rate what they happened to have dug up.
Exactly.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Hahahaha. You can't even quote yourself with accuracy.

Your first post says that they claim that they are the source of irrefutable facts.

Now you have backtracked to where you say that they rule (decide) what the truth is but they are not the actual source of those facts. Why do all you Trump supporters have so much problem with comprehension?
Like Rusty with the Christmas lights in the Griswald garage. I'll come back when you've got yourself untangled. Do you see the contradiction when you claim I can't quote myself accurately while at the same time you misquote me? Before you can have comprehension, first you have to read accurately.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,717
7,990
113
Toronto

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
See the statement drawn from Politifact's website above. If Politifact's claim is only that that are determining "their truth", or "the best truth they know how to find", what would be the point of their assessments? Clearly, all who draw from them are interpreting Politifact's claim the same way I am, because they trot them out for "proof" of whether something is a lie or not, not for a "discussion" of contrary evidence.
However that's what you claim, not Politifact. And you can no more blame them for how their assessments are used by pothers than you can excuse your own misinterpretation by claiming its their doing.

Where was it you found them claiming to be irrefutable again?
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
However that's what you claim, not Politifact. And you can no more blame them for how their assessments are used by pothers than you can excuse your own misinterpretation by claiming its their doing.

Where was it you found them claiming to be irrefutable again?
I can't take this semantic objection very seriously. Politifact is running a website which purports to tell us all when politicians are telling the truth and when they aren't. For goodness sakes, the measuring stick they use is called a "Truth-o-meter"! One of the ratings they use is "pants on fire". This is not the measured language you would use if you were acknowledging that your own ability to fact check is, itself, limited. And politicians are buying what they are selling, because when they want to claim some statement is a lie, or that Trump is generally a liar, out they will trot Politifact. No reasonable person could fail to see that they tout themselves as more reliable than the politicians they review, and acknowledge no weaknesses or limitations in their own powers of analysis. This is, of course, hubris. They simply have, like many other well informed and interested people, strong OPINIONS. Yet, they use the word "fact" in the name of the site. That's no accident. If it was called "Politiopinion" I probably would have a lot less to say about it.

Whenever I have bothered to read their analysis, I have often found their reasoning to be less than convincing. Like Wikipedia, they tend to sweep away inconsistent information if it is not popularly supported. They often give too much weight to the evidence they rely upon, or don't consider its inherent unreliability. I could give you a thorough analysis to make my point, but this, after all is TERB, and a forum frequented by no more than a dozen or so people at a time, so it's really not worth my while to go to more effort than Politifact itself does to make the point to people who mostly don't care, or who wouldn't accept it anyway because it would be too upsetting to the order of their thinking.

It's interesting to me that there is so much sensitivity in response to criticizing Politifact as being less than the final arbiter of truth. It appears to me that has more to do with the observation that they are a lot tougher on Republicans/conservatives than they are on Democrats/liberals, rather than the notion that they are such an important and venerable institution of American politics.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
I did not misquote you.
You'd think when someone was told they had misquoted another poster they would go back and read what they wrote, carefully, word by word. Not you. That's not your style. Give it a try this time (hint - 2nd sentence of post 15). Once you see it, hopefully you'll just have the grace to drop out of this particular discussion, since it's about accuracy and truth.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,717
7,990
113
Toronto
Been there. Done that.

Seeing as you are not able to point it out, I will assume that there is nothing there.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Been there. Done that.

Seeing as you are not able to point it out, I will assume that there is nothing there.
Hint that shouldn't be required number 2. "Truth" vs. "fact". Since we're digital, you'll have to kick your own ass.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,717
7,990
113
Toronto
Hint that shouldn't be required number 2. "Truth" vs. "fact". Since we're digital, you'll have to kick your own ass.
I was aware of that. FYI, the truth is derived from facts, hence my critique of you backtracking by changing from " the source of irrefutable truth" to "rating the accuracy of claims" holds. Those two things are very different.

Once again, I will put it down to a lack of reading comprehension. So at this point there no need to subject your kicked ass to any more trauma.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,579
113
I can't take this semantic objection very seriously. Politifact is running a website which purports to tell us all when politicians are telling the truth...

Whenever I have bothered to read their analysis....
Sounds like your own personal biases have kept you from assessing the site fairly.
Have you got another source or site that's more reputable?
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I can't take this semantic objection very seriously. …[Three paragraphs of semantic analysis that follow have been omitted, but available in the original above]
You're welcome to take it anyway you choose; I can hardly stop you.

However as semantics is "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning", it's essentially all we've got if we want to communicate. And I'd have thought you, as a legal professional, would be well aware of the important and significant difference in meaning between what a person (or website) says of themselves, and what an observer says, while attributing it to them.

When you have clarified the meaning you intended by your still unsubstantiated charge that Politifact claims its assessments are irrefutable truth, we might be able to have a meaningful discussion about Politifact. Or, alternatively about the propensity for exaggeration, overstatement and claims of unverifiable authority.

But not until. It's semantics, you see.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
You're welcome to take it anyway you choose; I can hardly stop you.

However as semantics is "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning", it's essentially all we've got if we want to communicate. And I'd have thought you, as a legal professional, would be well aware of the important and significant difference in meaning between what a person (or website) says of themselves, and what an observer says, while attributing it to them.

When you have clarified the meaning you intended by your still unsubstantiated charge that Politifact claims its assessments are irrefutable truth, we might be able to have a meaningful discussion about Politifact. Or, alternatively about the propensity for exaggeration, overstatement and claims of unverifiable authority.

But not until. It's semantics, you see.
It's the objection I don't take seriously, not semantics. I don't take your objection as genuine.

To give some context to this statement, elsewhere in this thread a poster failed to reproduce the words I used and refuses to acknowledge that he misquoted me, and does so, incredibly, as he alleges that I have "misquoted myself" (whatever that means). That's the level of concern for semantics here on TERB.

I'm comfortable with my view that people who like Politifact simply like their conclusions, and they hope that those opinions add weight to their own. In my view, all Politifact does is add ad populem fallacies to the arguments into which they are injected.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,760
17,579
113
I'm comfortable with my view that people who like Politifact simply like their conclusions, and they hope that those opinions add weight to their own. In my view, all Politifact does is add ad populem fallacies to the arguments into which they are injected.
You can't find a better source for fact checking politicians, though, can you?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts