|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question?
You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from?
You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares?
|
On February 11 2017 06:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 05:54 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808 What a terrible poll. There should be a "what's a bowling green massacre?" answer for that to have any kind of use. Maybe as a separate field, to see how knowledgeable people are about the event when voting. But no reason to separate those people out from the base poll. It's a poll about a fake event, so the response including people who 1) believe the fake info, 2) don't know anything and guess, or 3) research when asked the question, are perfectly valid responses. Except that logically, ex falso veritas. The poll gives you no way of answering that you know the bowling green massacre is not a real thing, but are in favor of the EO regardless. You get lumped in with the idiots who don't know and would love to bomb Agrabah.
Except it doesn't really matter why when the results are that disparate. Sure, knowing why people voted as they did is important.
But the fact that only Trump voters agree is a result worth noting, regardless of reason, and also that Clinton voters are overwhelming in disagreement compared to the other subset.
|
Using the word terrorist pretty much loads the question.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 06:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:04 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 06:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 05:54 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808 What a terrible poll. There should be a "what's a bowling green massacre?" answer for that to have any kind of use. Maybe as a separate field, to see how knowledgeable people are about the event when voting. But no reason to separate those people out from the base poll. It's a poll about a fake event, so the response including people who 1) believe the fake info, 2) don't know anything and guess, or 3) research when asked the question, are perfectly valid responses. Except that logically, ex falso veritas. The poll gives you no way of answering that you know the bowling green massacre is not a real thing, but are in favor of the EO regardless. You get lumped in with the idiots who don't know and would love to bomb Agrabah. Except it doesn't really matter why when the results are that disparate. Sure, knowing why people voted as they did is important. But the fact that only Trump voters agree is a result worth noting, regardless of reason, and also that Clinton voters are overwhelming in disagreement compared to the other subset.
Maybe it's because they think that the Bowling Green Massacre just wasn't bad enough to support an immigration ban because they believe that Bowling Green is just the price you pay for open borders?
On February 11 2017 06:58 Plansix wrote:
Using the word terrorist pretty much loads the question.
Massacre does too.
|
On February 11 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from? You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares?
No, I don't think voicing support for a terrorist should be grounds for disqualification from running for office. I had no idea who he was, but after reading that he was basically some far left loon who tried to blow up cops, I would not likely vote for someone who supported him. On its own, support for Bill Ayers would make me less likely to vote for someone, but I would not support preventing them from applying for some kinda public office.
|
Well duh, of course it's loaded.
The point of the poll was to see how certain demographics responded to a purposefully misleading question.
|
On February 11 2017 06:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:04 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 06:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 05:54 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808 What a terrible poll. There should be a "what's a bowling green massacre?" answer for that to have any kind of use. Maybe as a separate field, to see how knowledgeable people are about the event when voting. But no reason to separate those people out from the base poll. It's a poll about a fake event, so the response including people who 1) believe the fake info, 2) don't know anything and guess, or 3) research when asked the question, are perfectly valid responses. Except that logically, ex falso veritas. The poll gives you no way of answering that you know the bowling green massacre is not a real thing, but are in favor of the EO regardless. You get lumped in with the idiots who don't know and would love to bomb Agrabah. Except it doesn't really matter why when the results are that disparate. Sure, knowing why people voted as they did is important. But the fact that only Trump voters agree is a result worth noting, regardless of reason, and also that Clinton voters are overwhelming in disagreement compared to the other subset.
Yes, but i don't think it necessarily means that clinton people are more informed than trump people.
I don't think the answer would have changed a lot for those demographics if the question had simply been "Do you support Trumps EO about border controls", or whatever.
And to be honest, since the US has a massacre every few months, one can easily lose track of them.
|
On February 11 2017 07:00 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 06:04 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 06:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 05:54 Acrofales wrote:On February 11 2017 05:25 crms wrote:Question was "Do you agree or disagree with the following state: 'The bowling green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump's executive order on immigration?" + Show Spoiler +For full results: + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/830052652683767808 What a terrible poll. There should be a "what's a bowling green massacre?" answer for that to have any kind of use. Maybe as a separate field, to see how knowledgeable people are about the event when voting. But no reason to separate those people out from the base poll. It's a poll about a fake event, so the response including people who 1) believe the fake info, 2) don't know anything and guess, or 3) research when asked the question, are perfectly valid responses. Except that logically, ex falso veritas. The poll gives you no way of answering that you know the bowling green massacre is not a real thing, but are in favor of the EO regardless. You get lumped in with the idiots who don't know and would love to bomb Agrabah. Except it doesn't really matter why when the results are that disparate. Sure, knowing why people voted as they did is important. But the fact that only Trump voters agree is a result worth noting, regardless of reason, and also that Clinton voters are overwhelming in disagreement compared to the other subset. Yes, but i don't think it necessarily means that clinton people are more informed than trump people.
Absolutely, hence why my first response to that poll (actually, the first response to that poll in the thread) was to mention that the interesting followup would be to see why 90% of Clinton voters disagreed.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:
I don't take "poll shows people are stupid" polls seriously. They are generally neither useful nor fair. What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from? You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares? No, I don't think voicing support for a terrorist should be grounds for disqualification from running for office. I had no idea who he was, but after reading that he was basically some far left loon who tried to blow up cops, I would not likely vote for someone who supported him. On its own, support for Bill Ayers would make me less likely to vote for someone, but I would not support preventing them from applying for some kinda public office.
Well I'm just going to cut you off at "no" because that's the only option that aligns with your position that was allowed by the poll. And so I will conclude that you think that supporting terrorism is a-ok, and that it's acceptable for you for our politicians to support killing Americans. And I will further condemn a certain subgroup of people who voted "no" as you did.
|
Trump trying to dominate people through handshakes where he jerks them toward him is soo weird.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 07:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Well duh, of course it's loaded.
The point of the poll was to see how certain demographics responded to a purposefully misleading question.
Loaded question + zero context = zero content.
This poll can mean any number of things.
|
On February 11 2017 07:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
What is unfair about the massacre poll? It's a loaded question and you know it. "Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from? You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares? No, I don't think voicing support for a terrorist should be grounds for disqualification from running for office. I had no idea who he was, but after reading that he was basically some far left loon who tried to blow up cops, I would not likely vote for someone who supported him. On its own, support for Bill Ayers would make me less likely to vote for someone, but I would not support preventing them from applying for some kinda public office. Well I'm just going to cut you off at "no" because that's the only option that aligns with your position that was allowed by the poll. And so I will conclude that you think that supporting terrorism is a-ok, and that it's acceptable for you for our politicians to support killing Americans. And I will further condemn a certain subgroup of people who voted "no" as you did.
Almost, but not quite! I am condemning the thought process and I would choose to not answer that poll. I gave you an answer because I enjoy our conversations, but I, as a self respecting human being, would choose to not answer that question.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:03 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:28 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
It's a loaded question and you know it.
"Do you believe people who support terrorists like Bill Ayers should be allowed to hold public office?" Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from? You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares? No, I don't think voicing support for a terrorist should be grounds for disqualification from running for office. I had no idea who he was, but after reading that he was basically some far left loon who tried to blow up cops, I would not likely vote for someone who supported him. On its own, support for Bill Ayers would make me less likely to vote for someone, but I would not support preventing them from applying for some kinda public office. Well I'm just going to cut you off at "no" because that's the only option that aligns with your position that was allowed by the poll. And so I will conclude that you think that supporting terrorism is a-ok, and that it's acceptable for you for our politicians to support killing Americans. And I will further condemn a certain subgroup of people who voted "no" as you did. Almost, but not quite! I am condemning the thought process and I would choose to not answer that poll. I gave you an answer because I enjoy our conversations, but I, as a self respecting human being, would choose to not answer that question.
It's part of a larger poll. You have no "refuse to answer" option. Do you walk away from the entire poll on principle?
|
On February 11 2017 07:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Well duh, of course it's loaded.
The point of the poll was to see how certain demographics responded to a purposefully misleading question. Loaded question + zero context = zero content. This poll can mean any number of things.
Sure.
But some of those things are exclusive to one subset, and a different group of things is exclusive to the other.
|
On February 11 2017 07:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 07:03 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from? You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares? No, I don't think voicing support for a terrorist should be grounds for disqualification from running for office. I had no idea who he was, but after reading that he was basically some far left loon who tried to blow up cops, I would not likely vote for someone who supported him. On its own, support for Bill Ayers would make me less likely to vote for someone, but I would not support preventing them from applying for some kinda public office. Well I'm just going to cut you off at "no" because that's the only option that aligns with your position that was allowed by the poll. And so I will conclude that you think that supporting terrorism is a-ok, and that it's acceptable for you for our politicians to support killing Americans. And I will further condemn a certain subgroup of people who voted "no" as you did. Almost, but not quite! I am condemning the thought process and I would choose to not answer that poll. I gave you an answer because I enjoy our conversations, but I, as a self respecting human being, would choose to not answer that question. It's part of a larger poll. You have no "refuse to answer" option. Do you walk away from the entire poll on principle?
I'd more likely just answer "I don't know" because it is hard enough getting people to answer polls
|
On February 11 2017 07:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 07:03 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Its only loaded if the person assumes the massacre is real. It is a fair characterization of the people responding because it shows that these people are as easily manipulated as telling them something is real. That's a shameful reality for each of those people. So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from? You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares? No, I don't think voicing support for a terrorist should be grounds for disqualification from running for office. I had no idea who he was, but after reading that he was basically some far left loon who tried to blow up cops, I would not likely vote for someone who supported him. On its own, support for Bill Ayers would make me less likely to vote for someone, but I would not support preventing them from applying for some kinda public office. Well I'm just going to cut you off at "no" because that's the only option that aligns with your position that was allowed by the poll. And so I will conclude that you think that supporting terrorism is a-ok, and that it's acceptable for you for our politicians to support killing Americans. And I will further condemn a certain subgroup of people who voted "no" as you did. Almost, but not quite! I am condemning the thought process and I would choose to not answer that poll. I gave you an answer because I enjoy our conversations, but I, as a self respecting human being, would choose to not answer that question. It's part of a larger poll. You have no "refuse to answer" option. Do you walk away from the entire poll on principle?
If you do not want to answer for question on a poll for any reason really then you either skip it if its a written one or tell them you don't answer if its verbal and if they do not accept it you walk away.
Why would it be a problem to walk away from a poll you do not want to answer?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 07:03 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:41 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
So: yes, no, or don't know? Should supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers make you ineligible for holding public office? No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from? You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares? No, I don't think voicing support for a terrorist should be grounds for disqualification from running for office. I had no idea who he was, but after reading that he was basically some far left loon who tried to blow up cops, I would not likely vote for someone who supported him. On its own, support for Bill Ayers would make me less likely to vote for someone, but I would not support preventing them from applying for some kinda public office. Well I'm just going to cut you off at "no" because that's the only option that aligns with your position that was allowed by the poll. And so I will conclude that you think that supporting terrorism is a-ok, and that it's acceptable for you for our politicians to support killing Americans. And I will further condemn a certain subgroup of people who voted "no" as you did. Almost, but not quite! I am condemning the thought process and I would choose to not answer that poll. I gave you an answer because I enjoy our conversations, but I, as a self respecting human being, would choose to not answer that question. It's part of a larger poll. You have no "refuse to answer" option. Do you walk away from the entire poll on principle? I'd more likely just answer "I don't know" because it is hard enough getting people to answer polls
And that's also a morally ambiguous answer. Don't know about Bill Ayers or don't know if supporting terrorists like Bill Ayers is disqualifying?
The bullshit here is in the question, not the answer. Your choices are forced by the question being loaded and the answer choices being collapsed into three vague choices. The answers are meaningless.
|
Looks like it's time for plan B
|
On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 07:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 07:03 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:59 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:53 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:50 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
No one should be comfortable answering a question without knowing the basic assumptions of the question. A willingness to answer a question they don't know the basic assumptions of is a disgusting quality. This poll rightfully shows these people to be disgusting. Ok, so your response is to walk away from the question? You said the poll was unfair. I said it was fair. You said it was not fair because it is loaded. I pointed out that someone being susceptible to answering a question based on how it is phrased makes them disgusting. In that way, I am correct in saying the poll was fair. If the poll aims to show prevalence of disgusting people, it effectively gave some percentage of total people that are disgusting. What am I walking away from? You refuse to answer what you think about whether supporting a terrorist like Bill Ayers is disqualifying (yes, no, don't know). Why? It's a fair question by your logic. Loaded? Who the fuck cares? No, I don't think voicing support for a terrorist should be grounds for disqualification from running for office. I had no idea who he was, but after reading that he was basically some far left loon who tried to blow up cops, I would not likely vote for someone who supported him. On its own, support for Bill Ayers would make me less likely to vote for someone, but I would not support preventing them from applying for some kinda public office. Well I'm just going to cut you off at "no" because that's the only option that aligns with your position that was allowed by the poll. And so I will conclude that you think that supporting terrorism is a-ok, and that it's acceptable for you for our politicians to support killing Americans. And I will further condemn a certain subgroup of people who voted "no" as you did. Almost, but not quite! I am condemning the thought process and I would choose to not answer that poll. I gave you an answer because I enjoy our conversations, but I, as a self respecting human being, would choose to not answer that question. It's part of a larger poll. You have no "refuse to answer" option. Do you walk away from the entire poll on principle? I'd more likely just answer "I don't know" because it is hard enough getting people to answer polls And that's also a morally ambiguous answer. Don't know about Bill Ayers or don't know if supporting terrorists like Bill Ayers is disqualifying? The bullshit here is in the question, not the answer. Your choices are forced by the question being loaded and the answer choices being collapsed into three vague choices. The answers are meaningless.
"Trump voters only demographic to be vexed by loaded question" is also noteworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7tRfs3P.png)
