|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:
Looks like it's time for plan B
I'm hoping he chooses to go further because his last order simply wasn't sweeping enough to dispel notions of discrimination.
"Until we figure out what's going on, no foreigners will cross our borders."
|
On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked.
Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery.
In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups.
So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy.
Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you?
|
On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you?
The whole point of polling and stats is gather noteworthy information which can be leveraged for further use and analysis.
Now, I haven't bothered to look at the rest of the survey, so maybe there are other questions which can be combined for a clearer picture. If not, then once again, having such a distinct result invites further discovery.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 07:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you? The whole point of polling and stats is gather noteworthy information which can be leveraged for further use and analysis. Now, I haven't bothered to look at the rest of the survey, so maybe there are other questions which can be combined for a clearer picture. If not, then once again, having such a distinct result invites further discovery.
The whole point is to ask questions that tell you something useful. Garbage in, garbage out is the name of the game in statistics.
|
On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you?
Neither the people supporting Trump nor Clinton really understood the question and simply voted based on the policy supported by their political identity.
I think it's a good measure of both sides not understanding a specific piece of evidence, but still using it to confirm policy opinions.
|
On February 11 2017 07:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 07:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you? The whole point of polling and stats is gather noteworthy information which can be leveraged for further use and analysis. Now, I haven't bothered to look at the rest of the survey, so maybe there are other questions which can be combined for a clearer picture. If not, then once again, having such a distinct result invites further discovery. The whole point is to ask questions that tell you something useful. Garbage in, garbage out is the name of the game in statistics.
If you already know which questions give notable results going into a poll, then there is no reason to create the poll in the first place.
And, come to think of it, response to loaded questions is probably good information as is, considering the current environment of loaded questions and statements dominating policies and discussions. There is probably good reason to find a broad level reaction to fake information in regards to ongoing policy.
|
On February 11 2017 07:29 LegalLord wrote:I'm hoping he chooses to go further because his last order simply wasn't sweeping enough to dispel notions of discrimination. "Until we figure out what's going on, no foreigners will cross our borders."
Lol, imagine what happens when every country on earth retaliates. Do you even pretend to think before you type?
|
On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you?
it would be weird if 90% of women said "1" and 90% of men said "2" in a statistically significant sample size would it not?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 08:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you? it would be weird if 90% of women said "1" and 90% of men said "2" in a statistically significant sample size would it not?
Weird, yes. But I wouldn't seek to draw conclusions from it when the context is so vague that it could mean any number of things.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 08:01 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 07:29 LegalLord wrote:I'm hoping he chooses to go further because his last order simply wasn't sweeping enough to dispel notions of discrimination. "Until we figure out what's going on, no foreigners will cross our borders." Lol, imagine what happens when every country on earth retaliates. Do you even pretend to think before you type?
It's a security issue. Mind you, it's only until we figure out what's going on, not permanent. It will help make the country safe again and it's precisely the kind of stopgap we need towards that end.
|
On February 11 2017 08:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 08:07 IgnE wrote:On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 07:10 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you? it would be weird if 90% of women said "1" and 90% of men said "2" in a statistically significant sample size would it not? Weird, yes. But I wouldn't seek to draw conclusions from it when the context is so vague that it could mean any number of things.
you could draw the conclusion that it was "noteworthy" and warranted further investigation could you not?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 08:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 08:15 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 08:07 IgnE wrote:On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:On February 11 2017 07:10 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you? it would be weird if 90% of women said "1" and 90% of men said "2" in a statistically significant sample size would it not? Weird, yes. But I wouldn't seek to draw conclusions from it when the context is so vague that it could mean any number of things. you could draw the conclusion that it was "noteworthy" and warranted further investigation could you not?
If the matter was of any real interest, yes.
If it's most likely to just show that one group takes a hard line towards terrorism and the other doesn't, then I don't care.
|
This time around, lawyers will have read the order and there will be some sort of plan. Trust us, it will be huge. Big league.
|
On February 11 2017 08:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 08:20 IgnE wrote:On February 11 2017 08:15 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 08:07 IgnE wrote:On February 11 2017 07:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:27 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 11 2017 07:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 11 2017 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't follow what you're trying to say here. I mostly see an attempt to impose context on a bullshit loaded question being asked. Let's take a hypothetical poll: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" It's a dumb question with no valid answer. But if 90% of men answered 1, while 90% of women answered 2, that is a noteworthy result. You cannot draw anything from the answers themselves, but having such a drastic skew invites further discovery. In this case, we have two such notable results. One is that the Trump voter group is the only one to vote in agreement, and in a majority amount too. The other is that the Clinton voter group is overwhelming opposed. The other three are less notable because they are so similar, and are much easier to view as control groups. So again, it was an intentionally loaded question, and having drastically different responses to a loaded question that is so cleanly split along voting lines is noteworthy. Noteworthy in what way? Like, what useful information does it tell you? it would be weird if 90% of women said "1" and 90% of men said "2" in a statistically significant sample size would it not? Weird, yes. But I wouldn't seek to draw conclusions from it when the context is so vague that it could mean any number of things. you could draw the conclusion that it was "noteworthy" and warranted further investigation could you not? If the matter was of any real interest, yes. If it's most likely to just show that one group takes a hard line towards terrorism and the other doesn't, then I don't care.
Pretty sure there are questions in that survey that bluntly asking their view on the ban, and their view on terrorism.
|
So, if you believe CNN (and their sources), some of the Steele dossier conversations did happen in the time and place described in the dossier.
Wonder if that includes the person who posted that asinine tweet of their passport (doesn't look like it sadly).
One thing's for sure: I suspect this will get the same drip, drip, leak, leak treatment of the emails. I wish the Flynn stuff was getting that same treatment, though.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
By the way, we are three weeks into this presidency. If I remember the promise Trump made, the generals' plan for fighting ISIS should be ready soon. I'm looking forward to it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 11 2017 08:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:So, if you believe CNN (and their sources), some of the Steele dossier conversations did happen in the time and place described in the dossier. Wonder if that includes the person who posted that asinine tweet of their passport (doesn't look like it sadly). One thing's for sure: I suspect this will get the same drip, drip, leak, leak treatment of the emails. I wish the Flynn stuff was getting that same treatment, though.
I can say one thing: while I still think that "proof or it didn't happen" applies here, I certainly have noticed what looks like a slow slide into psychosis that started with twits made in response to that dossier being released.
|
On February 11 2017 08:50 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, we are three weeks into this presidency. If I remember the promise Trump made, the generals' plan for fighting ISIS should be ready soon. I'm looking forward to it.
I think a week or two ago he signed an executive order telling his generals to create a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days.
So you've still got a couple weeks before Trump can ask his fairy godmother for wishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
