Since I have to play in your sandbox

[foxpaws]

I need to know which toys I can play with...

I have attempted to avoid all media polls

ANES ?

PEW ?

GSS ?

Gallup ?

Public Agenda ?

NORC ?

I realize that polls are at best a fairly accurate science, and at their worse are conjecture, or even smoke and mirrors, but, obviously to debate, you do need to state numbers, percentages, trends. I know that media sources, as well as their watchdogs aren't always the best source (although, unfortunately, sometimes the only source). So, since I am at an impasse here, before I can really start to address some of the points/counterpoints brought up on various threads, I want to be sure I bring the right toys, if I am going to play with the big boys...

 

[fossten]

I don't put a lot of stock in polls. That doesn't mean I don't ever cite them, but generally I don't. The only time they interest me is when they change dramatically in a short time.

 

[foxpaws]

The only reason I am asking is because otherwise things degenerate into “your sources are bull s&!t”. Just like they have on the ‘bias’ thread – and personally mucking through the whole MM vs MRC is boring – even you said so David, my nectared cisisbeo.

I would love to argue why the media is destined to be biased, and how we should be looking at new solutions to the current media because it won’t, or can’t change – however, amongst that bunch of blithering it just gets lost. I would rather people read my viewpoint then get lost in the land of nit picking. Calling out cherry picking (unless you are guilty of ‘proof by verbosity’) is great, so is labeling red herrings, non sequiturs, ad hominem, and E pluribus unum.

The ‘art’ of war.

So, David, when you site ‘most people’ or, ‘in the majority’ which you need to in arguments, how do you back them up?

 

[MonsterMark]

I need to know which toys I can play with...

I hear the ones with two 'C' batteries work well.

 

[97stscaddy]

David, my nectared cisisbeo.

David, twinkle eyes,

Oh David, seraphic shoulders, I adore Sex and drugs and rock n roll…

Thank you, thank you and thank YOU.

Honestly now, I think somebody has a crush. :shifty:

 

[fossten]

Honestly now, I think somebody has a crush. :shifty:

Hey now...that's damning with faint praise.

 

[aztecknight]

Thank you.

The only reason I am asking is because otherwise things degenerate into “your sources are bull s&!t”. Just like they have on the ‘bias’ thread – and personally mucking through the whole MM vs MRC is boring – even you said so David, my nectared cisisbeo.

I would love to argue why the media is destined to be biased, and how we should be looking at new solutions to the current media because it won’t, or can’t change – however, amongst that bunch of blithering it just gets lost. I would rather people read my viewpoint then get lost in the land of nit picking. Calling out cherry picking (unless you are guilty of ‘proof by verbosity’) is great, so is labeling red herrings, non sequiturs, ad hominem, and E pluribus unum.

The ‘art’ of war.

So, David, when you site ‘most people’ or, ‘in the majority’ which you need to in arguments, how do you back them up?

Someone gets it. The other thread is absurd, and I was attempting to show that by taking the nit picking to the nth degree. Most arguments I've seen or been a part of on forums tend to be riddled with fallacies. Pointing those fallacies while committing fallacies yourself happens a lot on here. Part of the reason I jumped in. Lets speak our minds and avoid absolutes... unless you can honestly or in good faith make an attempt to back them up.

Sorry the other thread got out of control .

 

[fossten]

Someone gets it. The other thread is absurd, and I was attempting to show that by taking the nit picking to the nth degree.

Typical liberal, trying to shout others down with an avalanche of words rather than debate the merits. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[aztecknight]

I admit no such thing

Typical liberal, trying to shout others down with an avalanche of words rather than debate the merits. Thanks for admitting it.

Typical conservative. Dismissing the merits of my arguments by insulting me.

Fossten, seriously, can we get off this insulting one another. Dude, you disagree with me and I'm ok with it. I hope you give me the same courtesy. We're espousing opinions and views. As you said, can't we all just get along?

 

[shagdrum]

I have always heard (though I haven't taken the time to confirm) that most of those polls don't count the military, either.

 

[shagdrum]

The other thread is absurd, and I was attempting to show that by taking the nit picking to the nth degree. Most arguments I've seen or been a part of on forums tend to be riddled with fallacies. Pointing those fallacies while committing fallacies yourself happens a lot on here. .

That happens by some...

That seems like a swipe at me, so I will address it. Pointing out fallacies only helps raise the level of debate here, which is why I do that. While I haven't gotten time to address the lastest post by you in the other thead, I will say that all of your claims of my arguments there as "fallacious" are either based on a misunderstanding of the definition of that fallacy, or a mischaracterization of my argument (intentional or not).

It is not "nit picking" to point out that someone is making an illogical and fallacious argument. If you except fallacious reasoning as valid, then you take away any chance of having a rational discussion, or of finding and or demonstrating a relevant truth.

I will have to get to your post in the other thread after I get off work in 6 hours...

 

[aztecknight]

cool

That seems like a swipe at me, so I will address it.

Yup. I try to take the high road, but I definitely wasn't the bigger man here. My bad, please accept my apologies. It was uncalled for.

I will say that all of your claims of my arguments there as "fallacious" are either based on a misunderstanding of the definition of that fallacy, or a mischaracterization of my argument (intentional or not).

I feel the same way. Hopefully we'll get it sorted out.

 

[fossten]

Typical conservative. Dismissing the merits of my arguments by insulting me.

Fossten, seriously, can we get off this insulting one another. Dude, you disagree with me and I'm ok with it. I hope you give me the same courtesy. We're espousing opinions and views. As you said, can't we all just get along?

If calling you a typical liberal is an insult (oh, please, stick around, I've been called much much worse), then a) You need to grow a skin and b)You deserved it for admitting that you were erecting walls of text as a monument to your narcissism.

 

[aztecknight]

then what is it

If calling you a typical liberal is an insult (oh, please, stick around, I've been called much much worse), then a) You need to grow a skin and b)You deserved it for admitting that you were erecting walls of text as a monument to your narcissism.

ad hominem abusive.

If it wasn't intended to be an insult, was it a complement then? I'm not whining, I just suggested we keep from attempting to insult each other. I see you have no interest in that. So be it.

I must say you have quite the gift of spin. I didn't realize I had admitted to erecting walls of text as a monument to my narcissism. You should work for the McCain campaign. You have a way with spin.

 

[fossten]

ad hominem abusive.

If it wasn't intended to be an insult, was it a complement then? I'm not whining, I just suggested we keep from attempting to insult each other. I see you have no interest in that. So be it.

I must say you have quite the gift of spin. I didn't realize I had admitted to erecting walls of text as a monument to my narcissism. You should work for the McCain campaign. You have a way with spin.

Again, please point out the insult. I think you're having trouble with your definitions.