Well I will say this - you are putting on quite the little clinic on how to take something that is presumably a fact, and then try to mislead the reader to a conclusion that isn't supported by that fact. (And in truth, that fact is completely meaningless.)
Hey! Have you considered presenting this to your students? A little "how to mislead with facts" segment? That might actually be useful. You could use your own posts as examples!
What I find to be most interesting about your comments, Hap, is that you continually ask me for facts, I present them, and then you refute them with....no facts. Just some snark.
If you don't agree with the numbers I've presented, refute them using your own research and evidence.
>If you don't agree with the numbers I've presented, refute them using your own research and evidence.
I guess this needs to be spelled out, as it apparently went right over your head. Mark, I'm not disputing your numbers. In fact, I'm willing to believe them on pure faith alone. What I am disputing is that they are meaningful. Any idea what I'm talking about? That it's possible for something to be factually true but meaningless? Just off the top of my head, here are some questions to help illustrate why this set of facts is meaningless:
1. Why did your facts exclude the portion of the government that is as responsible if not more so for legislation as the presidency? 2. Why does it only go back 50 years? Does something change before that? 3. Doesn't this seem like these numbers could be awfully coincidental? For example, Bill Clinton presided over the dot com boom. Yet he left office before the bubble completely popped, which would result in a lot of + to the D column, and since his successor was an R, a lot of - to the R column, even though if we were seriously trying to assign + and -, Clinton would probably get both the lions share of both. 4. But in reference to #3, how would that make sense anyway? It's not as if Clinton was somehow personally responsible for the dotcom boom or the bust. 5. (Asked by multiple people every time you post this.) Why does it make sense to attribute created jobs to a president? Yes, I know, political campaigns do this all the time - does that make it logical? Yes, Romney is going to hit Obama on the crappy economy, and that isn't necessarily fair. But were the situation reversed, Obama would hit Romney on the crappy economy, it wouldn't necessarily be fair, and you know it. (Though having great faith in your partisanship, I have no doubt you'd try to rationalize it in some way.) In either case, why do we need to believe in the same false premise?
Now - imagine that you put this graphic up for your students, and explained to them that it was entirely factual, then you asked them whether it provided enough context to be meaningful. Think of all the skeptical neurons they could exercise in thinking it through. Admittedly, you'd be handing them some tools to start picking apart your own bullshit, but hey - sometimes you gotta do the right thing as a teacher. If you don't want to sully the shiny image of your precious Democratic party that you think this chart provides, you can most assuredly figure out some chart that casts R's in a positive light, and ask all the same questions. What do you say?
It never even crossed your mind that you could - actually stop lying?
Has it ever crossed your mind that I'm telling the truth? Or to put up an argument (using logic, facts, and evidence) that counters my points?
1. Why did your facts exclude the portion of the government that is as responsible if not more so for legislation as the presidency?
Well, you know as well as I do that the president (not Congress) is help responsible for the economy. The election this year will be a referendum on the economy and jobs and the president, whether rightfully so or not, is the one that will be held responsible.
It's too bad, really, because you are right. The House GOP will get none of the blame for essentially rooting for America to fail these last two years. And Tip O'Neil didn't get any credit for Reagan's economic gains in the late 80s.
2. Why does it only go back 50 years? Does something change before that?
I don't think it would be very fair to include FDR's 3 terms, Truman's 2 terms against only 2 of Ike's terms. This is a just a guess, though. And besides, by today's standards, Ike would've been a communist.
Clinton would probably get both the lions share of both. It's not as if Clinton was somehow personally responsible for the dotcom boom or the bust.
I agree and that's what does suck about the standards that presidents are held to these days. President Obama is getting a lot of the blame for the governing of George W. Bush.
Why does it make sense to attribute created jobs to a president?
My point in putting this stuff is to illustrate the Democratic presidents do not destroy economies. In fact, the opposite is true. When they have been in charge, the economy has done better. It's a counter point to the myth that Republicans are better for business. They aren't.
Now - imagine that you put this graphic up for your students, and explained to them that it was entirely factual, then you asked them whether it provided enough context to be meaningful
I realize that there is a myth out there that all teachers are running liberal indoctrination camps but it just isn't the case. I'd never put something like this up in class because it doesn't fall under any sort of MN standard. In addition, I'm not there to spout my opinions. I'm more interested in hearing their opinion and, quite frankly, getting them to give a shit in the first place.
>It's a counter point to the myth that Republicans are better for business. They aren't.
Fabulous. You recognize the validity of the points I made, but don't seem to recognize how that supports the claim that your fact is meaningless, and isn't a counter to anything. Here's an idea: "Republican's are better for business" is an even less supported statement than "D presidents preside over more GDP increase." Rather than scrounging up some garbage numbers like you did, you could say, "Hey, where is the evidence for R's being better for business? I don't see any." Because I would generally say that until you put two policies side by side to compare, R's are not by default better for business.
>I realize that there is a myth out there that all teachers are running liberal indoctrination camps but it just isn't the case.
It has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative. It's basic skepticism. You could do it with something non political. Skepticism is something you could use a serious dose of, and your students as well, assuming they learn how to reason like you.
You recognize the validity of the points I made, but don't seem to recognize how that supports the claim that your fact is meaningless, and isn't a counter to anything.
That's because we are making two different points. You are saying that the president is only one part of many that affects the economy. That's true. I'm saying that the president (especially the current one) and other Democrats have not, in fact, destroyed the economy but have presided over times of great prosperity. If they are/were so awful, why all these numbers?
It's basic skepticism.
I think it goes past that which is why I asked you the question about the Grand Coulee Damn in the other thread. In so many ways, folks on the right like you take for granted what the government provides to our society. You invent these bizarre notions of the nanny statists when really, the government is a necessary partner to economic growth. I submit that you are too skeptical of the government and do not have enough skepticism of the private sector.
Reflection! Projection! Flipping! Unfair use of actual past history of slobbering affection for the big dick, err... stick! ... of unlimited government!
Well, you know as well as I do that the president (not Congress) is help responsible for the economy.
Only by children that expect daddy and mommy to provide everything they want and stamp their feet when they don't get a pony. You pander to that rather than educate. Curious, isn't it?
>Reflection! Projection! Flipping! Unfair use of actual past history of slobbering affection for the big dick, err... stick! ... of unlimited government!
We need a developer here stat! I think Mark's random avoidance generator might be broken!
15 comments:
Well I will say this - you are putting on quite the little clinic on how to take something that is presumably a fact, and then try to mislead the reader to a conclusion that isn't supported by that fact. (And in truth, that fact is completely meaningless.)
Hey! Have you considered presenting this to your students? A little "how to mislead with facts" segment? That might actually be useful. You could use your own posts as examples!
What I find to be most interesting about your comments, Hap, is that you continually ask me for facts, I present them, and then you refute them with....no facts. Just some snark.
If you don't agree with the numbers I've presented, refute them using your own research and evidence.
If you don't agree with the numbers I've presented, refute them using your own research and evidence.
Why Mark? When your arguments get refuted you get all mad and consider it to be a rectal exam. Like it's our fault or something.
Liar.
Guard Duck has become Joan Crawford. Or is it Collins. Either way, funny
[whiney_voice_with_tears_mode]
Stop picking on Markney! Leave Markney aloone!
[/whiney_voice_with_tears_mode]
Yes, you are right, Serial. He does sound like Joan Collins! Liar...LIAR!!!
I've always been amazed by the true depths of drama queen that Guard Duck and, in particular, DJ, were able to find. Stanislavsky, indeed!
It never even crossed your mind that you could - actually stop lying?
>If you don't agree with the numbers I've presented, refute them using your own research and evidence.
I guess this needs to be spelled out, as it apparently went right over your head. Mark, I'm not disputing your numbers. In fact, I'm willing to believe them on pure faith alone. What I am disputing is that they are meaningful. Any idea what I'm talking about? That it's possible for something to be factually true but meaningless? Just off the top of my head, here are some questions to help illustrate why this set of facts is meaningless:
1. Why did your facts exclude the portion of the government that is as responsible if not more so for legislation as the presidency?
2. Why does it only go back 50 years? Does something change before that?
3. Doesn't this seem like these numbers could be awfully coincidental? For example, Bill Clinton presided over the dot com boom. Yet he left office before the bubble completely popped, which would result in a lot of + to the D column, and since his successor was an R, a lot of - to the R column, even though if we were seriously trying to assign + and -, Clinton would probably get both the lions share of both.
4. But in reference to #3, how would that make sense anyway? It's not as if Clinton was somehow personally responsible for the dotcom boom or the bust.
5. (Asked by multiple people every time you post this.) Why does it make sense to attribute created jobs to a president? Yes, I know, political campaigns do this all the time - does that make it logical? Yes, Romney is going to hit Obama on the crappy economy, and that isn't necessarily fair. But were the situation reversed, Obama would hit Romney on the crappy economy, it wouldn't necessarily be fair, and you know it. (Though having great faith in your partisanship, I have no doubt you'd try to rationalize it in some way.) In either case, why do we need to believe in the same false premise?
Now - imagine that you put this graphic up for your students, and explained to them that it was entirely factual, then you asked them whether it provided enough context to be meaningful. Think of all the skeptical neurons they could exercise in thinking it through. Admittedly, you'd be handing them some tools to start picking apart your own bullshit, but hey - sometimes you gotta do the right thing as a teacher. If you don't want to sully the shiny image of your precious Democratic party that you think this chart provides, you can most assuredly figure out some chart that casts R's in a positive light, and ask all the same questions. What do you say?
It never even crossed your mind that you could - actually stop lying?
Has it ever crossed your mind that I'm telling the truth? Or to put up an argument (using logic, facts, and evidence) that counters my points?
1. Why did your facts exclude the portion of the government that is as responsible if not more so for legislation as the presidency?
Well, you know as well as I do that the president (not Congress) is help responsible for the economy. The election this year will be a referendum on the economy and jobs and the president, whether rightfully so or not, is the one that will be held responsible.
It's too bad, really, because you are right. The House GOP will get none of the blame for essentially rooting for America to fail these last two years. And Tip O'Neil didn't get any credit for Reagan's economic gains in the late 80s.
2. Why does it only go back 50 years? Does something change before that?
I don't think it would be very fair to include FDR's 3 terms, Truman's 2 terms against only 2 of Ike's terms. This is a just a guess, though. And besides, by today's standards, Ike would've been a communist.
Clinton would probably get both the lions share of both. It's not as if Clinton was somehow personally responsible for the dotcom boom or the bust.
I agree and that's what does suck about the standards that presidents are held to these days. President Obama is getting a lot of the blame for the governing of George W. Bush.
Why does it make sense to attribute created jobs to a president?
My point in putting this stuff is to illustrate the Democratic presidents do not destroy economies. In fact, the opposite is true. When they have been in charge, the economy has done better. It's a counter point to the myth that Republicans are better for business. They aren't.
Now - imagine that you put this graphic up for your students, and explained to them that it was entirely factual, then you asked them whether it provided enough context to be meaningful
I realize that there is a myth out there that all teachers are running liberal indoctrination camps but it just isn't the case. I'd never put something like this up in class because it doesn't fall under any sort of MN standard. In addition, I'm not there to spout my opinions. I'm more interested in hearing their opinion and, quite frankly, getting them to give a shit in the first place.
>It's a counter point to the myth that Republicans are better for business. They aren't.
Fabulous. You recognize the validity of the points I made, but don't seem to recognize how that supports the claim that your fact is meaningless, and isn't a counter to anything. Here's an idea: "Republican's are better for business" is an even less supported statement than "D presidents preside over more GDP increase." Rather than scrounging up some garbage numbers like you did, you could say, "Hey, where is the evidence for R's being better for business? I don't see any." Because I would generally say that until you put two policies side by side to compare, R's are not by default better for business.
>I realize that there is a myth out there that all teachers are running liberal indoctrination camps but it just isn't the case.
It has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative. It's basic skepticism. You could do it with something non political. Skepticism is something you could use a serious dose of, and your students as well, assuming they learn how to reason like you.
You recognize the validity of the points I made, but don't seem to recognize how that supports the claim that your fact is meaningless, and isn't a counter to anything.
That's because we are making two different points. You are saying that the president is only one part of many that affects the economy. That's true. I'm saying that the president (especially the current one) and other Democrats have not, in fact, destroyed the economy but have presided over times of great prosperity. If they are/were so awful, why all these numbers?
It's basic skepticism.
I think it goes past that which is why I asked you the question about the Grand Coulee Damn in the other thread. In so many ways, folks on the right like you take for granted what the government provides to our society. You invent these bizarre notions of the nanny statists when really, the government is a necessary partner to economic growth. I submit that you are too skeptical of the government and do not have enough skepticism of the private sector.
>I submit that you are too skeptical of the government and do not have enough skepticism of the private sector.
Fair enough - I'd submit exactly the opposite to you.
Reflection! Projection! Flipping! Unfair use of actual past history of slobbering affection for the big dick, err... stick! ... of unlimited government!
Well, you know as well as I do that the president (not Congress) is help responsible for the economy.
Only by children that expect daddy and mommy to provide everything they want and stamp their feet when they don't get a pony. You pander to that rather than educate. Curious, isn't it?
>Reflection! Projection! Flipping! Unfair use of actual past history of slobbering affection for the big dick, err... stick! ... of unlimited government!
We need a developer here stat! I think Mark's random avoidance generator might be broken!
Post a Comment