[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

Never seen a lefty on this forum use that bullshit excuse. It's a FOG special, and Martin seems to fall for it too. Guess lefties are just smarter than that. I've pointed out lots of questions you could ask about the survey, but just yammering about sample size, when it's more than adequate, won't cut it.

You just confirmed that you are just a hack and completely full of shit.

[andyt]

An he taps out already.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

I don't think the rules the authors you mention are talking about are just biases. They're the official rules, ie conservatives are more authoritarian, and the well established common rules a society has.

Sure, that's part of it. It's also why religious fundamentalists are overwhelmingly conservative. In this case, though, it was the knee-jerk reaction that this study MUST be worthless shit, not because of its conclusions, per se, but because the rule book says anything the CBC tells us is shit. That wide brush was then streched to paint the research company similarly with no logical connect or evidence whatsoever. One part guilt by association and one part shooting the messenger.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, those are direct attacks on both the credibility and integrity of those involved. Ad Hominem. 'Critiques' involve picking apart the results or methods, not the organizations.

Nonsense. Are you saying one could not mention, say Bernie Madoff's convictions as a fraudster in a critique of a business offer he might consider. (If he ever gets out of jail, I mean.)

Environics is a non-profit. They claim to have a "partnership" with the CBC. If you have evidence CBC hired them, I'd like to see it.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2013/0 ... itute.html

They also partner with Muslim organizations and I see NDP connections. That's worth mentioning as support for opinion. Opinion is not only legitimate in a forum such as this one. It's expected.

As it is this Environics/CBC poll feels more like advocacy to me the way it's presented.

Now that sentence I just wrote, was opinion. That also is legitimate. For example you offer up a piece from Neil MacDonald. Neil MacDonald is an opinionator. He's no part of an expert on anything. He's just another guy with an opinion. He's not presenting evidence.

But if you are telling me opinionators matter to you, here's a guy with an opposing opinion to the one you and Neal hold on this poll:

Canadian Poll – 64 % Of Muslims Say Gays Should Not Be Tolerated, 43 % Say Muslims Should Not Integrate

Oh, and Andy - small sample size is also a legitimate critique. It's not a "trope", and no side of the political spectrum is innocent of ever using it.

However if we are now discussing bitches we have with the opposite side I really wish you Regressives would stick to the conventional meanings of terms and stop redefining terms to meet your convenience.

[andyt]

Again, you're talking about FD, I was responding to Martin's comment about only 600 samples. Of course I'm sure Martin et al agree with FD that it must just be more Liberal propaganda.

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

An he taps out already.

You can't tap out when your opponent isn't even in the ring you simple-minded oxygen thief.

[andyt]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

andyt andyt:

An he taps out already.

You can't tap out when your opponent isn't even in the ring you simple-minded oxygen thief.

Get a bucket, the foam is starting.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, those are direct attacks on both the credibility and integrity of those involved. Ad Hominem. 'Critiques' involve picking apart the results or methods, not the organizations.

Nonsense. Are you saying one could not mention, say Bernie Madoff's convictions as a fraudster in a critique of a business offer he might consider. (If he ever gets out of jail, I mean.)

If I were saying that, I would have written that. There is a big difference between enumerating Madoff's convictions, and saying Environics is full of shit because Suzuki once used them.

'Ad Hominem', attacking the messenger while ignoring the message.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Environics is a non-profit. They claim to have a "partnership" with the CBC. If you have evidence CBC hired them, I'd like to see it.

It is in the second paragraph of the article you didn't read.

$1:

These are the findings of a survey of 600 Canadian Muslims conducted by the Environics Institute between November 2015 and January 2016.

Just because they are a 'non-profit' doesn't mean they work for free.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

Again, you're talking about FD, I was responding to Martin's comment about only 600 samples. Of course I'm sure Martin et al agree with FD that it must just be more Liberal propaganda.

But that's not where it ends. The response will be a "yeah but" once it's been explained that the sample size/confidence level is, objectively, sufficient. "Yeah but this is still a small sample, "Yeah but Environics is this or that", or "Yeah but the CBC always does this or that", "Yeah but so and so says such and such". It's an endless dance. And it all begins with the rulebook.

[andyt]

As we're seeing right now.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If I were saying that, I would have written that. There is a big difference between enumerating Madoff's convictions, and saying Environics is full of shit because Suzuki once used them.

right back at ya.

If advocacy style push polls are becoming a pattern with these guys one can propose the apparent evidence of that as support for a legitimate opinion forming a critique.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Environics is a non-profit. They claim to have a "partnership" with the CBC. If you have evidence CBC hired them, I'd like to see it.

It is in the second paragraph of the article you didn't read.

$1:

These are the findings of a survey of 600 Canadian Muslims conducted by the Environics Institute between November 2015 and January 2016.

Just because they are a 'non-profit' doesn't mean they work for free.

Nothing in what you posted says who hired whom. There's nothing there but wishful thinking on your part, and proven facts on mine that they call themselves "non-profit" and claim partnerships with media, and advocacy groups.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If I were saying that, I would have written that. There is a big difference between enumerating Madoff's convictions, and saying Environics is full of shit because Suzuki once used them.

right back at ya.

If advocacy style push polls are becoming a pattern with these guys one can propose the apparent evidence of that as support for a legitimate opinion forming a critique.

See! "The Book" again.

You assume it's an 'advocacy' poll, when that assumes facts not in evidence. It could be, it could also be a genuine poll to find out what a segment of the population thinks. Without the methodology, there is no way to know. Either way, it has nothing to do with your arch-nemesis, David Suzuki. Unless, for some reason, you think he managed this poll for Environics?

[N_Fiddledog]

And you guys (not necessarily you Doc, but the other two) can cut the crap if what you are saying is regressives like yourselves have never criticized a poll before.

Bullshit somebody who wasn't there when you did it.

The difference is there's good reason for challenging this poll.

It buries the lede, partners with advocacy groups and biased media, and appeals to emotion in presentation.

Oh...also, the sample size is too small.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Nothing in what you posted says who hired whom. There's nothing there but wishful thinking on your part, and proven facts on mine that they call themselves "non-profit" and claim partnerships with media, and advocacy groups.

So, in Environics, no one recieves a salary? Everyone is a volunteer? So they must work for free, right? Yes, wishful thinking, according to "The Book". People who work for free must never be trusted to do a good job!

http://www.environicsanalytics.ca/case-studies

And you haven't proven a fact yet today!

Whereas; here is the complete survey, including questions and methodology. Have fun!

http://www.environicsinstitute.org/inst ... ims-canada