d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > European Union News > What's Up In The Eu.
Prev1155156157158159646Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 30,160
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 20%
Aug 13 2018 02:46pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 13 Aug 2018 20:41)
If you read carefully, you'll notice that I never made a definitive claim that the study is highly partisan or biased.


oh really? maybe you should read your own posts more carefully:

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 12 Aug 2018 14:48)
the guardian article treated this study like it produced definitive results, while it in fact was a highly partisan study.


speaks for itself that you don't even seem to realise anymore how automatically you just dismiss what doesn't fit your own views...


and while it's fair to say 'i FEEL that the results might be closer than the study shows', it's completely ridiculous to just CLAIM that without providing any evidence, while at the same time just dismissing the facts presented without any real reason...
Member
Posts: 49,872
Joined: Dec 23 2006
Gold: 0.00
Aug 13 2018 04:57pm
are you guys going to continue to take refugees ?
Member
Posts: 51,144
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,400.67
Aug 13 2018 11:22pm
Quote (fender @ 13 Aug 2018 22:46)
oh really? maybe you should read your own posts more carefully:


speaks for itself that you don't even seem to realise anymore how automatically you just dismiss what doesn't fit your own views...

.


allow me to explain this:


in my original post, I wrote "partisan study" and meant "study funded by partisan actors". I should have made this clearer.

in the second post, our debate hat shifted to the question if the study itself was produced with bad intentions, with an explicit mission to manipulate. this I dont know, even though I consider it very plausible when we look at who paid for all of it. but since I dont have definitive proof for this claim, I refrain from concluding that the study content definitively is shaped by partisan bias, even though I consider it likely.

note that this has been my point from the very beginning: even in my original post, my conclusion was to "treat this study's results with a heavy grain of salt", and not that "it is undeniably a complete fabrication".

but fine, you got me, I used imprecise language which led to my words contradicting themselves, since I couldnt remember every single word I wrote 30 hours before, and it makes me look bad. is this what you wanted to hear?

---
btw:

Quote
the guardian article treated this study like it produced definitive results


this still is a valid criticism of mine. as I explained above, we simply cant tell with certainty to which degree the content of the study is biased. (even though it's very reasonable to assume quite some bias.)
to obtain this certainty would require access to the full study as well as the original data and the methodology, and a meticulous review process. as far as I can tell, the Guardian didnt do that; they simply took a study supporting their narrative, their worldview ("brexit is failing, and is rapidly losing public support") and published it without properly acknowledging the highly partisan background of those who ordered it.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 13 2018 11:26pm
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Jul 24 2018
Gold: 0.00
Aug 14 2018 06:02am
Italy's Matteo Salvini showing how to fight against Islamic radicalization and extremism

https://twitter.com/ARmastrangelo/status/1029011314981695488

Matteo Salvini on more Mosques: "I want to know who’s financing it—where is this money coming from? Who is going to lead the prayer? I want names—I will not give even half a square meter of space [until these rules are respected]."
Member
Posts: 51,144
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,400.67
Aug 14 2018 06:29am
Quote (Hillary4Prison @ 14 Aug 2018 14:02)
Italy's Matteo Salvini showing how to fight against Islamic radicalization and extremism

https://twitter.com/ARmastrangelo/status/1029011314981695488

Matteo Salvini on more Mosques: "I want to know who’s financing it—where is this money coming from? Who is going to lead the prayer? I want names—I will not give even half a square meter of space [until these rules are respected]."


salvini is doing a great job and brings real change instead of just talking.
Member
Posts: 33,580
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Aug 14 2018 06:36am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Aug 14 2018 01:29pm)
salvini is doing a great job and brings real change instead of just talking.



From a UK perspective he’s backing us vs technocrats in Brussels
Member
Posts: 30,160
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 20%
Aug 14 2018 01:35pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 14 Aug 2018 06:22)
allow me to explain this:


in my original post, I wrote "partisan study" and meant "study funded by partisan actors". I should have made this clearer.

in the second post, our debate hat shifted to the question if the study itself was produced with bad intentions, with an explicit mission to manipulate. this I dont know, even though I consider it very plausible when we look at who paid for all of it. but since I dont have definitive proof for this claim, I refrain from concluding that the study content definitively is shaped by partisan bias, even though I consider it likely.

note that this has been my point from the very beginning: even in my original post, my conclusion was to "treat this study's results with a heavy grain of salt", and not that "it is undeniably a complete fabrication".

but fine, you got me, I used imprecise language which led to my words contradicting themselves, since I couldnt remember every single word I wrote 30 hours before, and it makes me look bad. is this what you wanted to hear?

---
btw:



this still is a valid criticism of mine. as I explained above, we simply cant tell with certainty to which degree the content of the study is biased. (even though it's very reasonable to assume quite some bias.)
to obtain this certainty would require access to the full study as well as the original data and the methodology, and a meticulous review process. as far as I can tell, the Guardian didnt do that; they simply took a study supporting their narrative, their worldview ("brexit is failing, and is rapidly losing public support") and published it without properly acknowledging the highly partisan background of those who ordered it.


if you backpedaled by saying 'well, i didn't really mean the study was biased and highly partisan, i just made this assumption without any evidence based on the fact it was funded by organisations i disagree with' i wouldn't have put you on the spot like that.

however, you arrogantly insisted that you never even stated it, but that i just didn't read carefully - implying i refuted something you never actually claimed.


and yet again, you hilariously jump to conclusions and make allegations (this time against the guardian) for which you have absolutely NO proof, no supporting evidence, yet seem to be under the impression that your baseless speculations and criticism somehow is reasonable or even warranted...
Member
Posts: 51,144
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,400.67
Aug 14 2018 01:45pm
Quote (fender @ 14 Aug 2018 21:35)
and yet again, you hilariously jump to conclusions and make allegations (this time against the guardian) for which you have absolutely NO proof, no supporting evidence, yet seem to be under the impression that your baseless speculations and criticism somehow is reasonable or even warranted...


the study was ordered by highly partisan interest groups, and the guardian barely acknowledged this background of the study. at least this part is a fact that even you cant deny. the rest might be speculation on my part, but the guardian drooling over a study which supports their view on Brexit isnt too far-fetched if you ask me.

in the end, the truth is that we as ordinary people will rarely have definitive facts and proof available. discussing politics is all about which assumptions to believe in, about weighing plausibility and, yes, about speculating in the sense of 'making an educated guess'.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 14 2018 01:46pm
Member
Posts: 33,580
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Aug 15 2018 12:49pm
Is this the best 1 minute and 40 seconds video of political satire there is? It just well might be.

https://twitter.com/SarahDuggers/status/1029514363122659328
Member
Posts: 33,580
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Aug 16 2018 12:54pm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservatives-brexit-theresa-may-chequers-deal-tory-party-erg-a8491256.html

Quote
Conservative Brexiteers are reportedly drawing up an alternative plan to rival Theresa May’s Chequers agreement, detailing what they claim to be the advantages of leaving the EU without a deal.

The European Research Group (ERG) of backbench Eurosceptic Tory MPs – led by Jacob Rees-Mogg – is expected to publish a policy paper ahead of the Conservative party’s annual conference in Birmingham next month.


Quote
According to The Times, it will outline the advantages of leaving the bloc without a deal on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms and has the backing of up to 80 Conservative MPs.

The newspaper added it also expected to advocate a Canada-style free trade agreement if Brussels dropped its demands on the Irish border.


Don't let the toffs ruin this country, Mrs May.

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1155156157158159646Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll