Lying About Your Opponents
Michael Demmons
First, no. I don't think Boi From Troy is a liar. I actually think he's a very nice guy, and I enjoy his site. But a post he wrote today illustrates perfectly what I said earlier about being honest when you write about your opponents. You cannot expect people to take you seriously in your criticism of them if they know you lie or mislead people about them - even a couple times. Today's post:
I knew most Democrats were opposed to Life for all humans, but now shocking poll results reveal most Democrats are also against Liberty!His unfounded "opposed to Life" crack about pro-choice Democrats aside, let's revisit the poll question here (PDF).In the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll released yesterday (1/27/05), respondents were asked, "In George W. Bush's inauguration speech he said, "The survival of liberty our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." Do you agree or disagree with this statement?"
While 57% of the country agreed, a startling 55% of Democrats said, "NO."
The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." Do you agree or disagree with this statement?Here's where you can go with that question
- If you believe America will be free no matter what happens in other lands, you should vote "No."
- If do not believe that THE SUCCESS of liberty of other countries will increase our own, you must vote "No."
There are many situations because of that poorly-worded question where one would vote "No"...unless, of course, the respondent is so partisan that the only thing they think about when answering a polling question is not honesty, but how good it makes President Bush look, and how it will affect his numbers.
In any case, saying that "Most Democrats Oppose Liberty" is misleading at the very best, and a downright lie at its worst. I know Boi From Troy is smart. I know he knows how to read. And I know that the poll question was not that complex. So I can only conclude that his intent was to lie - and hope you'd overlook it.
Update: I've made an update to this post. Please read it.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Admitting An Error
- Lying About Your Opponents
"And the little fleas have littler ones to bite 'em"
Thanks for that. I got in a rush. I made the correction.
You version of a "lie" demeans that tradition. It's not like he didn't provide the poll question with his (obviously snarky/sarcastic) observation.
You make a serious accusation with no proof, other than assumptions on your part; by your measure of a "lie" I could accuse YOU of lying about Boi. I won't though because my honor won't let me.
If you're referring to the
< /sarcasm > tag in the post. It wasn't there until BfT edited the post.
I like BoiFromTroy, but he is prone to reckless miscategorization of his political enemies, and often assumes the worst possible interpretation of data.
I presented the facts as written in BfT's post (before he edited it to make it obvious he was being sarcastic.) How on earth could you accuse me of lying?
Do you believe that, judging from the poll, Democrats are 55% against liberty? If you believe that, you're a fool.
Lie (from Dictionary.com): "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."
I agree with you, the Service Academies are honorable institutions. Unfortunately for you though, they don't get to make up their own definitions for words.
If BfT really meant it as a joke, then I'm glad he edited his post. I have a lot of respect for him, regardless. But my criticism of him stands based on the way it was originally written - a way which indicated he honestly meant what he said.
Agreed. It's also counterproductive. The goal isn't to tar people who don't sufficiently promote liberty (if that is the author's beef).
The goal is to promote policies that expand liberty and explain/persuade folks why those policies are good!
It's a never-ending fight, too. So, trying to score political points on the issue isn't right and doesn't help, in my view.
Hank Barnes
There was nothing in BfT's post to indicate that it was anything less than serious. Perhaps you'd enlighten me as to how I should have known this?
Yours,
Tom Hawksom, aka Wince
Dictionary definitions, as I'm hoping you well know, are merely lexiconic reflections of current usage NOT proper usage.
As an analogy, no lawyer would go into court claiming that his client did not assault anyone as their was no "phyisical attack".
By trivializing the term "lie" to include rhetorical arguments (or in YOUR opinion excessively rhetorical; I don't agree as I understood his post to be snarky/sarcastic before I read his actual post... just your excerpt), you begin to debase the seriousness of the charge.
I know Xrlq can speak for himself, but if you could read Boi's post and believe that he WAS completely serious in his accusation, I feel sorry for you. You can't be that earnest, can you? If Boi added the sarcasm end tag to his post after the fact, it actually supports my argument not yours. I'm sure he thought: "Oh crap, someone out there read my post and can't understand any nuance or facetiousness in the post, I better add this tag for those out there that are humor impaired".
I think that you're taking this far too seriously. When he starts by saying that, "most democrats are opposed to life", he's either an idiot or speaking non-literally.
The parallelism of "we knew that they were opposed to life, but they're also opposed to liberty!" means that the opposition is going to be of the same kind, whether sarcastic, serious, or a code-word for something (e.g. the way you decoded "against life" to "pro choice [on abortion]").
I think the pollsters might find a surprising degree of variety in responses if they were really interested in finding out what people thought instead of producing headlines about how polarized the nation is.
But why would they be interested in what people really think? Statistics isn't about truth, after all.
There's a reason that there's the saying, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Guys and gals, you answer "yes" to that question and then hope there's another one in there where you can say you disagree with the President's actions - what the poll shows (inadvertently, I'll be bound - my bet was that it was an ambush question...but the easiest dodged ambush in all creation) is that far too many Democrats are absolutely blinded by partisan hatred. No wonder we're winning - and this is why we'll go on winning.
Michael's reasoning is sound: making the jump from the questionnaire results to the stated conclusion is poor logic. On the other hand it could be that said conclusion wasn't serious, and the "[/sarcasm]" tag added later was less an attempt to backtrack than an attempt to clarify.
Speaking of satirical remarks: Chris L., please tell me you were kidding when you said "Statistics isn't about truth, after all."
Real statistics, with proper attention to mathematical and demographic requirements, provide generally accurate indications to the probability of actual data distribution.
In closing, a note for those who considered the humor and satirical content of the original BoiFromTroi post to be obvious. A wise man once said "A note about the obvious: it is always obvious."
That's almost Zen... :)
That's it.
Done.
De nada.
"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."
-President George W. Bush
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King
I don't think I've seen this rare bird too often.
Seriously, we've discussed statistics on DW more than once, and the problem is that most statistics are done by politically motivated types trying to prove a point, get more money, justify their existence. Even the supposedly reliable statistics we get from the government are often dependent on operational definitions that may or may not reflect what is reality.
For instance, recall the recent postings by James Taranto re: the U.S. infant mortality rate (WSJ's best of the web today blog). One of the reliable liberal columnists at the NYT blasted us for having such a high rate as compared to China (!), Germany and the rest of the world, apparently.
But as Taranto pointed out, we count live births differently than does China or Germany. Premature babies born in the U.S. are counted as live births and physicians fight to keep them alive. In other countries, those premies are left to die and *not* counted as live births.
Just one example of how politics can play into it.
That Boi From Troy sure has a lot of HE-MAN stuff on his site. I wish he was a Lesbian instead. That would be sexy.