Pop Quiz: A poll for conservatives.

[RandomGuy]

Full text of question should read:

Is it logical to conclude that Bush opponents are lying when they say something bad about the administration?

The purpose of this is mostly curiousity on my part, as I am testing a hypothesis.

[xrayzebra]

Okay, what are we testing? Polling?

[RandomGuy]

Okay, what are we testing? Polling?

Simple question. No trick. I am not testing the polling function, but rather testing the thinking of conservatives. I would do a private poll, but I wouldn't want our liberal posters to confound the results.

Is it logical to conclude that a Bush administration opponent is lying when they say "X" about the administration?

("X" being unflattering)

I am curious as to the thoughts/opinions about conservatives in general.

It might be fun to do a mirror poll for libs along the same lines.

[Don Quixote]

Depends on the question.

Would it be logical to assume that, say, liberals are lying when they talk about the Bush administration? Answer: we don't know, until we get to hear the question.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Depends on the question.

Would it be logical to assume that, say, liberals are lying when they talk about the Bush administration? Answer: we don't know, until we get to hear the question.

Simple question. Yes or no.

[clambake]

you might get more conservative response if you call it "pole".

[George Gervin's Afro]

I can answer for all conservatives. yes and no. If a lib says something good about Bush then it is the truth. If a lib says something bad about bush they are evil partisans who don't recognize the greatness of bush.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I can answer for all conservatives. yes and no. If a lib says something good about Bush then it is the truth. If a lib says something bad about bush they are evil partisans who don't recognize the greatness of bush.

That's not true at all, but it does depend on the question. It's not a simple yes or no question. Pretty ironic seeing a liberal claim everything is black and white, both of the idiots running for office for your party think everything is a shade of gray.

[Don Quixote]

That's for sure. Obama is probably the first full-fledged postmodern Presidential candidate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's not true at all, but it does depend on the question. It's not a simple yes or no question. Pretty ironic seeing a liberal claim everything is black and white, both of the idiots running for office for your party think everything is a shade of gray.

No this is more about intellectual honesty than a yes or no question.

[RandomGuy]

That's not true at all, but it does depend on the question. It's not a simple yes or no question. Pretty ironic seeing a liberal claim everything is black and white, both of the idiots running for office for your party think everything is a shade of gray.

This question is literally black and white.

Either it is logical to conclude that Bush adminstration opponents are lying when they say something bad about the administration or it isn't.

There is no room for gray. This is on/off, yes/no, 1/0.

I am just trying to see who thinks what.

If you find the question too specific, then vote "no", and feel free to say why.

[RandomGuy]

The ultimate intent here is a fairly well-meaning teaching opportunity.

I will do a mirror type poll for the libs, just to be fair.

[xrayzebra]

Okay, what are we testing? Polling?

When I ask the above question, everything was blank
except your comments about a poll/testing.

[Wild Cobra]

I would say YES 90% or more of the time.

[Don Quixote]

I would say No. To say YES would be a hasty conclusion.

If the question were, Logical to conclude that Bush opponents mean harm against the admin when they talk about the admin?, then I would say YES.

But lying requires (a) the telling of a non-truth, and (b) knowledge of the actual truth (as opposed to the non-truth), and (c) intent to decieve by substituting the lie for what one knows to be the truth. As a result, your question commits the logical fallacy known as "the complex question." It rolls several questions into one, making it impossible (or in fact self-incriminating) to answer.

I tried it (the complex question) on my colleague the other day. I asked him, "So, Bob, is it true that you no longer smoke crack behind the student center after lunch?" He laughed, and having taken freshman philosophy many years ago, recognized it for what it was. He said he was under no obligation to answer my question.

[clambake]

"my colleague":lmao

[SRJ]

Logically, no. Case by case, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

It's the age old question: Do political rivals question each other because their positions/policies are bad, or because they're opponents? In an honest political systems, opposing parties would credit each other when appropriate. In our system, the other party never does anything right.

[Don Quixote]

"my colleague"

Um, yes. I have a "job." And at this job, and particularly in the schoolhouse, we tend to call each other "colleagues." Run along now.

[clambake]

a preacher in a schoolhouse.

i'll be sure to check for breaking news:lmao

[Yonivore]

No, it is not, "...logical to conclude that Bush opponents are lying when they say something bad about the administration...".

Nor, is it logical to conclude that Bush opponents are telling the truth when they say something bad about the administration."

It is only logical to base your judgement, on the veracity of their statements, by comparing them to what is known about the situation about which they speak.

[SAGambler]

IMO, any time any politician opens their mouth, there is about a 90% chance they are lying about something.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, here is the mirror image poll for liberals. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94560)

[Homeland Security]

Not only are liberals lying when they criticize the Administration, they are committing treason.

[Don Quixote]

Thanks for the caricature. As always, you grapple seriously with the questions.

[Homeland Security]

Thanks for the caricature. As always, you grapple seriously with the questions.

I question your devotion to the cause. However, there's no reason to come down too hard on you, it's nothing of which a few stress positions cannot disabuse you.

[ClingingMars]

loaded question

gg

- Mars

[RandomGuy]

loaded question

gg

- Mars

actually it isn't.

It does have a very specific and verifiable right and wrong answer though.

[Don Quixote]

Sorry, RandomDude, it is a "complex question."

[RandomGuy]

No, it is not, "...logical to conclude that Bush opponents are lying when they say something bad about the administration...".

Nor, is it logical to conclude that Bush opponents are telling the truth when they say something bad about the administration."

It is only logical to base your judgement, on the veracity of their statements, by comparing them to what is known about the situation about which they speak.

This is the correct answer.

One cannot logically conclude that a statement is true or false simply because of the bias or general veracity of the speaker.

It is logical to subject such claims to increased scrutiny and some healthy skepticism.

This goes both for opponents of the administration, and the administration itself.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, RandomDude, it is a "complex question."

Actually the question describes the logical fallacy:


Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.

Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

"She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican."

"I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views."

"Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."

"Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."

[Don Quixote]

Yes, I can see that one too. Perhaps your logical fallacy -- circumstantial ad hominem -- is clearer than mine (the complex question).

[Yonivore]

So, what do I win, RG?

[RandomGuy]

So, what do I win, RG?

(laughs)

I hadn't really thought about a prize, but that would be appropriate for correctly getting a pop quiz.

How about this:

I will add an extra $10 bucks on your behalf to what I had budgeted to give to Terrilyn Curtis, the foster mother who is taking in the 3 horribly abused children and one newborn infant of Cesar and Amaya Carmona, (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/09//0509mojica.html) (click names to see the news story).

My family lives within a couple of blocks of where the trial was being held and was wondering why there were 4 or 5 news vans in the parking lot. I almost wished that I hadn't found out why. :depressed That stuff is almost too hard to read once one becomes a parent.

I feel very compelled to do a bit more, but need to talk to a few people first before setting anything else up.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, I can see that one too. Perhaps your logical fallacy -- circumstantial ad hominem -- is clearer than mine (the complex question).

heh, I'm more competitive than you are...

[Don Quixote]

heh, I'm more competitive than you are...

NO YOUR NOT IM MORE COMPETETIVE YOU SHUT UP :ihit

[RandomGuy]

NO YOUR NOT IM MORE COMPETETIVE YOU SHUT UP :ihit

(bows) You got the joke. Some don't.

I am still more competitive...