06-16-2017, 07:00 PM
(06-16-2017, 06:04 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL, No fooling you with my three clearly stated examples of Republican operatives; you were "paying attention."
The first question I ask regarding descriptions of political history, behavior, and policies is whether they are accurate.
If I think they are not, I try to say where they are, or I don't say anything.
The first question you should have asked is are my examples complete and do they attempt to be fair? It doesn't look like either of these questions were on your list at all.
Quote:If they are accurate, then it doesn't really matter whether they are "partisan."
Absolutely untrue. Again, is that a complete or exhaustive list? I think we'd both agree that the answer is no. Given that, why did you choose the examples you did? Why were all the examples you chose to use regarding action by one political party? You can keep trying to put tinsel on a turd, it won't make it a Christmas tree.
Quote:And if accuracy is the desired goal, then to begin a non-partisan inquiry into bad political behavior with the assumption that one simply must find that behavior distributed equally on "both sides," is to begin with an unacceptable bias.
Again, incorrect. This statement also makes me question your grasp of the concept being discussed. You go in with no assumptions at all. However, seeing as we have both lived on this planet, and in this country, for a fair amount of time it doesn't take any assumptions, only basic experience, to know that both sides engage, and have engaged, in political skullduggery.
Quote:I add that calling other people "partisan" doesn't establish one's non-partisan credentials, especially where the charges are unsupported. Partisans call each other that all the time.
Except the charges are supported by the very content of your post, and previous posts you have made. As for establishing my "non-partisan" credentials, I don't care whether you think what I'm doing does so or not. Every individual reader will make that decision for themselves.
(06-16-2017, 06:18 PM)Dill Wrote: My "defense" of them is that they made an error and corrected it. You apparently agree, but need more colorful descriptive terms--"willfully malicious or monstrously incompetent." And they did catch the error, hence the correction.
It's an error that should have never been made. They deserve to be lambasted for it. If I make a huge error at work and an entire criminal case is ruined I don't get a free pass because I acknowledge that I screwed up. Especially given the, at times justified, accusations of left wing media bias any paper in those crosshairs should be doing more than even the usual due diligence to make sure such basic errors aren't committed.
Quote:Looks like "conjecture" in both corners, if we are talking about the editors and Vlad, though only one of us recognizes this.
One is proven to have made a mistake by publicly acknowledging said mistake. It is at that point that your analogy fails and you continue to fail by not realizing it.
Thank you.
