So you're going to ignore evidence because you've already reached a conclusion that supports your opinion?
No, I simply know enough english to read a sentence correctly. Also just fyi, I added to the post you quote.
So you're going to ignore evidence because you've already reached a conclusion that supports your opinion?
The sentence is simple enough to grasp as demonstrated, outside of particularly motivated nutcases.
It's also worth mention that the solution to klan lynchings and such isn't to expect black people to become armed vigilantes, but rather to do something about the klan. However that does highlight how certain groups think about such matters.
So short answer: yes, you are ignoring evidence because you are satisfied with your present conclusion.No, I simply know enough english to read a sentence correctly. Also just fyi, I added to the post you quote.
So short answer: yes, you are ignoring evidence because you are satisfied with your present conclusion.
No, I said a dubious poll with no method was meaningless. It also has a small sample size.I find it ironic that you are saying this in the same thread in which you declared a scientific poll meaningless because it wasn't peer reviewed.
lol.
No, I said a dubious poll with no method was meaningless. It also has a small sample size.
Further, I provided a link directly to the data I referenced. I can quote it if you'd like.
Yeah, not like allowing them their constitutional rights to defend themselves is "doing something" about the Klan.
ah, another thread littered with "true conservatives" confessing that their only true desire in the world is to murder unarmed liberals--not to actually address or work to solve real problems.
work? what the hell is work? sounds too hard!
It's methodology was plainly stated for all to see. Also, 1,000 people is not a small sample size for this result, which you would know if you understood scientific polling or statistics. Finally, you said that without peer review it lacked legitimacy.
I provided a link directly to the data I referenced as well, it didn't stop you from ignoring the evidence you found inconvenient.
Usually people don't out themselves as hypocrites in the same thread. Points for efficiency I guess!
Yes and you don't know just how hard it is to keep ourselves from acting upon that true desire. We're just waiting for the "GO" signal before we begin and that signal is of course Trump's election. Hopefully they don't set the tag limits too low because it's always a shame when you can't cull enough and some of the herd starves to death.
Actually, according to a redneck interviewed on NPR this morning, that Go signal was for when Hillary is elected. He is 100% certain that if Hillary wins, the "patriots' (his militia buddies that he just joined) will instantly rise up and take back this country for all true Americans.
This is in Georgia, so I'm not sure what the Montana and Wyoming redneck militias think. I wonder if they have all properly coordinated the Go signal, since you and your buddies seem to be in disagreement with the Georgia buddies? You guys need to get your shit together--really don't want to be embarrassed by the swift and decisive action of the US Military when you can't even seem to properly get your doughnut breaks scheduled, do you?
Have you confirmed with Spidey?
What I read was that it was a survey monkey poll of approximately 1000 people.
Is that the extent of the method? If it isn't please quote it for me.
The poll was conducted via SurveyMonkey on behalf of the Lincoln Leadership Initiative among a national sample of 1,051 registered voters from September 16 to September 21, 2016. In a random sample of respondents of that size, the margin of error is +/-4 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval. Results of the survey were weighted by party affiliation using the Pollster.com average of party identification to reflect the current political composition of the U.S. electorate.
I stated a number of reasons it was lacking legitimacy, no peer review was the last of them. I thought you had gotten over your hurt feelings about peer review. I guess you still have work to do.
As I previously mentioned they clearly and publicly stated their methodology. It's very difficult to see how any competent person could say that their methodology page was missing. Have I overestimated you? (as a note, that would be very difficult to do)
How did you miss this? Are you this inept at using the internet? Let me know if you need any other tips on how to navigate the mysterious Information Superhighway.
You actually stated two reasons: one was the lack of methodology, which you were wrong about, and the second was that it wasn't peer reviewed, which is true for literally every poll that has been taken for this election. If you think this poll lacks legitimacy due to that then all polls are illegitimate. I shouldn't have to tell you why this is a deeply stupid answer.
Why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong? You'll feel better after you do it, I promise. Surely your pride isn't that fragile.
Thank you for finally quoting the methodology for me.
Two is a number, is it not?
Could you cite your source for "literally every poll?" I wouldn't ask if not for the "literally."
Addendum, I don't suppose their party weighting data was published was it?
Can you explain why you thought posting repeatedly about the methodology was a better route than simply taking ten seconds to read it on the site yourself? You do this sort of thing a lot and I'm curious as to why anyone would behave in that way.
Gotcha, so your 'number' of reasons outside of a lack of peer review was one other thing that you were obviously wrong about. ie: nothing outside of peer review. Thank you for helping us establish this fact.
I read polls frequently and I have not only not seen a single one that was peer reviewed, I have not seen anyone even suggest that such a thing would happen or that it would be a good idea to do. If you can find me even a single poll from this election that has been peer reviewed I'll gladly change my statement to reflect it. Just one. Take as much time as you need.
Again though, the irony in you complaining about people ignoring inconvenient evidence is some pretty hilarious hypocrisy.
I read what you linked. I did not go searching on your behalf.
My number is a rational whole number. This would be the second time in barely two weeks that basic numbers have confounded you.
Good for you with that reading, it truly is fundamental. Do you have proof to support your "literally" claim or not? To avoid tangents I'll accept anything other than "yes" (and proof) as you simply making a linguistically incorrect figure of speech for reasons.
Ha! The survey lacks legitimacy for the primary reason that it doesn't pass the "sniff test". But the sad thing about this is you are fully aware of the questionable nature of these survey results, yet you don't give a sh*t, parading it around the forum for only God knows what joys this forum brings you in life.It's methodology was plainly stated for all to see. Also, 1,000 people is not a small sample size for this result, which you would know if you understood scientific polling or statistics. Finally, you said that without peer review it lacked legitimacy.
Ha! The survey lacks legitimacy for the primary reason that it doesn't pass the "sniff test". But the sad thing about this is you are fully aware of the questionable nature of these survey results, yet you don't give a sh*t, parading it around the forum for only God knows what joys this forum brings you in life.
You guys do realize you can make a poll and get it to "imply" whatever the heck you're aiming for , yeah?
And as far as a person in power having a hand in pointless, horrible and disgusting destruction? Have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton or a country known as Libya?
This thread is an amazing insight into how freaking clueless your average progressive is. These people will believe anything. F my life.
Oooo! Another!You guys do realize you can make a poll and get it to "imply" whatever the heck you're aiming for , yeah?
And as far as a person in power having a hand in pointless, horrible and disgusting destruction? Have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton or a country known as Libya?
This thread is an amazing insight into how freaking clueless your average progressive is. These people will believe anything. F my life.