No one likes to believe they’ve bought into a conspiracy theory, or are seeing things which simply aren’t there, but sometimes the crazy people are right.
If you talk long enough with a conservative like me about why our country is so far off the rails, I might tell you it’s due to the educations system and the indoctrination of America’s students by those on the left. It should be somewhat uncontroversial that the nation’s higher education system is thick with the ideologies of the political left. But just in case it’s not obvious…
(InsideHigherEd.com) — Academics, on average, lean to the left. A survey being released today suggests that they are moving even more in that direction.
Among full-time faculty members at four-year colleges and universities, the percentage identifying as “far left” or liberal has increased notably in the last three years, while the percentage identifying in three other political categories has declined. The data come from the University of California at Los Angeles Higher Education Research Institute, which surveys faculty members nationwide every three years on a range of attitudes.
Here are the data for the new survey and the prior survey:
2010-11 2007-8 Far left 12.4% 8.8% Liberal 50.3% 47.0% Middle of the road 25.4% 28.4% Conservative 11.5% 15.2% Far right 0.4% 0.7% […]
Professors’ Political Identification, 2010-11, by Sector
Far left Liberal Middle of the Road Conservative Far right Public universities 13.3% 52.4% 24.7% 9.2% 0.3% Private universities 16.2% 51.5% 22.3% 9.8% 0.1% Public, 4-year colleges 8.8% 47.1% 28.7% 14.7% 0.7% Private, 4-year, nonsectarian 14.0% 54.6% 22.6% 8.6% 0.3% Private, 4-year, Catholic 7.8% 48.0% 30.7% 13.3% 0.3% Private, 4-year, other religious 7.4% 40.0% 29.1% 23.0% 0.6 […]
Professors’ Political Identification, 2010-11, by Tenure Rank
Far left Liberal Middle of the Road Conservative Far right Full professors 11.8% 54.9% 23.4% 9.7% 0.2% Associate professors 13.8% 50.4% 24.0% 11.5% 0.4% Assistant professors 13.9% 48.7% 25.9% 11.2% 0.4%
(Central Washington University) —
But it’s not like they might discriminate against conservatives though…
(Washington Times) — It’s not every day that left-leaning academics admit that they would discriminate against a minority.
But that was what they did in a peer-reviewed study of political diversity in the field of social psychology, which will be published in the September edition of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”
This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,” Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.”
One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”
More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”
[…]
Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate and, paradoxically, the higher the assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy.
[…]
[C]onservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses. A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats. Other studies reveal that 5 percent to 7 percent of faculty openly identify as Republicans. By contrast, about 20 percent of the general population are liberal and 40 percent are conservative.
Sifting Reality 
“One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).””
I propose a question:
If you are going to hire someone you are going to work with, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, would you be inclined to vote for the more conservative candidate (i.e., over the conservative)?
Im not a university professor
Sorry.
(i.e., over the liberal)
John,
I said “If you are going to hire someone you are going to work with”. Your profession doesn’t mind.
Of course the profession is relevant. University professors have a moral duty to be neutral and not let their biases interfere with their job. Not to mention the admitted willingness to discriminate isn’t limited to hiring. They admitted they’d discriminate on paper reviews and a range of other places as well.
It seems as though a having professors on all points of the political spectrum would be a desirable thing. It also seems like discriminating against anyone based on their political beliefs would be an unwise behavior.
Personally, when I hired, or if I ever hire again, politics was the furthest thing from my mind.
John,
Do you say other professionals don’t have a moral duty to be neutral and not let their biases interfere with their job?
Anyway, suppose you are an university professor. It is an hypothetical question.
Craig,
“Personally, when I hired, or if I ever hire again, politics was the furthest thing from my mind.”
What if both are “equally qualified job candidates” and they differ only in the political spectrum? That’s the question.
For most if not all position for which one would be hired at a university their political persuasion is irrelevant to the job and shouldn’t come up. They are discriminated because their politics are known.
John,
You are dogding the question.
I’m not dodging the question, you’re trying to compare two situations that are not alike.
But if I were a professor I would realize that discrimination is wrong and immoral.
Sorry, “dodging”, I’m being thick today.
I am using a similar question to the one in the survey. The situation is alike.
the work environments are not alike. The university setting has a higher obligation to be nondiscriminatory than other fields of occupation.
As I said: suppose you are an university professor.
You are still dodging the question.
I answered it.
You did not.
Perhaps your scroll feature on your computing device is not in working order: “But if I were a professor I would realize that discrimination is wrong and immoral.” (https://siftingreality.com/2013/06/27/liberal-bias/#comment-52927)
The question is not whether you would realize that discrimination is wrong and immoral if you were a professor.
The question is: If you were an university professor and you were going to hire someone you are going to work with, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, would you be inclined to vote for the more conservative candidate (i.e., over the liberal)?
Try again.
As I said i realize discrimination is wrong and immoral. I also said political persuasion has little or nothing to do with university occupations. 2+2=4
I think it’s pretty clear that university professors hire those who think most them — whether it’s conservative or liberal. Why use CWU as the example, though? They are arguably the MOST conservative public college in the NW — and even they are overwhelmingly liberal.
Ok, I’ll mark “No answer”.
Isu,
Just to be clear. When I have hired people, or if I ever hire people in the future, politics was/will be the furthest thing from my mind. To belabor the point, I have never, nor will I ever make a hiring decision based on politics. To belabor the point even further, just so you are clear about what I am trying to say. I would/have never even discuss(ed) politics with a person I have hired or would hire. It would not be a topic of the interview, nor would it be a factor in any hiring or firing decisions.
Please don’t tell me I’m dodging your question.
Isu is saying I’m dodging the question.
Craig,
You are ignoring the point “between two equally qualified job candidates” which means that politics is not a qualifying factor. The question doesn’t say how you get the information.
It is an hypothetical question which terms are clear and you are talking about a different scenario.
Oh, I’ll play!!! If all other points of concern were totally equal, and I needed something to determine how to choose between the two job candidates, assuming I could ask without being pilloried by the politically correct gestapo, I would certainly choose the conservative. Obviously, as an employer, I want someone the reflects me toward my customers. If the only point that separates the two is their politics, I have no problem admitting the conservative would get the job. Considering the conservative deals in reality, why wouldn’t I?
What’s more, if I was in charge of hiring university professors, I would absolutely put a higher value on the conservative candidate over the lefty. I have kids to educate. Why would I choose an idiot to teach them? Conservatives are not afraid of students who hold opposing ideologies. They won’t begin a semester by threatening those who are atheists, for example. They won’t grade a student based on the student’s beliefs, but on their ability to do the work as directed. They won’t bully lefty kids.
Does that answer the question?
marshalart
That’s an answer.
I’ll mark “Yes”.
Isu,
First, the concept of 2 equally qualified candidates is a myth. In real life there will always be something that differentiates two candidates. Even if it is something intangible.
Second, what part of “politics was/is/never would be a part of a hiring decision” don’t you understand.
It is perfectly possible and completely reasonable to avoid the topic of politics during the hiring process.
You are right in one sense, you are talking about a made up hypothetical situation. I’m basing my answer on my actual real life experience.
The problem is that because you don’t like the answer (John’s also), you choose to determine that the answer is not an answer.
To piggyback on Marshall’s response, here in the US it is entirely likely that getting into politics in a job interview would run the interviewer afoul of some EEOC rule or another anyway.
To take things a step further, I would encourage, not only employers, but all people, to consider the beliefs and ideologies when dealing with others. That’s not to say that I’m going to disown lefty family and friends—many of both are lefties—but I will make every effort to let it be known that leftist attitudes are the culturally and societal detriment they are. I will do what I can to show favor to the conservative way. Judeo-Christian conservative? All the better. It’s what this country needs.
Marshall
In my private life I make it a point too. Even at work where im considered the POS republican I make it a point to bring up politics and the failed/failing political philosophies of the left.
But in hiring Craig is right. I dont think there ever are two wholly otherwise equal candidates. Something will make one preferable over the other. Perhaps it will be the subliminal or overt aire of them being a conservative, who knows.
Or it will be his social media page that shows he’s exactly the opposite of what he’s pretending to be in the interview ;-)
Craig,
“You are right in one sense, you are talking about a made up hypothetical situation. I’m basing my answer on my actual real life experience.”
You talk about real situations different from the hypothesis, which means not answering the question which is hypothetical.
I could ask you other hypothetical questions such as “What would you do if you could throw lightnings Zeus style?” Saying it isn’t a real situation does not answer the question.
Isu,
You continue to miss the point I have consistently made, based on my real life hiring experiences, in my answer to your hypothetical. Once again, I have answered your hypothetical question. You just didn’t get the answer you wanted. There is a significant difference. The fact that you don’t like my answer, isn’t really my problem, sorry.
.
In your hypothetical, as in my real life, I would not give any weight to ones political leanings. I would also have no way to know what those leanings are.
The problem is that you have based your hypothetical on unfounded assumptions.
1. That there are ever two perfectly identical candidates for a job.
2. That I would behave differently for the sake of your hypothetical, than I would in real life.
3. That I would trouble myself to find out what the political leanings of the applicants were.
4. That is legal to ask those questions, and then to decide based on the information given.
5. That your hypothetical gives me enough information to come up with an appropriate answer.
I’ll say this, in a magical fantasy world, if I could legally take politics into account when hiring, I might lean toward the more conservative candidate.
The problem is that the post is not about what I might or might not do in a hypothetical situation, it is about what real liberals are really doing in the real world. Just because I or John might do something similar doesn’t excuse the evil reprehensible behavior of the academic left toward those they disagree with. I have yet to hear you condemn that real life actual behavior with as much fervor as you castigate me for “not answering” your unrealistic hypothetical.
In this case, I wouldn’t be too hard on Isu’s for his question. It is a legitimate question in light of the post, regardless of the fact that the question has no truly real world application. There are all sorts of politically incorrect and thus, potentially legally dangerous criteria that I would indeed put into play to the best of my ability as an employer. It is my company. I do things the way I want to regardless of the law, in spite of the law and any way I can get around the law if I truly believe the law to be unjust and or impotent. For example, if two candidates each possessed equal skills, backgrounds, test scores, AND were conservatives, but one was an attractive babe while the other not so much, I might go for the former because of the babe factor, while a part of me would do just the opposite do avoid the distraction.
The question actually gives us the liberty to choose based on any criteria we want. Since the question calls for identical candidates in most areas aside from, in this case, the political, all legal concerns are really without true threat since because the candidates are so otherwise identical, there’s no one to say I didn’t just base my choice on a coin toss. It’s not like I’m going to jump up and yell, “There’s no WAY I’d EVER hire a lefty chucklehead!!”, so how could I be accused? Like any other question in an interview, I just write down the answer and move on to the next, saving the analysis for later after the candidate is gone.
MA,
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the question per se, my problem is more with Isu’s presumption to judge the adequacy of my (or John’s) answer. This is the same type of hypothetical Dan often poses. It is intended to elicit the answer that the questioner assumes he will get from a conservative. When they don’t get the answer they expect, then the answer is unacceptable.
Craig,
So far you dodged the hypothetical situation and turned to real situations therefore you ignoring the question. It isn’t answering to the hypothetical question. It’s a matter of fact, not a personal preference.
Now, with those statements:
“2. That I would behave differently for the sake of your hypothetical, than I would in real life.”
“I’ll say this, in a magical fantasy world, if I could legally take politics into account when hiring, I might lean toward the more conservative candidate.”
It seems that there is an answer and it is “Yes”.
“The problem is that the post is not about what I might or might not do in a hypothetical situation, it is about what real liberals are really doing in the real world.”
The point is that this hypothetical question has wrongfully extrapolated into real life situations which are different.
“Just because I or John might do something similar doesn’t excuse the evil reprehensible behavior of the academic left toward those they disagree with.”
If it does exists, it wouldn’t excuse it.
But, certainly, it debunks the “conspiracy theory” since it would be a normal practice.
“I have yet to hear you condemn that real life actual behavior with as much fervor as you castigate me for “not answering” your unrealistic hypothetical.”
I wasn’t condemning nor castigating you. I was exposing a fact.
Isu,
I don’t see that it debunks anything. In the real world, libs are definitely discriminating against conservatives simply for being conservative. There is nothing to show that it is a matter of having only political ideology as the sole factor in doing so. None of the answers (or non-answers) given to your hypothetical have suggested a similar possibility from conservatives. Dennis Prager, for example, has often insisted that his grades had suffered in college until his work became more “liberal”, giving the professors what they wanted to hear. (This is different from giving a right answer as in “4” being the right answer to the question of ‘what is 2+2.) Whether a student or a colleague, libs in charge have shown themselves to be very discriminatory to those of opposing perspectives. The point of the post is that this is commonplace, but not shown to be the case with conservatives.
Isu,
Quite frankly you are incorrect. You asked a hypothetical question designed to elicit a response that you wanted. I answered your hypothetical. The fact that I used a real world example of how I actually have behaved to support my answer is immaterial. The fact remains that I did answer your hypothetical, in a way that you don’t like. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but may answer is my answer.
“It seems that there is an answer and it is “Yes”.”
Actually it seems like there might be an answer you might like and it is “I might”. Unfortunately for you, might and yes are non synonyms. But keep trying to put words in my mouth if it somehow makes you happy.
“The problem is that the post …” Just so you know, this is intended to lead you back to the point of the actual post which started the discussion. Unfortunately you missed the turn and replied.
“The point is that this hypothetical question…”
Unfortunately, you seem to have a problem differentiating between the very real post and the very real discrimination against conservatives by liberals and your unrealistic hypothetical.
“But, certainly, it debunks the “conspiracy theory” since it would be a normal practice.”
Again, the point of the original post (not your hypothetical) is that this practice is very real and widespread. You have done nothing to demonstrate that the practice does not exist, and all you have offered in “rebuttal” is, nothing. If something is actually happening on a widespread basis in the real world (not a hypothetical), then it is not a “conspiracy theory”, but an actual practice.
marshalart
It certainly debunks the conspiracy theory. In real world, having a political ideology is not a sole facto in discriminating. In the real world, there are conservative which discriminate against liberals, being you one of them according to your claims. Dennis Prager has to prove his claims before I take them seriously.
“Whether a student or a colleague, libs in charge have shown themselves to be very discriminatory to those of opposing perspectives. The point of the post is that this is commonplace, but not shown to be the case with conservatives.”
The point is that I need actual proof, not conservative propaganda nor a deliberately misrepresented hypothetical question.
There is not propaganda, these were liberal university staff resoonding to a survey done by a neutral 3rd party. Nice try though.
Craig,
As I said, talking about a real situation different from the hypothetical situation.
“Actually it seems like there might be an answer you might like and it is “I might”. Unfortunately for you, might and yes are non synonyms. But keep trying to put words in my mouth if it somehow makes you happy.”
Unfortunately for you, it seems a “Yes” concealed in a political and legal correct way.
So, again I say. It seems that there is an answer and it is “Yes”.
“Unfortunately, you seem to have a problem differentiating between the very real post and the very real discrimination against conservatives by liberals and your unrealistic hypothetical.”
The point is that unrealistic hypothetical has been wrongfully extrapolated to reality.
“Again, the point of the original post (not your hypothetical) is that this practice is very real and widespread”
I have been a student and I haven’t seen none, so without evidence I’m not to take it seriously.
“You have done nothing to demonstrate that the practice does not exist, and all you have offered in “rebuttal” is, nothing.”
You are shifting the burden of proof. You are the ones who must demonstrate that this “real and widespread” practice exists.
“If something is actually happening on a widespread basis in the real world (not a hypothetical), then it is not a “conspiracy theory”, but an actual practice.”
As I said, demonstrate it.
Isu
Youre a liberal so of course you didnt see it. Unfortunately it does happen, its recorded, and admittedly. They are caught regularly, read the american news every so often.
John,
“There is not propaganda, these were liberal university staff resoonding to a survey done by a neutral 3rd party. Nice try though.”
As Craig said, the situation in the survey is unreal. Your ulterior extrapolation to reality is wrong. Nice retry though.
John,
“Youre a liberal so of course you didnt see it.”
Not likely, since my teachers didn’t know my political ideas.
“Unfortunately it does happen, its recorded, and admittedly. They are caught regularly, read the american news every so often.”
They could be isolated cases, not a widespread practice.
Well if university staff admit to it and they admit that they would and we have cases in the news…. 2+2=4
Were is university staff admission?
Before I continue down this path please provide me a reason why I shouldnt expect you to dismiss my citation as being anecdotal or isolated?
Sorry. “Where”
There is none if your citation is anecdotal or isolated.
Ahh. So you’ll just gainsay any evidence. Shocker.
Yes, I would discriminate against hiring liberal professors because they will slant everything toward a liberal perspective which is wrong. That which the liberal professes is not reality based and thus not conducive to proper training and education of our youth. In other words, it is not the nature of the conservative to inject his own personal beliefs on reality, but to allow reality to inform his beliefs. Therefore, the conservative professor would be the more ideal teacher for our youth. This is not discrimination as Isu would have it, but discrimination of a more noble kind. We are all better off discriminating against that which is detrimental.
John,
“So you’ll just gainsay any evidence.”
That is a non-sequitur fallacy.
“Shocker.”
Yes, I know your statement is shocker.
marshalart
Switch liberal and conservative and a liberal could use that same argumentation to discriminate conservatives.
Libs actually do!!! Glad to see you finally understand the post!!
Yes, indeed. Libs do. The difference lies in the results; in the reality.
“The point is that unrealistic hypothetical has been wrongfully extrapolated to reality.”
Actually the point of the original post is that in reality liberals openly and proudly discriminate against conservatives. This is no hypothetical, it is reality.
the fact that I used my real life experiences to form my answer to your implausible hypothetical doesn’t render my answer any less of an answer.
“I have been a student and I haven’t seen none, so without evidence I’m not to take it seriously.”
So, the only evidence you take seriously is evidence you have seen yourself. Why is the study cited in the original post not up to your high evidentiary standards? Have you somehow demonstrated with actual evidence that the study is false? Or are you happy to base Truth on your limited personal experience.
“You are shifting the burden of proof. You are the ones who must demonstrate that this “real and widespread” practice exists.”
perhaps you missed the quotes and citations in the original post. John has provided plenty of evidence to support his contention. While you have provided ” I haven’t seen none,”
John,
“Libs actually do!!! Glad to see you finally understand the post!!”
I said “a liberal could” not liberals actually do.
Much less as a widespread practice.
marshalart,
“The difference lies in the results; in the reality.”
I liberal could say the same as you. But their interpretation on the results will be different.
Craig,
“Actually the point of the original post is that in reality liberals openly and proudly discriminate against conservatives. This is no hypothetical, it is reality.”
The point is if it is widespread or not.
“the fact that I used my real life experiences to form my answer to your implausible hypothetical doesn’t render my answer any less of an answer.”
The fact that you answer realistically to an impausible hypothetical question make it clear you are not answering that question.
“So, the only evidence you take seriously is evidence you have seen yourself. Why is the study cited in the original post not up to your high evidentiary standards? Have you somehow demonstrated with actual evidence that the study is false? Or are you happy to base Truth on your limited personal experience. ”
Likewise I said, a study which conclusions about real life situations are wronfully based on extrapolation from impausible hypothetical situations is not trustworthy
“perhaps you missed the quotes and citations in the original post. John has provided plenty of evidence to support his contention. While you have provided ” I haven’t seen none,””
As I said, the study is not trustworthy.
And rates data is not evidence for that either.
The point of the post was that universities have an undeniable and markedly heavy bias toward liberal policies. AND that the majority of university staff admit that they would in fact discriminate against known conservatives.
“The point is if it is widespread or not.”
Actually John, who actually wrote the post, and who should presumably know what the point is has demonstrated that you are again incorrect.
“… you are not answering that question.”
Again, incorrect. I believe that I actually know that I answered the question, despite your insistence otherwise.
Likewise I said, a study which conclusions about real life situations are wronfully based on extrapolation from impausible hypothetical situations is not trustworthy
If you could provide something besides “Because I said so”, like, some actual evidence, it might enhance your credibility.
“As I said, the study is not trustworthy.
And rates data is not evidence for that either.”
As I said, “Because I said so” is not actual evidence.
Craig,
“Actually John, who actually wrote the post, and who should presumably know what the point is has demonstrated that you are again incorrect.”
First, that presumption has no reasonable base.
Second, presumptions aren’t demostrative.
“Again, incorrect. I believe that I actually know that I answered the question, despite your insistence otherwise.”
Your wrong believe doens’t deny the fact that you didn’t answered.
“If you could provide something besides “Because I said so”, like, some actual evidence, it might enhance your credibility.”
I didn’t provide “Because I say so”. I exposed valid reasons.
Regarding the study: its conclusions use unjustified extrapolation.
Regarding your non-answering: your commentaries ignored hypothetical situations which is what is questioned.
“As I said, “Because I said so” is not actual evidence.”
It is not what I said.
Isu
You aren’t really suggesting that it is unreasonable to presume that I, the author of this post, know and determine its point?
I’m probably 90% convinced now that youre a troll.
“First, that presumption has no reasonable base. Second, presumptions aren’t demostrative”
Again, I refer you to the original post. There are plenty of quotes and citations for you to rebut. If you can’t provide evidence that does so, then why should anyone take you seriously.
“Your wrong believe doens’t deny the fact that you didn’t answered.”
Since when are you the arbiter of right and wrong believe? Once again, I did answer. You don’t seem to comprehend the fact that just because you don’t like the answer, or it wasn’t the answer you wanted, doesn’t mean that there was no answer.
“I didn’t provide “Because I say so”. I exposed valid reasons.”
Perhaps, but you provided no evidence to support your hunches. You seem to have a problem with actually backing up your “valid reasons”. Maybe you don’t understand the concept of providing evidence.
“It is not what I said.”
No it’s a paraphrase of what you actually said, because I got tired of searching out your quote to copy/paste. Either way, still no evidence.
John,
Knowledge must be demonstrated, not presumed. So I don’t presume yours.
There are indications that I’m not a troll.
I was invited by you to write in this blog.
I use valid argumentations and not assertions that must be treated as “presumed” knowledge.
Youre right, I did invite you. But to argue with Craig that its a legitimate presumption that I would know best what the point of my post is suggests youre more concerned with arguing for the sake of arguing. That fits the definition of trolling.
Craig,
“Again, I refer you to the original post. There are plenty of quotes and citations for you to rebut. If you can’t provide evidence that does so, then why should anyone take you seriously.”
If I can’t. The fact is that I have provided rebuttal.
“Since when are you the arbiter of right and wrong believe?”
I didn’t say I am the arbiter. The arbiter is reason.
“Once again, I did answer. You don’t seem to comprehend the fact that just because you don’t like the answer, or it wasn’t the answer you wanted, doesn’t mean that there was no answer.”
Once again your claims are false. I provided the reason by which you are wrong. And you choose to ignore reason.
“Perhaps, but you provided no evidence to support your hunches. You seem to have a problem with actually backing up your “valid reasons”. Maybe you don’t understand the concept of providing evidence.”
Maybe its you who don’t understand what evidence is.
Valid reasons are evidence and your unreasoned claims are not.
“No it’s a paraphrase of what you actually said, because I got tired of searching out your quote to copy/paste. Either way, still no evidence.”
It isn’t either a paraphrase. It is a wicked false accusation.
John,
“that I would know best what the point of my post .”
I wasn’t talking about the point of your post.
I was talking about the point in discussion: “The point is if it is widespread or not.”
So you changed the subject?
John,
“So you changed the subject?”
It is Craig who changed the subject.
I was talking about my point and Craig did the change.
“If I can’t. The fact is that I have provided rebuttal.”
But no evidence.
“I didn’t say I am the arbiter. The arbiter is reason.”
Your reason, right?
“Once again your claims are false. I provided the reason by which you are wrong. And you choose to ignore reason.”
Still wrong. I believe that I am (as is John) to speak with some authority on what I have written.
“Maybe its you who don’t understand what evidence is.”
I do, and you haven’t provided any, John has.
Craig,
“But no evidence.”
I provided rebuttal which evidence the fallacy in the study conclusion.
If you don’t want to see it to keep your partisan propaganda, be sure it won’t work on me.
“Your reason, right?”
Cree el ladrón que todos son de su condición.
“Still wrong. I believe that I am (as is John) to speak with some authority on what I have written.”
You don’t have the authority to make it true.
“I do, and you haven’t provided any, John has.”
Once again:
As I said, the study is not trustworthy.
And rates data is not evidence for that either.
John hasn’t.
“I provided rebuttal which evidence the fallacy in the study conclusion.”
Actually you haven’t provided any evidence to rebut the study. For example if you could provide someone who has a study that comes to a different conclusion, or some evidence of faulty methodology in the cited study, that would be evidence. Simply making an assertion is not evidence.
“You don’t have the authority to make it true.”
Actually I kind of do. You brought your unrealistic loaded hypothetical into the conversation and I responded by giving you an answer. (Somehow me answering you is what got things off topic, which makes no sense.) So, I believe that I can speak with some authority regarding what I wrote. In much the same way that John can speak with some authority regarding what the point of the post which he wrote actually is, as opposed to what you would like it to be.
“As I said, the study is not trustworthy.”
Which may well be your opinion. It is not, however, evidence. “As I said…” does not constitute evidence. It demonstrates your ability to repeat yourself, it does not demonstrate your ability to provide evidence.
Craig,
Extrapolation to real situations from unreal situations is a wrong methodology. This is an argument and evidence of faulty methodology, not simply making an assertion as you pretend.
“Actually I kind of do.”
You actually don’t.
“You brought your unrealistic loaded hypothetical into the conversation and I responded by giving you an answer.”
You are the ones who brought up unrealistic hypothetical through the study question.
And no, you didn’t answer.
“So, I believe that I can speak with some authority regarding what I wrote.”
As I said, you don’t have the authority to make it true.
“In much the same way that John can speak with some authority regarding what the point of the post which he wrote actually is, as opposed to what you would like it to be.”
Once again, you don’t have the authority to make it true.
“Which may well be your opinion. It is not, however, evidence. “As I said…” does not constitute evidence. It demonstrates your ability to repeat yourself, it does not demonstrate your ability to provide evidence.”
As I said, the argumentation I gave is evidence.
The unrealistic hypothetical situation answer doesn’t prove realistic situation answer as you pretend.
I’ll paraphrase you: “you dont give evidence, because I say so”. You haven’t gave any valid reason to debunk my argument, only groundless assertments.
Isu,
All you need to do is provide evidence. It’s not that hard.
“The point is that I need actual proof,…”
So, to be clear, you demand “actual proof” of others claims, but won’t provide “actual proof” of yours. Have a double standard much?
“I have been a student and I haven’t seen none…”
So, according to your own words you have seen some discrimination based on political belief. Thanks.
“…, so without evidence I’m not to take it seriously.”
What, seeing it isn’t sufficient evidence?
Again, why the double standard? Why should anyone take your claims seriously without evidence?