Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, actually it is NOT possible to Google up something to back up all claims. You cannot provide some Googled site that proves that George Bush is a Democrat. Neither can you prove that Argentina is part of the United States.
.
I have not noticed the posts in which such assertions were made. I would probably not take them seriously enough to respond to them.
However, if you wish, find some general principle that I have posted, that you don't think I can support with a googled citation. If I happen to take you off ignore that day, maybe I'll spend a moment digging something out for you.
Here is something that I don't understand. I've tried for 20 or 30 years to understand it, (well, honestly, maybe I haven't tried that hard!). Why is it that so many people make claims and refuse to use data to support their opinions? I don't get it. There is a lot of data available on the internet, most of it free for the taking....why don't people use it???? I am talking about data about poverty, quality of life, the economy, child rearing, retirement, ....and on and on....
Why is that? Are people inherrently too lazy to use data? Are they so uneducated that they can't? Are they afraid that data will contradict their opinions? WHY?
Data is great, and it can be used to more credibly support your statements. However, the credibility of a lot of data is suspect and many times, studies are done with an agenda in mind.
Not only that, but unless you really know how to properly interpret scientific data (something our media does incorrectly for us all the time in a rush to have a big headline) and apply it in the context of the existing data, it's just meaningless.
Statistics can be manipulated and data can be presented in many ways. Think about those who state the glass of water is half empty vs those who state the glass of water is half full. Both are basing their statements on the same data - a glass of water at 50 percent capacity but the person that is trying to persuade you that things are rosy is going to be the one talking about half full and the one preaching gloom and doom is going to be the one talking half empty.
Here's another made up example:
Nancy Pelosi average approval rating in 2008 - 30 percent
Nancy Pelosi average approval rating in 2009 - 25 percent
Nancy Pelosi approval rating in January 2009 - 15 percent
Nancy Pelosi approval rating in December 2009 - 20 percent
A) Nancy Pelosi's media supporters report the Speaker's approval rating is on the rise. It went up 5 percent since the start of the year. They attribute it to her masterful push for healthcare reform approval in the House.
B) Nancy Pelosi's media detractors report the Speaker's approval rating has decreased 5 percent between 2008 and 2009. They attribute it to her ramming healthcare reform approval down the throats of the disapproving public.
If you are reading the newspaper/website that reported (A) you think Nancy Pelosi is doing just swell and people must like her. If you are reading the newspaper that reported (B) you see her sinking into oblivion with the public obviously not on her side. Her detractors and supporters picked and chose the data that best supported their case without telling you the whole story.
Okay that's just the interpretation of the data but what if I told you that Pollster X is reporting Nancy Pelosi's current approval rating is 15 percent and Pollster Y is reporting Nancy Pelosi's current approval rating is 25 percent.
Her supporters in the media report Pollster Y's number and her detractors in the media report Pollster X's number. Why are the numbers so different?
Pollster X asked this question to get her approval rating:
Do you think Democrat Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is doing a good job?
Pollster Y asked this question to get her approval rating:
Do you think Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is doing a good job?
Considering that there are people out there who don't know who Nancy Pelosi is ---
Pollster X probably gets a lot of responses based on how the responders feel about Democrats. Pollster Y probably gets responses from people who only know the Speaker of the House as the person who sits behind the president when he makes his televised State of the Union speeches in Congress.
It doesn't stop the media (and foum posters) from predicting her chance for re-election but what if I told you Pollster X polls registered voters likely to vote and Pollster Y polls all adults? What good is Pollster Y's results in making election predictions if, let's say, half of the people he polled don't vote?
BUT - What if I remind you that only people who live in her district vote for her so who cares what the rest of the country thinks about her?
Then again, if she has really low approval numbers in Pollster X's approval ratings poll AND Pollster X identified her as Democrat Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi maybe that tells me when I do anti-Democrat ads in general, I plaster Nancy Pelosi's name all over them or I associate her with some other Democrat running for office because now I know she's the unliked name in the Democrat party.
Just some example of how statistics are obtained, interpreted, used incorrectly to draw conclusions and/or used to benefit the user.
No, actually the defeated debater is the one who can't prove anything, and relentlessly throws up smoke screens and obfuscations in an attempt to cover over the fact that he can't back up any of his claims.
Or you could prove him wrong--
or can't you? Claims and counter-claims. That's how the politicians operate. They don't try to back up anything they say, do they? But they use charm and guile to sway public opinion. They're manipulators--sometimes charismatic, sometimes not so much.
For example I can't "convince" people that a cat is an obligate (strict) carnivore
Sorry I just have to ask you "Why not?" There is ample evidence to prove this including veterinarian findings that cats that are relegated to a strict vegetarian diet become blind, lose weight, muscle tone and eventually die. Animal Planet had a segment about this recently. It's actually considered animal abuse according to the story.
But then again, people believe what they want to believe. If the people you are trying to convince are attempting to make vegetarians out of their kitties, they will not choose to believe you or any data you can come up with.
People who don't supply data on a subject are usually convinced they are correct because of what they perceive to be the truth. That's why I look up data for myself when someone is trying to convince me of something.
In many cases the truth is very plain & people see no need to dig up data to support something that intelligent folks already know.
Very often those with data oozing from their ears have gathered & manipulated data to prove something that independent thinkers and the honestly intelligent know is wrong.
Data is good as a tool but its dangerous to depend on it absolutely.
Sorry I just have to ask you "Why not?" There is ample evidence to prove this including veterinarian findings that cats that are relegated to a strict vegetarian diet become blind, lose weight, muscle tone and eventually die. Animal Planet had a segment about this recently. It's actually considered animal abuse according to the story.
But then again, people believe what they want to believe. If the people you are trying to convince are attempting to make vegetarians out of their kitties, they will not choose to believe you or any data you can come up with.
People who don't supply data on a subject are usually convinced they are correct because of what they perceive to be the truth. That's why I look up data for myself when someone is trying to convince me of something.
We're not trying to get the cat interested in eating more carrots and lettuce, we're giving him dry cat food which is made of vegetable matter. From plants. And he eats it, and seems to be perfectly healthy....and content to continue eating it. If he were an obligate carnivore, he would either not eat it, or not be able to live on it.
It seems you're holding fast to your BELIEF, while ignoring the reality of observation.
or can't you? Claims and counter-claims. That's how the politicians operate. They don't try to back up anything they say, do they? But they use charm and guile to sway public opinion. They're manipulators--sometimes charismatic, sometimes not so much.
I can use all kinds of evidence to prove him wrong, but "God" always seems to come along and delete the posts. Get kind of sickening, actually.
We're not trying to get the cat interested in eating more carrots and lettuce, we're giving him dry cat food which is made of vegetable matter. From plants. And he eats it, and seems to be perfectly healthy....and content to continue eating it. If he were an obligate carnivore, he would either not eat it, or not be able to live on it.
It seems you're holding fast to your BELIEF, while ignoring the reality of observation.
I am curious as to what brand of dry food has only vegetables in it. Can you give me the name? How long has your cat been eating this way? Of course he will eat it if there is no other choice. I won't go into the physiology of the feline so the Mods won't have to move this to the pet section. But cats are built to be carnivores and there is evidence that if they do not get some type of animal protein their health will suffer.
I haven't observed your cat so I can't being ignoring the "reality of (your) observation" nor am I one to "hold fast to my belief. " My comments are from my observations just like yours are from yours. I have observed the result of cats being given a vegetarian diet only not only on the Animal Planet show but from a friend who was a volunteer at an animal shelter. I once adopted a kitty who was blind due to someone trying to feed it a pure vegetarian diet and then abandoned it when it began to lose its sight.
I hope for your cat's sake your data is more correct than mine. I would take no pleasure whatsoever being correct in this debate.
Dry cat food is not made from meat. Canned is. Dry cat food is milled from grains, which is still plant matter, not being mineral or animal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
