The old expression is that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Don't believe everything you think.

Your beliefs shouldn't necessarily be my laws.

As well as:

Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

opinions too.

Thanks ehrnst. This is a good post pointing out a lot of reasoning/rationale that I hear all of the time from rump supporters and the like.

It's the sore loser tactic and far too tempting for many.

The caveat is referring to people saying "I'm entitled to my opinions" in order to argue that their opinions should treated as seriously as facts, as when someone says that in response to someone else pointing out the fallacies upon which their arguments are based.

If that's not what you're doing, then the caveat doesn't apply to you.

justification as a logical fallacy. That isn't an accusation that you are.

Is that clearer?

K&R

American Cancer Society. This was in the early 80s. Couple times a year, the local TV stations would get a tobacco industry shill making the rounds with their "it's not proven that smoking causes cancer" bullshit.

They'd contact us for to send someone for the counterpart of the interview. We always did and our doctors kicked butt.

Forward a few years and same thing. I called the then president of the society (these were cancer docs who volunteered). Asked him to go on and do this interview. He declined. Said " why should we keep doing this? We are giving these liars credence by appearing with them. At this point, they should be ignored."

We didn't do the interview and IIRC, never did another one.

There's evidence and there's bullshit.

and suspicions.

We have seen this on DU concerning factcheck.org, Politifact and WAPO fact checks that don't confirm their bias.

wholly on this and see this behavior in places where you do not recognize it, and vice versa.


As to people just holding opinions, there are too many times when they are based on nothing at all but a scaffolding of truthiness that has never ever been questioned by the people who smugly add more planks to their fantastical construction.

It would be nice if people put in the slightest effort to at least poke at that scaffolding and see if it holds up to their own self-examination. And if whatever limited facts they have and privilege still seems to hold steady, the other annoying trend is that people tend to ignore criticisms levied by others that compormise their own artifice's foundation. What people need to do is to either butress their beliefs in the face of challenges that could topple them with better facts, or to allow them to come crashing to the ground already, and to start reevaluating their own assumptions.

Also - and this is more of a societal problem - people tend to smell blood and go in for the kill. Conceding anything is to too many people a sign of weakness, and so as a defense mechanism, it just isnt' done. Recognizing that somebody else has a point is rife with consequences. Winning an argument becomes far more important than finding common ground and learning from one another.

Obviously on the political stage this is war, so I doubt we'll ever see a more concileatory form of debate, especially since this isn't a contest of ideolgies, given that some people are literally bought and paid for and just have an agenda to enact for self-serving interests. But among citizens, it would be nice if a different level of discourse could be fostered.


As to reporters jobs, yeah, it would be nice if they cared about the facts. But what facts are privilieged...why they are made important by reporters while others are utterly ignored... is also an issue that has nothing to do with painting a true picture of a thing. You can distort a story by using nothing but facts. You just have to use the minor ones that characterize people or issues the way you choose to, and to fail to report on the more significant details. Take for instance the Koch study that tries to focus on government spending but ignores the current cost of healthcare to Americans. It is not enough to defend anything that is factually correct by emphasizing that lone detail. It means nothing at all of value that Factcheck.org decided to let us know that the Koch study meant to say something negative about Medicare-for-All. No duh dudes...how did that become the point? There is a bigger picture that must also be addressed.

I can tell you that yes, most reporters do care about the facts, even when the facts don't confirm your opinions. I find that politicians play much more with the facts than journalists in reputable orgs - especially during re-election, or for fundraising.

I assume you are talking about the Mercatus study - facts matter, and correctly identifying what you are talking about lends credibility to your statements.



I don't know of anyone who was defending the conclusions of the study. Again, facts matter.



Again, I assume you are talking about the Mercatus study, and factcheck.org simply checked to see if the author agreed with Sanders on what the study concluded about M4A, and clearly stated that they were not commenting on the contents of the study, only the differences between what Sanders said about the study conclusions, and what the author said about the study conclusion. Again... facts matter.



People who didn't like the conclusion that Factcheck.org, CNN, Politico and WAPO came to that there was a difference in what the study author said and Sanders said about the conclusions of the study, so I'm assuming that's why they decided that the fact check was about Factcheck.org, Politifact and WAPO not 'liking' Medicare for All/Bernie, or being tools of the Koch Brothers, etc. That's the only reason I can see that those orgs "deciding to let us know that the Koch study meant to say something negative about Medicare-for-All" became any part of the discussion of the fact check.

That was simply wanting to claim that was the "perspective" of the fact check, when it wasn't. Any discussion of the merits or validity of the Mercatus study, M4A or the validity of the conclusions is peripheral to what was being fact checked - which was the difference between what the study author and Sanders believed were the conclusions of the study.

Senator Sanders and Medicare for All is very emotionally charged issue for many, and that can lead to reactionary responses by people who think that any perceived criticism of Sanders (even a fact check on his claims) is an attack on M4A, and vice verca, even when clearly, that isn't the case.

We know the Mercatus study wasn't actively trying to promote Medicare-for-All which is why it omitted actual costs to the American people but tried to give us a big sticker shock number of 32 million to the national budget.

The fact is, the numbers were right there in their abstract. That's the only number they included in the abstract. That was the conclusion. Who gives a fuck that the author doesn't like what his own number said? Please address why that is the important detail that factcheck decided to focus on? It makes no sense to me. It is not significant. BUT yes, they were factually correct in pointing out that the author intended the study to say something else. Well done factcheck.org, well done. Impressive work.

But because you keep misconstruing what I'm saying, I am not saying that factcheck.org weighed in on whether or not the study's conclusions were correct. That would have been worth something, one way or the other. What they did instead was worth nothing at all. I don't know what the intention was. It simply comes across as casting doubt on Sanders use of the study, but that of course makes no sense, because Sanders use of the study has to do with the study's own numbers, not about what the author would like us to take away from it.

As to correctly identifying what I'm talking about, we were clearly on the same page here. Thanks for your advice, but you knew which study I was referring to.

They stated that what Bernie claimed the study concluded did not match what the study author stated it concluded.

I didn't misconstrue what you claimed. Your upset is based in the fact I rebutted what you actually claimed with facts.

You keep illustrating the point of my OP.

Trust me if I believe you've rebutted me I will concede that point. There is no value at all in assuming that my problem is with your rebuttal being effective. I don't understand your rebuttal. It does not go to the actual factual numbers that the abstract itself cites from its own study. You seem keen to ignore that. What exactly is being brought to bear by factcheck to refute Sanders use of this study other than that the author wants the study to mean something else? That is a worthless criteria.

That is certainly accurate, and explains the rest of your response.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincerely bewildered.

The problem is that too many people get those two confused.

The problem is this is not a problem exclusive to the right.

One side may have had the overwhelmingly better argument (or just recalled more of the good points for their argument than the other side did), so it's a way to back out of the debate without admitting defeat.

Otherwise, you have to argue until someone dies of old age.