[Peace-discuss] Fw: Fw: Fwd: CNN HCR poll

[Laurie Solomon]

I would expect no less than this sort of academic pedantic response from an
arrogant intellectual.  I am not going to get caught up in any sort of an
intellectual philosophical pissing contest to see who can quote the most
philosophers and cite the most statements from each of the quoted
philosophers in support of one's position.  Obviously to me, you are not
confident enough in your own articulations to say things in your own words
but have to depend on the words of other  well known authorities and
intellectuals with academic standing to articulate what you are trying to
argue and use their standing as authorities to credential your positions.

I may have a very bad and -some would say inarticulate - writing style and
ability to express myself; but at least what I do say or write is in my own
words and is not just a mere citing or quoting of others.

My point which you seem to have avoided is that the use of terms like
"liberal," "progressive," "good," "bad," etc. are umbrellas under which a
whole variety of very different and contradictory things may hide.  This if
a poll says that x number of people say that something is "too liberal" and
y number of people say it is "too conservative" or "not liberal enough," we
have no way of knowing if some of the individuals in those two groups are
objecting to the exact same things for the exact same reasons but are
classifying and calling those objections by different labels or if different
individuals within the same group are saying something is "too libera,l"
"not liberal enough," or "too conservative" for very different and opposite
reasons from each other.  The categorization process gives the appearance if
similarity, identity, and stability among the members with respect to their
use of the terms and the reasons for saying  that something is "too liberal"
or "too conservative;"  Hence, we cannot draw any literal meaning or
significance from the groupings except possible that x number of people in
one group use the "too liberal" or the "too conservative" expressions to
describe and categorize their complaints; and we certainly would be hard
pressed to draw any reliable and valid  or predictable conclusions as to
what the people in those groups substantively think or would do individually
or as a group.  Thus, in a practical sense, this information is not very
useful or usable (except as rhetoric and for political marketing and
propaganda reasons) without further more detailed specifics and background
information as to the substantive content behind the umbrella
typifications - e.g., why the individuals see something as being too liberal
or too conservative or not liberal enough and what they see as being too
liberal, not liberal enough, or too conservative.



--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:54 PM
To: "Laurie Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com>
Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw:  Fwd: CNN HCR poll

> Yes.  We don't know what someone really means when s/he says black.  Or 
> white.
>
>  "If I tell someone 'Stand roughly here'--may not this explanation work 
> perfectly? And cannot every other one fail too?
>  "But isn't it an inexact explanation?--Yes; why shouldn't we call it 
> 'inexact'? Only let us understand what "inexact" means. For it does not 
> mean 'unusable'."
> --Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations I.88
>
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> That is bull Carl.  Something can be seen as too liberal but still find 
>>> it
>>> acceptable considering other alternatives to favor it despite its being 
>>> too
>>> liberal for ones tastes and druthers.  We are again engaged in a 
>>> semantics
>>> game.  In point of fact, it is pure speculation what the findings of 
>>> that
>>> poll really mean, what their significance is, or the sampling and 
>>> polling
>>> methodology used was so as to determine what might or might not be
>>> artifacts of the methods.  Can you or anyone else document and
>>> definespecifically what the respondents considered "liberal" to mean 
>>> when
>>> answering questions that probably asked them to classify themselves in
>>> categories that the pollster labeled using the term liberal in the label 
>>> in
>>> accordance with the pollsters definition and use of the term, which is 
>>> left
>>>  unspecified?
>>>
>>> The same can be said about polls and claims made as to the publics 
>>> position
>>> on the wars and on foreign policy.  Nowhere does anyone give or cite any
>>> specifics or evidence as to exactly what the respondents mean by 
>>> "against
>>> the war" or "in support of the war" when they answer polls and 
>>> interviews.
>>> Being in support or against something is not an all or nothing 
>>> proposition;
>>> there are levels and degrees of support and opposition as well as 
>>> varying
>>> conditions under which differing strength of feelings and degrees fo
>>> support or non-support apply.  It may be a black and white issue for 
>>> you;
>>> but it probably is not for many of the unwashed populace. Again the same
>>> holds for the issues of racism, ethinc biases, religious intolerance, 
>>> and
>>> sexist prejudices.
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------- From: "C. G. 
>>> Estabrook"
>>> <galliher at illinois.edu> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:44 PM To: "John 
>>> W."
>>> <jbw292002 at gmail.com> Cc: "Peace-discuss List"
>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: CNN
>>> HCR poll
>>>
>>>> Come on, John.  Favor + too liberal is a contradiction (if it's "too 
>>>> liberal," you don't favor it); favor + not liberal enough is not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John W. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM, C. G. Estabrook 
>>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you saw it.  At least this much & more was wanted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, by 52% of the sample.  But 82% wanted this much or LESS, 
>>>>> according
>>>>> to the poll you cited.  I'm still waiting for your point.  Not that I 
>>>>> place a great deal of trust in polls, or indeed in "democracy" as we
>>>>> see it in practice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John W. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook 
>>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu
>>>>>  <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu 
>>>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CNN has a new poll on health care reform, taken over the weekend:
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> Results:
>>>>>
>>>>> 39%   Favor 43%   Oppose, too liberal 13%   Oppose, not liberal enough
>>>>> 5% No opinion
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in favor + not liberal enough = 52%.
>>>>>
>>>>> [From Doug Henwood at Left Business Observer.  --CGE]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, Favor + too liberal = 82%.  But I'm sure you have a
>>>>> point somewhere.
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.