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

Tue Mar 23 23:19:10 CDT 2010

Inexact doesn't mean unusable, I think...

On quotation:

A beggar sitting on the sidewalk asked a passing banker for a dollar.

"'Neither a borrower or a lender be,'" said the banker, wagging his finger.
"Shakespeare!"

"'Fuck you,'" replied the bum. "Mamet!"

Laurie Solomon wrote:
> 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.