- https://the-mad-pirate-prints.teemill.com/
image.png
💀
@TheMadPirate
I don't think that's how your post came across. I think people just saw you of accusing someone of being a liar without argumenting your claim.
Maybe you posted somewhere else more, but from just that screenshot, that's what I see.
@TheMadPirate
But you didn't say all of this in that post. You said "lies, damned lies, and statistics". And when people say that phrase, by statistics they usually just mean "lies by cherry picking". So to a passer by, it just looks like you're calling people liars, without explaining yourself.
My point is, either you're not screenshoting your entire part of the conversation, in which case you're not doing yourself any favor over here; or you're not explaining yourself, as well as you clearly could, over there, in which case I can't blame the people that are attacking your or banning you.
Yeah, of course the statistic and everything that guy says is bullshit. You know it, I know it. But that doesn't mean it's self-evident for everyone else, and it doesn't mean you can just say "lies, damned lies, and statistics" and expect people to understand the research that came out with the statistic is faulty.
> Yeah, of course the statistic and everything that guy says is bullshit. You know it, I know it. But that doesn't mean it's self-evident for everyone else, and it doesn't mean you can just say "lies, damned lies, and statistics" and expect people to understand the research that came out with the statistic is faulty.
Yeah, that was my mistake. I just wrongly assumed my statement would be self evident ( I guess I am just too used to Fedi and expect the same level of rational analysis ). In that regard, yes, it is obvious why they misinterpreted what I said.
The first red flag is the idea of non-profit , specially as if that's some sort "evidence" of non bias ( it is not ).
The second red flag is the quality of the "reports" part, since it depends on organizations for which there is no guarantee of them being free of bias ( specially Princeton University and the US State Department funding ).
Now sure, the data might be correct and I am just inadvertently committing a genetic fallacy for which then my argument would be false, and in that case, it is my fault. For the moment, I have no way to corroborate whether that statistic is correct or not, so I am defaulting to the position of being skeptical about it.
image.png
image.png
image.png