Report: Pelosi Security Points Gun at Trump Supporters From New Jersey Rooftop

you are why americans are sick of liberals. That’s not anecdotal.

Unbefreakinglievable….leftists are now determining what our own actual life experiences are.

Snark level: asian savant.

Reminds me of a little book I once read and taught to my 7-8th graders: The Animal Farm by one of my favorite authors, George Orwell.

If president trump had ordered ‘lookouts’ on the rooves with that type of gun, all hell would have broken out in the media and by some of the more naïve on this board.

BS. That’s NOT the definition of anecdotal. Anecdotal information can be just as fact-based as all the research you’ve ever done in your entire life…and often is. You rely far too much on Wikipedia and Google for what you think are “facts” ignoring the FACT that anyone who wants to can add information to Wiki OR Google that doesn’t bear even a passing resemblance to truth. Those aren’t repositories of “facts,” CSB. For the most part, they are someone’s OPINIONS.

More facepalm worthy comments.

Maybe you’ve heard of Oxford English Dictionary?

Maybe you prefer Websters?

Nobody claimed that anecdotes were “scientific”. Only that what YOU seem to believe IS isn’t either. Anecdotal information can easily be absolutely factual, depending upon the honesty of the observer.

Yet another comment so draped in blissful ignorance it’s hard to begin to contemplate a response.

Sharing personal experience is, by definition, anecdotal. If you or Caroline have a problem with that, take it up with the people who write the dictionary.

So WHAT? Are you so blissfuly ignorant that you don’t understand that anecdotal EVIDENCE can be just as factual AND “scientific” as your precious “statistics?”

Jesus Dave.

Let’s go back to the claim…

That is an anecdotal claim. Saying the “thousands of people saw the same thing”, doesn’t make it any less anecdotal.

You are right, that anecdotal experience can be scientific, but just because it can be, does not mean that all anecdotal statements are. The problem you’re having here is determining what is and is not “scientific”.

When science uses anecdotal experience scientifically, bias is controlled for and the methods are documented.

Tell me something Dave, How do you decide what’s true?

If I said I have a higher IQ than you do, is that a true statement?

Clearly, I have motivation to lie given our past conversations. So you evaluate my statement in light of my incentives to mislead or lie.

Now If I said, I’m 6’1, you’d likely have no reason to think I’m lying as I serve to gain nothing by making that statement because it does not do anything to elevate my credibility or harm yours, even tin the light of our past conversations.

Now if I said I was taller than you, and you said you were 6’ tall and I said I was 6’1, now you’d have reason to doubt me.

If you are clearly on one side of a political issue, you have a motivation to lie. It’s also possible that Caroline is telling the truth in so far as she believes what she saw but could still be wrong. There is plenty of scientific evidence for how unreliable witness testimony is. You were a LEO and you don’t know this stuff?

Tie yourself in knots much kid?

Ignorance is bliss.

LOL. Almost CERTAINLY untrue.

Who says I “don’t know this stuff?” You? Nobody here has claimed that eye witness testimony CAN be less than reliable. What we’ve been trying to pound into your thick skull is that dismissing someone’s experience because you consider it to be “anecdotal” is simply exercising your favorite logical fallacy–“Appeal to Authority.”


So then it’s an anecdotal statement, yes?

No, Dave, I don’t “consider” it anecdotal, it is anecdotal.

But no less reliable, “scientific” or factual than all of the “research” you can POSSIBLY do on Wiki or Google.

What does that have to do with this conversation?

I said Caroline’s comments were anecdotal. She threw a fit claiming that I was:

Which of course is just a dumb thing to say.

My point was, saying something does not make it true not to claim that she did or did not see something, just that, if she wants to be taken seriously by someone that doesn’t share her political ideology, she’s going to have to do more to convince me other than make a claim.

Gone back to the point you missed before, if I said my IQ is higher than yours, that does not make it true.

If I said “everyone knows my IQ is higher than yours”, still doesn’t make it true.

The point Dave isn’t to focus on whether my IQ is higher than yours, the point is how we determine statements are true or false.

When people have a motivation for making a claim, whether it’s supporting a political ideology or attacking another, or comparing IQ’s, those sorts of claims have motivations and as such, they require more evidence than just claiming it’s true.

Trump does this all the time. He’ll say things all the time that are completely anecdotal and rarely if ever backs his statements up with anything.

Recent example.

Trump said, everyone that wants a Corona Virus test can get one. Then says a vaccine could be developed in 2-3 months.

2 minutes later, a guy sitting beside him from the CDC contradicts him and says it will be weeks, at best, before everyone can have a test, then says it will be a year or more for a vaccine.

Saying things does not make them true.

yeah…there ya go. The only truth is yours isn’t it bud and it’s all your reality no one elses’. So what you’re saying is that truth is relative. It’s what YOU say it is regardless of the truth of the matter.

yes. I think we’ve seen that with you.


Tell me something, Caroline.

How do you evaluate the truth of something?

Trump says:

How do you determine the truth of that statement?

How do you define your epistemology?

OMG really? you’re going to post that video with your response??

I tell you what i’m gonna do. I’m gonna give you a point for knowing the word epistemology and spelling it right, but THAT is about it. Frankly…you make me question my intelligence when I even bother to read what you write.