Quote:
Originally posted by boatin
I don't even understand your point. Your last sentence doesn't make sense to me.
If the questions you ask could create an environment where the American public is ok with something like war, then they would be on par with the questions that were asked.
Why so quick to change the subject?
The point is that these misconceptions have helped put us in an untenable spot in Iraq right now. Changing the subject to the pollsters bias (if any) doesn't change the fact of the findings.
This is so typical of modern debate. Don't like the point of the argument? Can't refute the facts? Hey! Just change the subject, or throw dirt on the person presenting.
Criminy. The sad thing, of course, is that it works. Just like implying that Iraq was involved in 9/11 enough times works too...
|
No, the study was flawed. It wasn't 'who is most likely to have misconceptions about the war' it was 'who is most likely to have pro war misconceptions'. And *gasp* a republican is most likely to have a pro-war misconception, and *gasp* a republican was somewhat more likely to watch fox news, there is a shocker! On the other hand they didn't ask about any anti-war misconceptions. Its a rather basic concept when you set up an experimental design for a subject like this.
TRY not to let your political bias cloud the scientific part of your mind.