placeholder

In part 3, Frost asked Nixon whether the president could do something illegal in certain situations such as against antiwar groups and others if he decides "it's in the best interests of the nation or something". Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal", by definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_interviews#:~:text=In part 3%2C Frost asked,not illegal"%2C by definition.

Actually, on a percentage basis the Tories in Parliament were more supportive of 2nd Iraq War than was Labour. To its credit, the Lib Dems were unanimously opposed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq#:~:text=The debate was held on,MPs voted against the invasion. I haven't bothered to look up the rest of those military actions, but I suspect the conservatives were more supportive of them, too.

So much winning..and yet... Israeli Generals, Low on Munitions, Want a Truce in Gaza Israel’s top generals want to begin a cease-fire in Gaza even if it keeps Hamas in power for the time being, widening a rift between the military and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has opposed a truce that would allow Hamas to survive the war. The generals think that a truce would be the best way of freeing the roughly 120 Israelis still held, both dead and alive, in Gaza, according to interviews with six current and former security officials. Underequipped for further fighting after Israel’s longest war in decades, the generals also think their forces need time to recuperate in case a land war breaks out against Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that has been locked in a low-level fight with Israel since October, multiple officials said. https://archive.ph/sDZM8 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/world/middleeast/israel-military-gaza-cease-fire.html The article goes on to note that the generals now recognize that the 2 goals of defeating Hamas and rescuing the hostages are mutually incompatible. It also relays the generals' concern that given Netanyahu's refusal either to occupy Gaza or turn governance over to alternative Palestinian leadership, the war could drag on indefinitely and continue to sap Israel's military strength. But so what? After all, the IDF keeps on sharing with us the progress it has been making and will continue to make...maybe forever?

Yes you. You repeatedly claimed that since I hadn't seen the exact questions that I couldn't know that school or adults associated with the school were mentioned in those question. Yet the authors specifically state that they were. And every time I brought it up you simply didn't answer. Here's a recent example of that, but not the only one by far: You have very tender feelings. Or is that just an excuse for not being able to account for your topsy turvy way of evaluating evidence?

As I pointed out, that's not a justification for singling out in a question one possible source of information. Quite the opposite, if a researcher truly wants to know where the information comes from. And you still refuse to engage with the words of the authors of the article. Here are those words again: "We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory." They explicitly state that they students were asked in each of the 6 questions if they were taught such concepts in class or from an adult in school. Yet you continue to deny that it's uncertain if such was the case.

If everyone has been to school, then asking the question in a way to single out school should be unnecessary. Still waiting for you to engage with this statement from the authors which 100% backs up my assertion: "We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory." Can you explain why this statement of theirs doesn't back me up? So far, you've given no indication that you can. You simply ignore it. What's truly bizarre about this is that when the authors make a simple matter of fact statement like the one I quoted above, you apparently don't credit it. But when they offer a survey with very little explanation of methodology, you endorse the results. Living in Oppositeworld much?

So why did you write "They are assuming they've been to school, yes correct......lol" It's safe to assume most Americans have been to school. Why direct attention to it in a question? Why is that necessary or advisable to determine where their information came from? As for your 39% comment, another ridiculous point. It's a leading question. They work by the power of suggestion. Only one possible answer out of many is offered in the question. How do we know what percentage would have answered if school wasn't singled out in the question? If the question was open-ended instead? Or even multiple choice. This comment of yours is of a piece with your apparent disbelief that scholarly journals feature surveys. I can come up with at least one reason why a politically biased survey would ask questions of a group that answered negatively. Can you divine what that might be? How does the group that answers that it has not been taught such concepts serve as a reference if the selection was biased to begin with?

??? "whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts"

You defended the use of the questions specifically citing schools on the grounds that the people being asked were students And given that the authors specifically said that the questions addressing the six basic issues all referenced schools and adults connected with them, I have all the evidence I need. Maybe you should tell them that they don't know what their questions included.

Just because someone has been to school, that doesn't mean school is their only, or even, their chief source of information. Teens Spend Average of 4.8 Hours on Social Media Per Day https://news.gallup.com/poll/512576/teens-spend-average-hours-social-media-per-day.aspx And there is family, friends, religious institutions etc. Why single out school? Students have a life outside of school. So, no, it's not about assuming those surveyed have been to school. Instead, this study directs attention to school as opposed to other possible sources. This is not neutral questioning. And why should we care about a survey whose methodology is only slightly revealed. This is not a scholarly journal. And, as I pointed you to you despite this absurd scepticism of yours... "Although I now see you have reverted to whether its peer reviewed or not.....lol. Since when do surveys/studies of these types get peer reviewed? Can you show me some examples? Its not published in a scientific journal.....lol" ...surveys do appear in scholarly journals. At least you've abandoned calling into question the fact that surveys appear in scholarly journals. It's just that the right wing rag you pulled this information from isn't one of them

"Thinking about the school you attended..." that's not part of a leading question? Explicitly directing attention to a possible source does not make a question leading? Your defense of these questions is laughable. And I guess you've never heard of educational or sociological journals that do surveys. Here's a sample. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/png/ajhb/2009/00000033/00000001/art00004;jsessionid=77o49g7b9utid.x-ic-live-03

What don't you understand about the fact that a follow-up question based on a possible falsehood elicited by a leading question is valueless? Whether the follow-up question is leading or not doesn't matter. It's based on unsound evidence. And what makes your use of this study truly bizarre is that there's no evidence that this study was peer reviewed. They authors said they commissioned a study. No further information on who or how. And only a little bit of what. Given their acknowledgement that the questions explicitly mentioned only schools and adults affiliated with schools as a possible source of of information to those questioned it would be astonishing if they were peer reviewed in a reputable journal. City Journal is a highly biased right wing magazine and anyone presuming the bona fides of a "study" sponsored by it, is making a huge and tendentious assumption.

It doesn't matter what they call them. Given that the questions direct attention towards one possible answer but not to others makes them leading questions. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that The City Journal is an a very right wing organization? That they might just possibly have an agenda?

Apart from the words of the authors of the piece. I mean, what do they know?

Of course there is evidence. The fact that they specifically mention only school or adults at the school as the source of information in the 6 basic questions makes them leading question. It's obvious that to get an unbiased response, an open-ended question is best. Next best, multiple choice. Useless: mentioning a potential answer in the question.. And given the extreme ideological bent of this organization - it also publishes articles challenging the scientific basis of global warming - only adds further weight to the case.

Take it up with the people behind the survey. Their words back my point. And you consistently fail to engage with another point that a question that is based on the results of a leading question, will have answers that are useless. Who cares if it's leading or not? It would still be useless.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the authors of the study specifically said that their 6 basic questions all asked them specifically if their schools or adults at their schools had taught them in class or heard about it from an adult associated with the school. I don't have to see the specific questions given that they have acknowledged including those mentions in their questions. Are you claiming that the people behind this survey are lying or mistaken about the content of their questions? Clearly, your disagreement on this specific point is as much with them as it is with me. More ridiculousness from you.

And so do you. But the thing is, what the author(s) of the piece said was about the question was clear. And it exactly matches how I characterized those questions., And it should be obvious that a question that assumes answers to a leading question are true, is not going to get results any truer than the answers those questions elicited. If, for example a question asks did you see a unicorn in your garden this morning. And 50% of the respondents way yes, then is asking them "what color was that unicorn?" going to get an answer that corresponds to reality?

The authors of the piece very clearly state " We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory. What is there about this statement that is so difficult for you to understand? And do you understand that it was you who introduced the results of this survey even though you don't know what the exact questions were either? So, to your way of thinking, does credulousness beat scepticism? Anyway, your objection is ridiculous given the very clear characterization by the authors of the basic questions.

A follow-up question based on suspect data is pointless. In the case you cited, the question rests on the assumption that the answers the students gave to the leading question are accurate. But if they're not, then the answers won't be either.

Funny, you don't have a list either. And yet you use their reported results as evidence. Here's how the article characterized the questions: We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory. That said, the article is quite clear about the nature of the questions: Does this really leave any room for doubt that the questions are not open-ended or multiple choice?

It's called "Civics".

So, a follow-up question based on a leading question is going to get a valid answer? You really want to defend that? Have you considered the possibility that they answered that way because they weren't actually taught those concepts in school in the first place? So they had no actual experience to draw upon? Now an honest survey could be open ended, Or it could be multiple choice. Such as: Where did you learn about the concept of white privilege a)school b)the internet c) friends d)religious institution e)family

Do you understand what a leading question is? I don't need links to disprove a study if it's based on leading questions. If a question suggests an answer, it's a leading question. And given that city journal is an extremely right wing publication, it's obvious what kind of answer they're looking for.

"We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory." A survey based on an blatantly flawed methodology since the questions suggest an answer. The proper questions would have been an open ended one: Where did you learn that etc...?