As to the first, "correct" is a matter of opinion. As to the second, you made the argument, and therefore bear the burden of proof.
Canada's role in world affairs viewed from abroad
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
On your first point, their opinions factuality is a matter of opinion.
On your second, you're fabricating an argument, since I conceded to the Brony. Whose position is that the entire demographic is leftist by nature. With which I complete agree.
Perhaps you should take a break until your saltiness wears off. It's impeding your already impeded abilities.
And you haven't disputed any of their opinions.
You can always ask CBC for the full list if you want, but given the CBC's pedigree on journalism, I doubt that they would cherry pick them. If that were the case they would already have the reputation to match it.
Again, no real person is dumb enough to buy 'lol leftists'.
I'm disputing the methodology.
No need. I've already shown the methodology is sh*t.
An argument only you made.
Says the guy that calls Harper a Nazi?
Ignores the proven biases broadcast by the CBC?
Believes and promotes any left wing propaganda piece?
lol
By pointing out that they presented 15 opinions out of 7000 people contacted, and provide no evidence or argument theat the views they chose to publish are representative.
How many opinions would have been satisfactory for an article like that?
How would they go about showing it was a representative sample?
Listen closely. I'll go slow. . .
A. . . REPRESENTATIVE. . . SAMPLE.
I hope that helped.
I don't know, add some statistical data, maybe? Or even state that the sample is representative (which they didn't do)?
I just asked 7000 people what they thought of Obama, and I can report that based on 15 "selected" answers, the United States is unanimous in thinking that Obama is the worst President ever.
Are you starting to get a handle on why he gets treated the way he gets treated?
15 opinions across a spectrum of countries is appropriate for an article like this.
There is no other valid suggestion that you have presented that would have worked under the same template.
There is no other valid suggestion that you have presented that would have worked under the same template.
You do realise, that the article actually makes no claim, other than :Here's what they had to say".
The claim was yours Flosster.
In other words, you made up your own conclusions, from a sampling of 15, from 7000, in a demographic that historically leans left.
Do you ever wonder why we mock you?
The claim was yours Flosster.
In other words, you made up your own conclusions, from a sampling of 15, from 7000, in a demographic that historically leans left.
Do you ever wonder why we mock you?
They're not even the opinions of the countries. That's an incredibly stupid notion.
They're the opinions of the fifteen "academics."
Would you like a demonstration of how stupid the notion is? Try this:
What is Canada's opinion on exploitation of the Alberta tar sands?
(See? I even said "tar," just for you.)
I trust the CBC on this one.
They have a pedigree for high journalistic standards.
It's been reported quite widely by media of all political stripes that the current government does not have a sparkling international reputation.
They have a pedigree for high journalistic standards.
It's been reported quite widely by media of all political stripes that the current government does not have a sparkling international reputation.
Trust them for what?
It's your claim, they didn't make one, lol.
Are you salty now because you see the huge embarrassing absurdity your posts have been?
That's fine. But I'm forced to point out that your trust does not validate their methodology.
What claim? You mean "Harper sucks?"
That's what his claim boils down to.
Big surprise there.