State of the Union
"There are red and green peppers" This statement is lacking context because to a color blind person this may not be true.
Here’s a little song I wrote
You might want to sing it note for note
Don’t Worry ....
I doubt the esteemed Lord really doesn't know why "lacking context" is so important, but hey, we respond to trolls all the time on the internets. So here goes.
One of the most famous SOTU statements of all time was technically true, yet because it was completely lacking in context, it helped convince people to go to war on a phony pretext:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
It turns out that "recently" was roughly a year and a half earlier, and than at least six months earlier, the entire story was determined untrue by U.S. intelligence.
It shouldn't be news to anyone that it's possible to lie even while saying words that are technically true, if the context is removed.
Robert_Casotto said:
Yellowcake. Meet Russian Collusion.
You're reinforcing ml1's point about context.
Robert_Casotto said:
Yellowcake. Meet Russian Collusion.
why do you even bother?
ml1 said:
I doubt the esteemed Lord really doesn't know why "lacking context" is so important, but hey, we respond to trolls all the time on the internets. So here goes.
One of the most famous SOTU statements of all time was technically true, yet because it was completely lacking in context, it helped convince people to go to war on a phony pretext:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.It turns out that "recently" was roughly a year and a half earlier, and than at least six months earlier, the entire story was determined untrue by U.S. intelligence.
It shouldn't be news to anyone that it's possible to lie even while saying words that are technically true, if the context is removed.
Soon as you used 'troll' you lost all credibility with an attack rather than any thoughtful insight. c'mon you can do better.
ml1 said:
Robert_Casotto said:why do you even bother?
Yellowcake. Meet Russian Collusion.
A bit on the psychology of trolls:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324
Trolls just want to have fun
In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online commenting frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
lord_pabulum said:
ml1 said:Soon as you used 'troll' you lost all credibility with an attack rather than any thoughtful insight. c'mon you can do better.
I doubt the esteemed Lord really doesn't know why "lacking context" is so important, but hey, we respond to trolls all the time on the internets. So here goes.
One of the most famous SOTU statements of all time was technically true, yet because it was completely lacking in context, it helped convince people to go to war on a phony pretext:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.It turns out that "recently" was roughly a year and a half earlier, and than at least six months earlier, the entire story was determined untrue by U.S. intelligence.
It shouldn't be news to anyone that it's possible to lie even while saying words that are technically true, if the context is removed.
does that mean you truly don't know why "lacking context" can render a statement misleading?
If you sincerely didn't know, then I apologize.
Heck. We’ll likely find evidence of the existence of actual “trolls” before we do Russian Collusion.
Science is Real.
lord_pabulum said:Soon as you used 'troll' you lost all credibility with an attack rather than any thoughtful insight. c'mon you can do better.
The pepper riposte set a high bar.
sprout said:
Trolls just want to have fun
Me, too.
ml1 said:
lord_pabulum said:does that mean you truly don't know why "lacking context" can render a statement misleading?
ml1 said:Soon as you used 'troll' you lost all credibility with an attack rather than any thoughtful insight. c'mon you can do better.
I doubt the esteemed Lord really doesn't know why "lacking context" is so important, but hey, we respond to trolls all the time on the internets. So here goes.
One of the most famous SOTU statements of all time was technically true, yet because it was completely lacking in context, it helped convince people to go to war on a phony pretext:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.It turns out that "recently" was roughly a year and a half earlier, and than at least six months earlier, the entire story was determined untrue by U.S. intelligence.
It shouldn't be news to anyone that it's possible to lie even while saying words that are technically true, if the context is removed.
If you sincerely didn't know, then I apologize.
No - it seems you misunderstood the context of my original post. That's ok, I sometimes forget to dumb things down.
maybe you could indulge us and explain the brilliant point you were trying to make
terp said:
Glad to see the board is condescension free without lil ole me.
you convinced me that respect is overrated.
ml1 said:
maybe you could indulge us and explain the brilliant point you were trying to make
Really quite simple: Is the "Lacking Context" rating really a 'True' rating but the author doesn't want to admit it?
ETA: "indulge us" - Who else do you want me to indulge?
lord_pabulum said:
ml1 said:Really quite simple: Is the "Lacking Context" rating really a 'True' rating but the author doesn't want to admit it?
maybe you could indulge us and explain the brilliant point you were trying to make
no.
DaveSchmidt said:
“Lacking Context” is for people who don’t always expect/need True/False, Yes/No or Good/Bad answers/labels.
Like ml1
lord_pabulum said:
DaveSchmidt said:Like ml1
“Lacking Context” is for people who don’t always expect/need True/False, Yes/No or Good/Bad answers/labels.
thanks. We're the kind of people that are hard to scam.
How to Detect When People Are Using the Truth to Lie to You
ml1 said:
lord_pabulum said:thanks. We're the kind of people that are hard to scam.
DaveSchmidt said:Like ml1
“Lacking Context” is for people who don’t always expect/need True/False, Yes/No or Good/Bad answers/labels.
How to Detect When People Are Using the Truth to Lie to You
Anyone needing an explanation would likely be easy to scam. 
“Lacking Context” is for people who don’t always expect/need True/False, Yes/No or Good/Bad answers/labels.