5 ms·

An opinion is "a view or judgement about something not necessarily based on facts or knowledge". What he offered is mostly not an opinion in that it's mostly hi

An opinion is "a view or judgement about something not necessarily based on facts or knowledge". What he offered is mostly not an opinion in that it's mostly him relating his personal experiences on this topic; which probably, if we are to give him the benefit the doubt, are factual events that actually happened.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
root_axis 8y ago
I disagree. To me, it appears as mostly opinion with personal anecdotes presented as evidence. The opinion esentially boils down to "Don't trust this story or the media in general, only credulous individuals would believe what this story is saying, if you read between the lines you will come to the same conclusion that I did, after all, my personal experiences back up my opinion that this story is bullshit"
- jeremyt 8y ago
  I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and take a bet saying that in exactly one year, a significant number of these $2.5 billion of contracts will have miraculously found a way to happen.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    I don't necessarily think you're wrong, I am more addressing your rhetoric that suggests your informed opinion invalidates the story, especially because the anecdotes you present are examples of companies deliberately lying to the media for their own personal gain. Yet the problem is the media... FTA: President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters. So are the developers lying? Maybe... but it's still totally legitimate to report that this claim was made. Some things you just have to take at face value because you're not privy to secret boardroom meetings where plans to deceive the public for profit are conceived. Here is another article from another publication about a different tariff story. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/391185-three-arkansas-companies-say-theyll-close-if-trump-doesnt-give-them-exemption http://thehill.com/policy/finance/391185-three-arkansas-comp... Based on the reasoning you presented in your OP (pre-edit), I should just assume that they're lying and are really just appealing to Trump's ego in order to maximize profits. Right? In either case the media can't really know the truth so they just report it and maybe spin the story to one side based on readership.
    - jeremyt 8y ago
      Well, I guess you can take that position. I take the position that what the media reports isn't true, or at least it's some sort of propaganda and I look for who's benefiting from the information, unless I see evidence to the contrary. Regarding the news article you linked, it looks to me like those three companies are indeed running a PR campaign to pressure the administration to give them a deal.
      - root_axis 8y ago
        The media is reporting the claim; to reflexively disbelieve the claim because the media is reporting it does not follow logically. Somehow I doubt you'd be bashing the media in your comment if the story delivered propaganda (your words) that supported a position that you agree with.
- TexasEcon23 8y ago
  You are creating a ridiculous straw man. He didn't claim the media is a bunch of liars. The media can't dig into the details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check whether the projects would happen at all. The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are incentivized to report contracts. If you don't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility can't be independently established. On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way. Of course, they don't thats just PR 101.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > You are creating a ridiculous straw man... The media can't dig into the details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check whether the projects would happen at all. Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims? > He didn't claim the media is a bunch of liars. He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general". I don't see how you can read anything else other than that out of my comment, so I would appreciate it if you would point out the part of my comment claiming he said that the media is bunch of liars. > The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are incentivized to report contracts. His comments are literally unverifiable personal stories from his own experiences, there is no way around it. He could have at least said "companies have been known to do x" and then shown evidence of x (though his own argument precludes his ability to use any media sources as evidence of x), then we could examine the particular case he presented and determine if the facts of that case align with the opinion he is presenting. As as of now we're just taking his word for it. > If you don't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility can't be independently established. ... OK? Once again, you're just repeating my own reasoning back to me, he's a random person on the internet spitting out anecdotes to bolster his opinion, not someone presenting evidence that can be independently examined without trusting his stories. > On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way First of all, it is impossible to demonstrate proof that "companies always x" and it is disingenuous to ask for such evidence because we don't rely on "always"-level confidence for proof of anything. Further, I am not trying to "undercut his argument" at all, I am critiquing the flawed reasoning that his personal anecdotes are a legitimate reason to disregard this particular story and the media in general.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

root_axis 8y ago

I disagree. To me, it appears as mostly opinion with personal anecdotes presented as evidence. The opinion esentially boils down to "Don't trust this story or the media in general, only credulous individuals would believe what this story is saying, if you read between the lines you will come to the same conclusion that I did, after all, my personal experiences back up my opinion that this story is bullshit"

jeremyt 8y ago
I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and take a bet saying that in exactly one year, a significant number of these $2.5 billion of contracts will have miraculously found a way to happen.
- root_axis 8y ago
  I don't necessarily think you're wrong, I am more addressing your rhetoric that suggests your informed opinion invalidates the story, especially because the anecdotes you present are examples of companies deliberately lying to the media for their own personal gain. Yet the problem is the media... FTA: President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters. So are the developers lying? Maybe... but it's still totally legitimate to report that this claim was made. Some things you just have to take at face value because you're not privy to secret boardroom meetings where plans to deceive the public for profit are conceived. Here is another article from another publication about a different tariff story. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/391185-three-arkansas-companies-say-theyll-close-if-trump-doesnt-give-them-exemption http://thehill.com/policy/finance/391185-three-arkansas-comp... Based on the reasoning you presented in your OP (pre-edit), I should just assume that they're lying and are really just appealing to Trump's ego in order to maximize profits. Right? In either case the media can't really know the truth so they just report it and maybe spin the story to one side based on readership.
  - jeremyt 8y ago
    Well, I guess you can take that position. I take the position that what the media reports isn't true, or at least it's some sort of propaganda and I look for who's benefiting from the information, unless I see evidence to the contrary. Regarding the news article you linked, it looks to me like those three companies are indeed running a PR campaign to pressure the administration to give them a deal.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      The media is reporting the claim; to reflexively disbelieve the claim because the media is reporting it does not follow logically. Somehow I doubt you'd be bashing the media in your comment if the story delivered propaganda (your words) that supported a position that you agree with.
TexasEcon23 8y ago
You are creating a ridiculous straw man. He didn't claim the media is a bunch of liars. The media can't dig into the details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check whether the projects would happen at all. The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are incentivized to report contracts. If you don't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility can't be independently established. On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way. Of course, they don't thats just PR 101.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > You are creating a ridiculous straw man... The media can't dig into the details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check whether the projects would happen at all. Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims? > He didn't claim the media is a bunch of liars. He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general". I don't see how you can read anything else other than that out of my comment, so I would appreciate it if you would point out the part of my comment claiming he said that the media is bunch of liars. > The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are incentivized to report contracts. His comments are literally unverifiable personal stories from his own experiences, there is no way around it. He could have at least said "companies have been known to do x" and then shown evidence of x (though his own argument precludes his ability to use any media sources as evidence of x), then we could examine the particular case he presented and determine if the facts of that case align with the opinion he is presenting. As as of now we're just taking his word for it. > If you don't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility can't be independently established. ... OK? Once again, you're just repeating my own reasoning back to me, he's a random person on the internet spitting out anecdotes to bolster his opinion, not someone presenting evidence that can be independently examined without trusting his stories. > On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way First of all, it is impossible to demonstrate proof that "companies always x" and it is disingenuous to ask for such evidence because we don't rely on "always"-level confidence for proof of anything. Further, I am not trying to "undercut his argument" at all, I am critiquing the flawed reasoning that his personal anecdotes are a legitimate reason to disregard this particular story and the media in general.