Have a crazy uncle who seems to constantly send you political chain e-mails, mainly revolving around President Obama, which can be debunked within 30 seconds via Snopes.com? I know some people like that. I'm THAT guy who takes those 30 seconds to search Snopes.com and provide the link to the sender to illustrate that the claim or story is false. This happened just yesterday when an old very conservative friend of mine shared the following story on Facebook:
"CLASSROOM SOCIALISM
Is this man truly a genius?
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, 'Okay, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan'. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an 'A'... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a 'B'. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a 'D'! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an 'F'.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).
It could not be any simpler than that."
Of course, I had seen different versions of this same story before and knew it to be false, but took those 30 valued seconds out of my busy schedule to look it up and show the poster that the story never actually happened, as can be showcased via this link - http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
The story is given the status of "legend" by fact-checker Snopes.com. It originated in 2009, where the story contended this professor taught at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas, and the story has shown subtle alterations over these past four years.
Even if one were to simply look at this story as a parable, it's lacking in accuracy. As many critics have pointed out, "...if anyone in the original scenario were to receive a failing grade, it should have been the economics professor who clearly didn't understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is a system that advocates social ownership of production and distribution, not an equal distribution of resources to all citizens regardless of their efforts. Communism, not socialism, advocates the principle of distributing resources based on an individual's need rather than on his level of contribution to society."
Without reading any information on the link I provided, as he responded about five seconds after I posted it, the original poster said, "I don't care if the story is true. The points it makes are!"
Is that the point we're at now? So long as we feel a decent point is made at the end of what we claim to be a factual report, the accuracy of that report is irrelevant? It doesn't matter if a person attempts to persuade another of his/her viewpoint through the manipulation of a heart-wrenching, false story, so long as the point is made?
When it reached this point in the discussion, as I often times do, I compared it to our judicial system and said, "If a prosecuting attorney used what was discovered to be a fictional story in an attempt to prove the defendant's guilt, would the judge really buy the line of, 'It doesn't matter if the story is true, your honor. The points it makes are!"? I highly doubt it.
That's the whole thing. Credible news organizations aren't going to report a parable as being factual when it's anything but in order to rile a particular base and manipulate undecideds. It'd be one thing for a person to tell a parable and notify readers it was simply that - a fictional story, and quite another for a person to report said parable as factual. If my friend had gone the former route, while I still would have had an issue with the inaccuracy of this fictional professor's lecture on socialism versus communism, I likely wouldn't have commented on it. However, he went the latter route, and reported the story as factual when it was anything but.
If a person feels so strongly about a story, why is there that need to wrap it up in a lie? If the story can stand firm enough on its own, why is there that need for strong support via a lie? No matter what my friend or others like him want to say, the accuracy of a story does matter. The real-life account is what provides the story something more than a parable. It's what makes readers envision an actual person going through these events and feel a series of emotions along with them, which provides more impact on the reader by the story's close. When the accuracy of that story gets debunked, all it becomes is just another story. It loses the power it once had and leaves many readers pushing the story to the curb altogether.
While this friend of mine finally insinuated he agreed with me on matters and would be more careful about posting such stories without notifying potential readers of its accuracy, his brother decided to get involved in the discussion, and this is where things got really crazy.
This other guy said, true or not, the main intent of this story was to generate thought and discussion. While it's true that such stories CAN generate healthy debate, it's quite laughable to think the author(s) main intent with this story was to provoke thought and discussion. The author contended that President Obama is a socialist, which is false. If the numbers for big business, millionaires, and the stock market are any indication during these past four years, President Obama would make for a terrible socialist. The story went on to suggest that a professor placed Obama's socialist ideas into practice for a class experiment, and wound up failing the entire class, because socialism always fails. It's false a professor did this, false that he was describing socialism, and false that every kind of socialism is destined to fail. No professor is on record for ever doing this. What this fictional teacher was describing was communism and not socialism. Need I continue with the inaccuracies? This chain e-mail wasn't written to generate thought or discussion. It was generated to spread the illusion that President Obama is a socialist and is bringing our country to its inevitable demise through his policies.
This individual then compared the initial chain e-mail post with the Sandy Hook shootings and said something along the lines of, "I find it ironic that you say a fictional story like this one shouldn't be used to further one's political agenda. What were Democrats doing after the Sandy Hook shootings? They were calling for a ban on assault rifles, when it was later discovered an assault weapon wasn't used. It was in the trunk of the shooter's car. So how is that any different?"
I then did some research and from both the autopsy results conducted by Dr. Carver and the following in-depth investigation on the shootings, it was determined that that an assault rifle was used to kill all the 26 victims other than the shooter himself, when he used a handgun. A shotgun, not an assault rifle, was found in the trunk of the shooter's car.
After posting this information, he responded with, "I'll believe video evidence over the words of a crooked cop any day!"
I then asked for this video evidence. I had researched that as well and it appeared as if this video was conducted by a conspiracy theorist, and this video had already been debunked.
He finally gave in and admitted he found this information on a conspiracy video, so I showed him the way toward another fact-checking link, which has shown the video to be false - http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
Since his original point had already been debunked, he tried going a different route, saying, "There are no such things as facts, only opinions. It was the doctor's and investigator's opinion that the gun used was an assault rifle. While they may be expert opinions and may make it as close to a fact as can be, it's still not a fact. ...and just like it can't be proven that the chain e-mail is 100% true or false, neither can this."
He wanted so badly to stand by his original comparison of the debunked chain e-mail to the Sandy Hook shootings, he was willing to go as far as to say that even though the chain e-mail has a 0-5% chance of being true and the doctor's and investigator's comments have a 95-99% chance of being true, since neither can be certified as being 100% accurate or false, they both have to be treated equally. Why does he want to do this? So he can say, "Well, you see? Democrats used the possibly false story of the shooter using an assault rifle to ban these weapons, just as Republicans are using this possibly false chain e-mail to spread fear about President Obama. It's the same thing." No, I don't even think an Olympic gymnast could stretch herself that much...
Let's look at this another way... Going off the numbers from the previous paragraph, let's suppose you or a loved one have/has been diagnosed with a rather serious health condition. Your doctor then gives you two options in terms of medication. Medication A will give you a 0-5% chance of fully recovering, while Medication B will give you a 95-99% chance of fully recovering. Tell me, would you view both options equally? Since neither medication was 100% effective, would the medical community be wrong to spread word about and prescribe either of them, even that which was 95-99% effective in curing one of the ailments? Yeah, those options are about as equal as the height of the average jockey to Shaquille O'Neal.
"CLASSROOM SOCIALISM
Is this man truly a genius?
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, 'Okay, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan'. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an 'A'... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a 'B'. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a 'D'! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an 'F'.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).
It could not be any simpler than that."
Of course, I had seen different versions of this same story before and knew it to be false, but took those 30 valued seconds out of my busy schedule to look it up and show the poster that the story never actually happened, as can be showcased via this link - http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
The story is given the status of "legend" by fact-checker Snopes.com. It originated in 2009, where the story contended this professor taught at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas, and the story has shown subtle alterations over these past four years.
Even if one were to simply look at this story as a parable, it's lacking in accuracy. As many critics have pointed out, "...if anyone in the original scenario were to receive a failing grade, it should have been the economics professor who clearly didn't understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is a system that advocates social ownership of production and distribution, not an equal distribution of resources to all citizens regardless of their efforts. Communism, not socialism, advocates the principle of distributing resources based on an individual's need rather than on his level of contribution to society."
Without reading any information on the link I provided, as he responded about five seconds after I posted it, the original poster said, "I don't care if the story is true. The points it makes are!"
Is that the point we're at now? So long as we feel a decent point is made at the end of what we claim to be a factual report, the accuracy of that report is irrelevant? It doesn't matter if a person attempts to persuade another of his/her viewpoint through the manipulation of a heart-wrenching, false story, so long as the point is made?
When it reached this point in the discussion, as I often times do, I compared it to our judicial system and said, "If a prosecuting attorney used what was discovered to be a fictional story in an attempt to prove the defendant's guilt, would the judge really buy the line of, 'It doesn't matter if the story is true, your honor. The points it makes are!"? I highly doubt it.
That's the whole thing. Credible news organizations aren't going to report a parable as being factual when it's anything but in order to rile a particular base and manipulate undecideds. It'd be one thing for a person to tell a parable and notify readers it was simply that - a fictional story, and quite another for a person to report said parable as factual. If my friend had gone the former route, while I still would have had an issue with the inaccuracy of this fictional professor's lecture on socialism versus communism, I likely wouldn't have commented on it. However, he went the latter route, and reported the story as factual when it was anything but.
If a person feels so strongly about a story, why is there that need to wrap it up in a lie? If the story can stand firm enough on its own, why is there that need for strong support via a lie? No matter what my friend or others like him want to say, the accuracy of a story does matter. The real-life account is what provides the story something more than a parable. It's what makes readers envision an actual person going through these events and feel a series of emotions along with them, which provides more impact on the reader by the story's close. When the accuracy of that story gets debunked, all it becomes is just another story. It loses the power it once had and leaves many readers pushing the story to the curb altogether.
While this friend of mine finally insinuated he agreed with me on matters and would be more careful about posting such stories without notifying potential readers of its accuracy, his brother decided to get involved in the discussion, and this is where things got really crazy.
This other guy said, true or not, the main intent of this story was to generate thought and discussion. While it's true that such stories CAN generate healthy debate, it's quite laughable to think the author(s) main intent with this story was to provoke thought and discussion. The author contended that President Obama is a socialist, which is false. If the numbers for big business, millionaires, and the stock market are any indication during these past four years, President Obama would make for a terrible socialist. The story went on to suggest that a professor placed Obama's socialist ideas into practice for a class experiment, and wound up failing the entire class, because socialism always fails. It's false a professor did this, false that he was describing socialism, and false that every kind of socialism is destined to fail. No professor is on record for ever doing this. What this fictional teacher was describing was communism and not socialism. Need I continue with the inaccuracies? This chain e-mail wasn't written to generate thought or discussion. It was generated to spread the illusion that President Obama is a socialist and is bringing our country to its inevitable demise through his policies.
This individual then compared the initial chain e-mail post with the Sandy Hook shootings and said something along the lines of, "I find it ironic that you say a fictional story like this one shouldn't be used to further one's political agenda. What were Democrats doing after the Sandy Hook shootings? They were calling for a ban on assault rifles, when it was later discovered an assault weapon wasn't used. It was in the trunk of the shooter's car. So how is that any different?"
I then did some research and from both the autopsy results conducted by Dr. Carver and the following in-depth investigation on the shootings, it was determined that that an assault rifle was used to kill all the 26 victims other than the shooter himself, when he used a handgun. A shotgun, not an assault rifle, was found in the trunk of the shooter's car.
After posting this information, he responded with, "I'll believe video evidence over the words of a crooked cop any day!"
I then asked for this video evidence. I had researched that as well and it appeared as if this video was conducted by a conspiracy theorist, and this video had already been debunked.
He finally gave in and admitted he found this information on a conspiracy video, so I showed him the way toward another fact-checking link, which has shown the video to be false - http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
Since his original point had already been debunked, he tried going a different route, saying, "There are no such things as facts, only opinions. It was the doctor's and investigator's opinion that the gun used was an assault rifle. While they may be expert opinions and may make it as close to a fact as can be, it's still not a fact. ...and just like it can't be proven that the chain e-mail is 100% true or false, neither can this."
He wanted so badly to stand by his original comparison of the debunked chain e-mail to the Sandy Hook shootings, he was willing to go as far as to say that even though the chain e-mail has a 0-5% chance of being true and the doctor's and investigator's comments have a 95-99% chance of being true, since neither can be certified as being 100% accurate or false, they both have to be treated equally. Why does he want to do this? So he can say, "Well, you see? Democrats used the possibly false story of the shooter using an assault rifle to ban these weapons, just as Republicans are using this possibly false chain e-mail to spread fear about President Obama. It's the same thing." No, I don't even think an Olympic gymnast could stretch herself that much...
Let's look at this another way... Going off the numbers from the previous paragraph, let's suppose you or a loved one have/has been diagnosed with a rather serious health condition. Your doctor then gives you two options in terms of medication. Medication A will give you a 0-5% chance of fully recovering, while Medication B will give you a 95-99% chance of fully recovering. Tell me, would you view both options equally? Since neither medication was 100% effective, would the medical community be wrong to spread word about and prescribe either of them, even that which was 95-99% effective in curing one of the ailments? Yeah, those options are about as equal as the height of the average jockey to Shaquille O'Neal.
Comments
Post a Comment