Sure, I did that. I shouldn't have. That wasn't the real point however, which you completely ignored in calling me out on that.
The real point was that YOU do not speak for everyone. YOUR reaction didn't in any way refute a single thing I said. The REALITY is that there are classes on this exact topic as a way to reduce lies in science reporting. Because even though YOU didn't have that problem, it is such a common problem, there are classes to try to reduce it's occurrence.
promote division: different people will see different things; believe different thing. Division = loss for We The People. These lies of context are the primary tool used to create that division.
give a path to discredit the information: When data is exagerrated like this, and someone promotes it, it is trivial to "debunk" their statements. "Look how big of a drop it is!" But it's not that big. I mean, in this case it is regardless, and I've stated that many times, but these types of contextual lies promote all sorts of bad information that discredit what may otherwise be good information, or the opposite, promoting as meaningful, something that really isn't.
Your argument could be used for virtually any topic that exists.
My argument is intended to be used for virtually any topic that exists that uses such lies of context. THAT WAS my argument.
In school it is taught (or taught to not do) in writing for science courses, which are mandatory to take for any undergraduate science or engineering degree, and optional for graduate (though I think it may be heading toward mandatory for graduate as well).
Sure, I did that. I shouldn't have. That wasn't the real point however, which you completely ignored in calling me out on that.
The real point was that YOU do not speak for everyone. YOUR reaction didn't in any way refute a single thing I said. The REALITY is that there are classes on this exact topic as a way to reduce lies in science reporting. Because even though YOU didn't have that problem, it is such a common problem, there are classes to try to reduce it's occurrence.
My point is that using graphs like this:
My argument is intended to be used for virtually any topic that exists that uses such lies of context. THAT WAS my argument.
It is trivially easy to find a criticism of such a graph type. This was the first search I tried. Such criticisms are literally everywhere. Wikipedia even has a page on it. The book Lying with Statistics from 1954 has a whole chapter on it titled The Gee-Whiz Graph. This is not a new issue.
In school it is taught (or taught to not do) in writing for science courses, which are mandatory to take for any undergraduate science or engineering degree, and optional for graduate (though I think it may be heading toward mandatory for graduate as well).
His point is cover all bases because not everyone is as smart as us. I thought that was obvious?
It's = it is