Google "they are so intolerant" = 107 matches; Google "they are so intolerant of" = 42 matches.* OK, not exactly scientific, but it might suggest that you are over-reacting to my admittedly thumb-in-the-air assessment of my experience.
If pointing out that you made a claim that you can't substantiate is over-reacting then I'm guilty as charged. If pointing out that your claims upon being called upon for this also lacked factual basis and were demonstratably false is over-reacting then I am again guilty as charged.
Thing is, quite frankly this ellicits very little in way of extraordinary reaction from me and I suspect you are projecting your feelings about being exposed for making both baseless and demonstratably false claims.
Now as to the Google attempt to substantiate that is not just unscientific it's particularly foolish and goes into the growing list of people who use google totals to try to make a point and end up embarassing themselves.
The most famous example was when John Gibson from Fox news tried to make the case that BBC was "anti-american" based on there being 47,200 results for his query.
When I last checked here were some totals:
51,300 for bbc anti-american
54,000 for fox anti-american
143,000 for white house anti-american
351,000 for bush anti-american
Attempting to find validation for your positions through Google totals usually only demonstrates a bias translating into a query.
This case does not disappoint and is another good example of such a situation.
When you use an exact phrase query (in quotation marks) adding a word will never increase the total and will usually decrease it.
In other words, the instances of qualified intolerance will be counted within your query that was designed not to count them because if it were followed with a qualifier it would still show up for that query.
To illustrate it here is the first simple search of this nature I could imagine, I decided to even be nice and choose a query that nearly always is used in its longer form to illustrate that even if the additional segment of the query is the rule rather than the exception the shorter exact phrase query always wins.
Searching for "do re" yeilds 181,000 results
Searching for "do re mi" yeilds 87,300 results
You are right that it's not scientific, it's downright daft to try to make the case this way.
Again, even if you acknowledge that something is not scientific and even if you acknowledge that you can't "proove" something a modicum of intellectual rigour would have spared you from that mental flatulence.
It's just about thinking
for crying out loud.
Can I prove that it is the rule rather than the exception? Of course not.
I did not ask for proof. You can't even approach a decent standard for evidence
, much less proof
NB: my point was that in the context of the intolerance of intolerance the target is more often unspecified, and I'll grant that this is particularly difficult to measure. Of course, if someone were to claim that it seemed like I was saying otherwise, I'd grant them their point.
1) You started with a false claim that I'd missed this unremarkable angle when I had addressed it.
2) You continued by making a claim you can't sunstantiate about linguistic frequency.
3) Upon being called on for the baseless claim you had no qualm with seeking substantiation yourself, so long as it was telling me
to substantiate the reverse of your
4) You proceeded to try to redefine "seems" to cover mere possibility and dectract from a "seems" you issued but could not illustrate.
5) Upon being called on this too, you make a new demonstratably false claim by saying I had made the converse claim which was equally baseless.
6) You were called on that too so you segue into your attempt to substantiate it. Hell if I won't do it for you someone
has to try. So is born the Google gaffe.
7) Perhaps realizing the weak nature of the Google stunt you segue into how this is by its nature difficult to prove and such. Of course when you asked me to proove its converse this qualm remained hidden but it resurfaces here.
Now jnhofzinser, you have called intellectual rigour "mythical" in this exchange and it not surprising to me that you view it as such a strange bedfellow.
But it does
exist, and demonstrating reading incomprehension, issuing a series of claims you can't substantiate and voicing demonstratably false claims all constitute lapses in intellectual rigour.
I personally am of the opinon that your Google gaffe is an epitomal example of the need for such a creature.