Liberal Bias In Media Exposed..Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes, but it is too bad that your constant posts and whining about how liberal the media is if they ever focus on the same seem to overshadow any of it. I can’t think of one post where any of you have gone into detail about what you disagree with. If those posts are out there, they are few and far between. What we usually get is a quick, “well I don’t really agree with social security reform” and then a few thousand, “Go Bush, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, no one can!!!” remarks.
[/quote]

What is your point? How many people that you support do you also criticize openly on a regular basis? Your entire premise has to be one of the most ridiculous that I have seen that I have read in a long time!

122

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You have a ‘line’ of thinking? Hahahaha!! You have a shot-gun logic at best. And if something don’t stick, you reload and fire again. Your current ‘line’ has been refuted by no less than 4 people.

It’s time to re-load and fire again, Prox.

what was this thread about again?
[/quote]

Liberal bias in the media. And when you can’t defend your point, as the liberals are unable to do on this thread. You attack: “You must criticize your own candidates.” LOL Pure entertainment…

123

[quote]ZEB wrote:
What is your point? How many people that you support do you also criticize openly on a regular basis? Your entire premise has to be one of the most ridiculous that I have seen that I have read in a long time!

[/quote]

What is my point? This quote is in response to something written by rainjack. Quit trying so hard to ignore what anyone else is saying. Quit taking things out of context while ignoring what I was responding to. I have already written in this thread that I don’t support “people” in the government. I have also written why. I will support ideologies or policies that I agree with. That means, yes, I will openly disagree with someone in government because I will be supporting very few individuals alone. How many different ways does it need to be written for you to get it?

124

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What is my point? This quote is in response to something written by rainjack. Quit trying so hard to ignore what anyone else is saying. Quit taking things out of context while ignoring what I was responding to. I have already written in this thread that I don’t support “people” in the government. I have also written why. I will support ideologies or policies that I agree with. That means, yes, I will openly disagree with someone in government because I will be supporting very few individuals alone. How many different ways does it need to be written for you to get it?
[/quote]
This really makes no sense. You won’t support “people” in government, but you feel free to criticize “people”?
WTF, dude?

125

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What is my point? This quote is in response to something written by rainjack. Quit trying so hard to ignore what anyone else is saying. Quit taking things out of context while ignoring what I was responding to. I have already written in this thread that I don’t support “people” in the government. I have also written why. I will support ideologies or policies that I agree with. That means, yes, I will openly disagree with someone in government because I will be supporting very few individuals alone. How many different ways does it need to be written for you to get it?
[/quote]

That’s so typical of you…if someone disagrees they just “don’t get it.”

Answer this question for me: Do you think that there is liberal bias in the majority of media?

If you say “no” then I would like you to account for the links that I posted earlier on this thread.

Steering the topic away from this question and attempting to make hay by claiming that the republicans on this board don’t attack their candidates enough is nutty…

126

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
This really makes no sense. You won’t support “people” in government, but you feel free to criticize “people”?
WTF, dude?[/quote]

I feel free to criticize what someone stands for. Is that clear enough for you? I honestly feel as if I now have to dumb down each post because you all make it complicated on purpose. Is there anything else you are in the dark about?

127

Are there not more important things to worry about that media bias for Christ’s sake? Trying to paint it as ‘John Kerry was so crap he couldn’t even win with a media bias!’ is so lame. Bush is still sitting in his ranch thinking ‘Ha! I took them to a phony war for oil after a stolen election, repeatedly broke international law and increased the federal deficit but they still voted me in! Ha, the loosers!’

128

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I feel free to criticize what someone stands for. Is that clear enough for you? I honestly feel as if I now have to dumb down each post because you all make it complicated on purpose. Is there anything else you are in the dark about?
[/quote]

so why not back people and what they stand for.
Listen–its got nothing to do with dumbing anything down. It’s got to do with me wanting to understand what you’re saying…and your stances just aren’t clear. You write a lot of stuff, you’re all over the place with stuff, and you never take a yes or no stance, but you get pissy with other people when they won’t.

129

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Answer this question for me: Do you think that there is liberal bias in the majority of media?[/quote]

That is up to whatever any studies prove. I honestly don’t sit around counting what show might be liberal or not. The only time I have even noticed an all out blatant bias is when cruising through the FOX news network. According to the posts that BB puts up, the entire world is liberally biased except for his selected few articles and authors. I think something is wrong with anyone who goes around counting who is “secretly biased”, especially when your own championed network is so OUTWARDLY biased and seemingly proud to be so. It makes it hypocritical for you to be upset at all or even to be making a point of it.

130

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01222.htm

Joe,

Did you read your own article?   I took the liberty of editing a few choice passages that support what I said by capitalizing the passages that are analogous with what I was saying.

“Plurality should not be posited WITHOUT NECESSITY”

“This can be interpreted in two subtly different ways. One is a preference for the simplest theory THAT ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTS FOR THE DATA. Another is a preference for the simplest subset of any given theory WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR THE DATA.”

“Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.” (THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE!!!)

Exhaustive research is necessary in order to determine all of the facts surrounding a situation and thus whether your theory is complete (and not self contradictory). You cannot make an assertion and simply say that Occam’s Razor supports it because it seems simple.

You spout off about things, and you are uninformed. You make illogical and hypocritical arguments. e.g. Your consistent straw man arguments bolstered by accusations of Professor X of making straw man arguments. Your basic reasoning for your posts could be summarized as “I’m right because I know I’m right so there.” I would like to contrast you with Boston Barrister who posts well thought out posts that address issues in logical ways along with supporting evidence.

Consistent use of erroneous facts, combined with consistent generalizations about widely varied topics, along with a healthy dose of illogical arguments causes me to doubt your level of intelligence. I probably shouldn’t make personal attacks on you, but you don’t really seem to be playing on the field of intelligent debate and struck a nerve. Plus, neither of us is really conducting ourselves in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order now are we?

Todd

131

Joe,

 I'll make this really simple.

You wrote:

“There is less poverty in America than anywhere in the world.”

This is important because, if it’s true, it means that our system is the world leader bar none. However, if it isn’t true, and there are other countries with lower poverty rates, perhaps they have different and more effective ways of handling that issue, and then we would have “real world” examples that we could possibly learn from. How about that?

So, I ask the same question one more time:

Does the US have the lowest poverty rate in the world?

Todd

132

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is up to whatever any studies prove. I honestly don’t sit around counting what show might be liberal or not. The only time I have even noticed an all out blatant bias is when cruising through the FOX news network. According to the posts that BB puts up, the entire world is liberally biased except for his selected few articles and authors. I think something is wrong with anyone who goes around counting who is “secretly biased”, especially when your own championed network is so OUTWARDLY biased and seemingly proud to be so. It makes it hypocritical for you to be upset at all or even to be making a point of it.[/quote]

so you’re saying no one is biased but fox?

133

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
… or the election was a fluke and America is actually populated by a bunch of liberal sympathizers who don’t vote, but watch TV.

Better? :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Much.:slight_smile:

134

Todd, now I’m confused, because you just posted what I was arguing.
The simplist explanation is best.
That in no way indicates that we have to paralyze ourselves attempting to research every aspect of all sides in order to see what might be simplest.

Thank you again for the personal attacks, they’re much appreciated.

135

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01222.htm

Todd[/quote]

BTW, Todd, what would you call someone who puffs his own ego up by tearing down another?

136

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Answer this question for me: Do you think that there is liberal bias in the majority of media?

That is up to whatever any studies prove. I honestly don’t sit around counting what show might be liberal or not. The only time I have even noticed an all out blatant bias is when cruising through the FOX news network. According to the posts that BB puts up, the entire world is liberally biased except for his selected few articles and authors. I think something is wrong with anyone who goes around counting who is “secretly biased”, especially when your own championed network is so OUTWARDLY biased and seemingly proud to be so. It makes it hypocritical for you to be upset at all or even to be making a point of it.[/quote]

Please explain the hypocrisy of preferring someone to be honest rather than preferring someone to lie?

137

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Todd, now I’m confused, because you just posted what I was arguing.
The simplist explanation is best.
That in no way indicates that we have to paralyze ourselves attempting to research every aspect of all sides in order to see what might be simplest.

Thank you again for the personal attacks, they’re much appreciated.
[/quote]

Nice work Joe. I never posted, “The simplist explanation is best.” Nor did I post, “The simplest explanation is best.” I did post that “The simplest theory that adequately accounts for the data” is best. I am starting to question your literacy as well as your intelligence.

Is collecting knowledge in order to make an informed decision “paralyzing?” I would tend to think that making snap decisions without being informed would inevitably lead to greater paralysis.

138

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01222.htm

Todd

BTW, Todd, what would you call someone who puffs his own ego up by tearing down another?
[/quote]

I would call that person a bully.

What would you call a person who participates in a discussion without making any decent points or logical arguments and frequent cites wrong information?

What would you call a person who complains about personal attacks while making personal attacks.

139

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01222.htm

Todd

BTW, Todd, what would you call someone who puffs his own ego up by tearing down another?

I would call that person a bully.

What would you call a person who participates in a discussion without making any decent points or logical arguments and frequent cites wrong information?

What would you call a person who complains about personal attacks while making personal attacks.[/quote]

I’m sorry, what personal attacks have I made?
I’ve questioned ProfX and his stances, but I have yet to question his intelligence–even though from his posts I well could.

Occam’s razor–as I learned it (both my favorite antrho prof and philosophy prof were big fans of it, and we’d spend hours of class time on it) is that the simplest explanation is often the best.
I think you and I are arguing macintosh v. red delicious, here, actually.
And as if I get you right, the new rule here is that you’re a bully and I’m an idiot?

140

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01222.htm

Todd

BTW, Todd, what would you call someone who puffs his own ego up by tearing down another?

I would call that person a bully.

What would you call a person who participates in a discussion without making any decent points or logical arguments and frequent cites wrong information?

What would you call a person who complains about personal attacks while making personal attacks.

I’m sorry, what personal attacks have I made?
I’ve questioned ProfX and his stances, but I have yet to question his intelligence–even though from his posts I well could.

Occam’s razor–as I learned it (both my favorite antrho prof and philosophy prof were big fans of it, and we’d spend hours of class time on it) is that the simplest explanation is often the best.
I think you and I are arguing macintosh v. red delicious, here, actually.
And as if I get you right, the new rule here is that you’re a bully and I’m an idiot?[/quote]

Well, clearly you learned it well since you refuted yourself with your own article. Your definition of Occam’s Razor is OVERLY simplistic, to the effect that you nullify the power of that reasoning tool. Your views and arguments also tend to be overly simlistic as you tend to jump from assertion to conclusion without supporting yourself.

I never admitted to being a bully. I don’t use this to prop my ego up. I would like to see some kind of discussion go on on this forum, and, in my opinion, your contributions prevent that from happening.

You consistently make personal attacks on Professor X. You just do it in a passive way. Let me give you an example from your most recent post:

“I’ve questioned ProfX and his stances, but I have yet to question his intelligence–even though from his posts I well could.”

That is a personal attack any way you slice it.

In any case, you have consistently failed to answer some very simple questions that I have asked you. Would you care to answer them?

Todd