[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]
Are you referring to this quote?
“I think it is Occham’s razor…it is more accurately referring to the simplest solution is more likely when all other things are equal.”
Peter Faletra Ph.D.
Assistant Director
Science Education
Office of Science
Department of Energy
Todd
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Please explain the hypocrisy of preferring someone to be honest rather than preferring someone to lie?[/quote]
Please explain the “wisdom” in accepting one bias while rejecting another…because one says it is openly biased? Is it perhaps a possibility that the one not making that claim is at least attempting to be objective? Isn’t that what news should be trying to do? Or has that changed to “you all are so biased so we will be CLEARLY biased to show all of you…so there”. What a childish game we play.
[quote
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.
Todd[/quote]
okay, if you take it as a personal attack I’m sorry, and I apologize to the good Professor also.
It was certainly not my intent to personally attack him in any way.
As for the rest of it, there’s no way I can win this argument–all you do is shift the playing field, rather like Lucy and the football, so at this point I think I’m going to find something productive to do with my time.
I hope you have better luck finding someone to debate whose intelligence matches the level you believe yours to be–although I don’t think you’ll recognize it when you find it.
Best to you.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
[quote
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.
Todd
okay, if you take it as a personal attack I’m sorry, and I apologize to the good Professor also.
It was certainly not my intent to personally attack him in any way.
As for the rest of it, there’s no way I can win this argument–all you do is shift the playing field, rather like Lucy and the football, so at this point I think I’m going to find something productive to do with my time.
I hope you have better luck finding someone to debate whose intelligence matches the level you believe yours to be–although I don’t think you’ll recognize it when you find it.
Best to you.[/quote]
You have an interesting conception of reality Joe. I haven’t changed the playing field once. My message has been the same since the beginning. You have failed to even address one of the questions that I think I have made adequately clear in my posts.
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
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!’[/quote]
This is it! I found it! THE most ignorant post for the month of March. I’m sure even with a couple of more weeks in the month no one will topple this piece of work…LOL
[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]
Good job professor, you didn’t let me down. As I stated earlier, “when the facts don’t fit, the liberals attack the person.” Sure professor there is “something wrong” with BB because he is well read enough to present a cogent argument that you can’t handle.
Your arguments are now bordering on the silly…
“I only noticed bias on FOX, I don’t go around counting the other media. Who the heck keeps track…you have to have something wrong with you to do that stuff…”
Pure entertainment…LOL
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Please explain the hypocrisy of preferring someone to be honest rather than preferring someone to lie?
Please explain the “wisdom” in accepting one bias while rejecting another…because one says it is openly biased? Is it perhaps a possibility that the one not making that claim is at least attempting to be objective? Isn’t that what news should be trying to do? Or has that changed to “you all are so biased so we will be CLEARLY biased to show all of you…so there”. What a childish game we play.[/quote]
You didn’t answer my question. Perhaps you can explain your hypocrisy accusation in your next answer.
With regard to what you said, you brought up the crux of the matter when you said:
[quote]ProfessorX said:
Is it perhaps a possibility that the one not making that claim is at least attempting to be objective? Isn’t that what news should be trying to do? Or has that changed to “you all are so biased so we will be CLEARLY biased to show all of you…so there”.[/quote]
One of the main ideas of what vroom posted, and what some others have said, and with which I tend to agree, is that you get perspective when you get a person acting as a filter for a story, which is essentially what the person who writes the story copy does.
Some will attempt to filter out their own perspective, and will be successful to some extent, but not totally sucessful. Others won’t bother to attempt, or they just won’t actively try because they consider themselves purveyors of “the truth” and above such things.
But as you hit upon, I think you will get perspective – which is just another word for bias – to some degree or other.
Thus, I prefer to get strong arguments from both sides, rather than simply to trust the reporter/writer to give me an unbiased interpretation of the facts.
What do you think of the steroid stories right now, btw? Do you think the media is doing a good job of presenting an unbiased story? (BTW, I don’t think Fox is doing a good job of presenting both sides of this story). How about the Michael Jackson story?
If you think they aren’t – and I don’t see how a person of your intelligence could think they are – then perhaps you could agree that there exists a decent probability that reporting on political issues, on which people tend to have passionate beliefs, could be biased? And that, even if people were trying to excise bias, having a pool of people who share the same political biases trying to police their reports for bias might not do such a stellar job of catching their own bias sneaking through?
Thus, I prefer clear, stated perspective – which is how newspapers used to report back before some U.S. journalism academics decided they could present unbiased news. The Brits have never fallen for this – their newspapers have obvious and known perspectives. And anyone who believes the BBC doesn’t really isn’t paying attention…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Please explain the hypocrisy of preferring someone to be honest rather than preferring someone to lie?
Please explain the “wisdom” in accepting one bias while rejecting another…because one says it is openly biased? Is it perhaps a possibility that the one not making that claim is at least attempting to be objective? Isn’t that what news should be trying to do? Or has that changed to “you all are so biased so we will be CLEARLY biased to show all of you…so there”. What a childish game we play.[/quote]
BTW, I suppose I should get to one of the main underlying reasons I prefer acknowledged bias to claims of objectivity. Given my explicit rejection, in my previous post, of the ideal of objectivity, I think the claim of objectivity actively hides the issues, and encourages a lazy, unthinking attitude toward news consumption.
If you think you’re getting the objective truth, you are not likely to stop to question the underlying assumptions, or the sources, or anything else I think is important to understanding a story. If you get arguments on both sides, you might reject both, but you’ll think about both and be much closer to a real understanding of the issue than if you mindlessly consume the “unbiased” reports.
The election was last year. Get over it. The biggest difference between conservatives and liberals, to me, is simply this…liberals are so afraid of pissing off the extremeists in the liberal party that you can’t nail them down on anything. They are wishywashy. Conservatives stand their ground, right or wrong. I not saying that this is a better way to go, I’m just saying that people obviously prefer someone whos stands by what they believe in. Myself, I’m middle of the road. Liberal in some ways, conservative in others.
The so-called liberal bias is essentially a propaganda line that is given to keep the “political debate” within a narrow framework. It obviously works great.
Psst, Todd, good job man. Your main question and point was totally ignored and the sly insults were all over the map.
Stick to your guns man.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You didn’t answer my question. Perhaps you can explain your hypocrisy accusation in your next answer.[/quote]
I thought I answered it quite well. You asked me to explain the hypocrisy of preferring someone to be honest rather than someone to lie. I found that to be an extremely simplistic way of looking at this when your position seems to be that whoever outwardly supports your bias is telling the truth, while all others are liars. Maybe you were too quick to rush over why I answered your question with a question.
OK, and your point is? This has been going on since the beginning of written word, however, I do believe they teach in the most basic college writing courses that the goal is either to persuade or to show both sides of an argument equally. A good writer or reporter could accomplish both without compromising integrity depending on the work.
[quote]
Some will attempt to filter out their own perspective, and will be successful to some extent, but not totally sucessful.[/quote]
Then we disagree on this. It is not impossible for someone to be objective in a writing or talking piece. It only depends on the desire.
[quote]
Others won’t bother to attempt, or they just won’t actively try because they consider themselves purveyors of “the truth” and above such things.[/quote]
Like this hasn’t been happening in the Republican party ad nauseum.
Ahh, so FOX news is filled with “perspective”. Thanks for clearing that up.
[quote]
Thus, I prefer to get strong arguments from both sides, rather than simply to trust the reporter/writer to give me an unbiased interpretation of the facts.[/quote]
Well, by that statement I would assume that someone with your intelligence would realize that regardless of tifts about who says they are baised when they are or are not, the basic idea is to get a rounded view of the situation. That would mean relying on even those “perspectives” that you don’t initially agree with as well as those you do in order to obtain information. Why, then, do you tear down one side of that fence while constantly putting a new coat of paint on the other?
[quote]
What do you think of the steroid stories right now, btw? Do you think the media is doing a good job of presenting an unbiased story? (BTW, I don’t think Fox is doing a good job of presenting both sides of this story). How about the Michael Jackson story?[/quote]
You should have started a new thread for this. This could get hectic. I think that our Congress has been exposed as a group of overpaid sham-artists who eat up public tax money to pursue the latest “hot topic of the week” despite the true threats to our society. Anyone who thinks the steroid issue should even be in front of Congress right now is a fool. They might as well hold hearings on jay walking next week…possibly a hearing on how short a short skirt should legally be allowed to be worn without jail time.
As far as Micheal Jackson, I have already written on this board what I believe. The public builds people up only to tear them down. Micheal was a world wide phenomenon who is now being made fun of left and right. What has changed? Aside from his facial features, he seems to be the exact same Mike that we grew up with in the 80’s. Mike never changed, everyone else did. For every scalpel taken to his face, society has become more and more mutilated to compensate. He seems to wear facially what our society now hides internally. Perhaps his face is a painting of the new soul of this country…fixed up on the outside…falling apart on the inside…only in reverse.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Psst, Todd, good job man. Your main question and point was totally ignored and the sly insults were all over the map.
Stick to your guns man.[/quote]
I appreciate the support vroom. Joe really struck a nerve with me.
Todd
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Psst, Todd, good job man. Your main question and point was totally ignored and the sly insults were all over the map.
Stick to your guns man.
I appreciate the support vroom. Joe really struck a nerve with me.
Todd[/quote]
I’ve read your posts at least three times trying to divine anything you might have said that even approached the level of intelligence you fancy yourself as having. For the life of me, all I could find was a pissing contest over Occam’s Razor and a whole bunch of “you’re dumber than shit” remarks.
Please, without going all nuts with the quote function, state what the fuck your points are. Evidently, the only other person who transimits on your wave length is vroom - and, down here in the political threads, that’s not always a good thing.
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Psst, Todd, good job man. Your main question and point was totally ignored and the sly insults were all over the map.
Stick to your guns man.
I appreciate the support vroom. Joe really struck a nerve with me.
Todd[/quote]
so two of the biggest libs get together and high five each other over how successfully one of them insulted someone else? And here I thought you guys were supposed to be all about compassion and inclusion?
It’s typical though. You guys can never respond to facts, you always wind up launching personal attacks…
And, Todd, the ranking of the US in a world poverty ranking has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. If you want to debate whether or not we have more poor people than country A or B, start a thread about it.
'kay, bro?
How many times do I have to tell you guys? Okay, once more:
“Liberal debate style”
When the facts are agaisnt you attack the facts as being wrong. Things like, “the data came from a small source.” Here’s one": “That study is outdated, no one believes that crap.”
When the above does not work, attack the person, or organizaton who has the facts. “Those people are biased everyone knows that, how stupid are you?” “You have way to much time on your hands, must be a loser.” “Everyone knows that all republicans are racist, evil, corporate types.”
If neither of the above two work you must try to confuse the issue by constantly changing the playing field. If you want to discuss media bias, they will conveniently change the topic to any number of things. “Hey how about those Mets.”
Ha ha, you get the idea…the longer I live the less respect that I have for a politically liberal viewpoint.
It’s not like they have a history of ever being right on a topic. Remember the 1980’s? Reagen won the cold war that decade while his liberal political opponents were screaming for a “nuclear freeze.” Okay…that’s another topic… but there are so many instances.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Psst, Todd, good job man. Your main question and point was totally ignored and the sly insults were all over the map.
Stick to your guns man.
I appreciate the support vroom. Joe really struck a nerve with me.
Todd
I’ve read your posts at least three times trying to divine anything you might have said that even approached the level of intelligence you fancy yourself as having. For the life of me, all I could find was a pissing contest over Occam’s Razor and a whole bunch of “you’re dumber than shit” remarks.
Please, without going all nuts with the quote function, state what the fuck your points are. Evidently, the only other person who transimits on your wave length is vroom - and, down here in the political threads, that’s not always a good thing.
[/quote]
Rainjack,
You must have missed a fairly detailed post that I made with regard to the topic of the thread. Please go back and feel free to read that.
If someone tries to dismiss another’s argument using a logical principle, and that principle is wrongly applied, then I feel a response to that misuse in order to nullify it is perfectly acceptable.
If you care to review the exchange between Joe and myself further, you may notice that I asked him several straightforward questions. Joe failed to answer these questions at all during this discourse. I made a point of answering questions that he posed to me.
If you still have further questions, on or off topic, I would be more than happy to attempt to answer them.
Todd
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Psst, Todd, good job man. Your main question and point was totally ignored and the sly insults were all over the map.
Stick to your guns man.
I appreciate the support vroom. Joe really struck a nerve with me.
Todd
so two of the biggest libs get together and high five each other over how successfully one of them insulted someone else? And here I thought you guys were supposed to be all about compassion and inclusion?
It’s typical though. You guys can never respond to facts, you always wind up launching personal attacks…
And, Todd, the ranking of the US in a world poverty ranking has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. If you want to debate whether or not we have more poor people than country A or B, start a thread about it.
'kay, bro?[/quote]
Right on, Joe. You’re the one who introduced the importance of the US having the world’s poverty, not me. However, you couldn’t even introduce an off topic argument correctly.
Who ever said I was a liberal?
Todd
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Psst, Todd, good job man. Your main question and point was totally ignored and the sly insults were all over the map.
Stick to your guns man.
I appreciate the support vroom. Joe really struck a nerve with me.
Todd
so two of the biggest libs get together and high five each other over how successfully one of them insulted someone else? And here I thought you guys were supposed to be all about compassion and inclusion?
It’s typical though. You guys can never respond to facts, you always wind up launching personal attacks…
And, Todd, the ranking of the US in a world poverty ranking has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. If you want to debate whether or not we have more poor people than country A or B, start a thread about it.
'kay, bro?
Right on, Joe. You’re the one who introduced the importance of the US having the world’s poverty, not me. However, you couldn’t even introduce an off topic argument correctly.
Who ever said I was a liberal?
Todd[/quote]
I screwed that post up. In the second sentence the phrase “having the world’s poverty” should read “having the world’s lowest poverty.”
My bad.
Todd
Oh please, I see multiple posts on this, but the above sticks out. All I did was offer moral support to someone who at one point was merely trying to ask a question and discuss a detail.
My comment, was simply that Todd was being insulted. I certainly didn’t congratulate anyone on doing the insulting. Talk about being so damned slanted you can’t even see straight.
So, I haven’t weighed in on the issues being discussed between Todd and Joe, I haven’t congratulated anyone, and I haven’t stated anything resembling an opinion on the thread by trying to offer moral support to someone who was obviously frustrated and probably pissed off.
It looks like three posters at least need to check their radiation levels…