False Equivilence and Logical Fallacies.

[rangerx]

Are these not the same thing?

Why is one allowed on this forum, while the other is not?

[Strange]

Isn’t false equivalence just specific example of a logical (or more accurately, perhaps, rhetorical) fallacy?

[rangerx]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Isn’t false equivalence just specific example of a logical (or more accurately, perhaps, rhetorical) fallacy?

Yes, I suppose. However my question is why does it apply to crackpots but not politics on this board.

Does putting a question mark behind a statement make it okay, when clearly the implication is something else entirely?

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Yes, I suppose. However my question is why does it apply to crackpots but not politics on this board.

Does putting a question mark behind a statement make it okay, when clearly the implication is something else entirely?

I think because, within the science forums, facts are referenceable and there is clearer  consensus, but in  politics it's nearly all personal opinion.

Edited October 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

I think because, within the science forums facts are referenceable and there is clearer  consensus, but in  politics it's nearly all personal opinion.

Correct.

It’s a false equivalence, for example, to suggest 2+2=4 is the same as saying universal healthcare = communism. 

Ranger, I’m not sure you realize it, but you’ve effectively done that by asking this... being an example of the very thing you decry:

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

my question is why does it apply to crackpots but not politics on this board.

Does putting a question mark behind a statement make it okay, when clearly the implication is something else entirely?

 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Yes, I suppose. However my question is why does it apply to crackpots but not politics on this board.

Does putting a question mark behind a statement make it okay, when clearly the implication is something else entirely?

I may a lot of pointed statements based on my opinions but believe I do decent job at attempting to explain my thoughts without a lot of fluff or gamesmanship. I try to be straight forward. Whether it is false equivalency or any other logical fallacies I think the problem is that some posters are actively trying to obfuscate matters. In some cases it is a defense strategy to avoid criticism while other times it is just an unwillingness to consider an issue at anymore length. Provided a person understands why they feel the way they do about an issue no logical fallacies should be necessary. 

Why is it allowed, I assume, is because we are emotional creatures and everyone processes information differently. Some people are naturally defensive or self pitying. Communication isn't purely about expressing ones honest thoughts. It can also be used to influence the manner in which ones thoughts are understood and some posters by habit are simply more focus on the later. 

[rangerx]

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Correct.

It’s a false equivalence, for example, to suggest 2+2=4 is the same as saying universal healthcare = communism. 

Ranger, I’m not sure you realize it, but you’ve effectively done that by asking this... being an example of the very thing you decry:

 

In my defense, I don't start thread after thread abusing this tactic to deflect or put up smoke and mirrors to distract from the issue of the day.

I believe this is the only topic I've opened on this board, ever.

There is a difference.

Edited October 25, 2018 by rangerx

[iNow]

I agree.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Two boys are playing in a park in a very Democrat neighbourhood, when one is attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy takes his stick, wedges it down the dogs collar and twists,breaking the dogs neck.

A CNN reporter who was strolling by sees the incident,and rushes over to interview the boy. "Young Democrat  Saves Friend From Vicious Animal," he starts writing in his notebook.

"But I'm not a Democrat" the little hero replied.

"Sorry, since we are in this area, I just assumed you were into politics." said the reporter and starts again. "Young Boy Rescues Friend From Horrific Attack" he continued writing in his notebook.

"But I am into politics, I'm a Republican." the boy said.

The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes, "Little GOP Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet!"

(adapted from http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?/topic/6048-some-good-ole-leaf-jokes/)

Interchange Republican/Democrat and Fox News/CNN to suit and you have the state of politics and news in the U.S. right now.

Edited October 25, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Some people are naturally defensive or self pitying

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But I am into politics, I'm a Republican." the boy said.

The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes, "Little GOP Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet!"

Yep, those poor Republicans. Nevermind they control every branch of the govt. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Ten oz

[rangerx]

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Interchange Republican/Democrat and Fox News/CNN to suit and you have the state of politics and news in the U.S. right now.

If you were to substitute CNN for MSNBC, I'd be inclined to agree. As it stands, you've demonstrated a false equivalence instead.

[iNow]

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18004478/hack-gap-explained

Quote

[Research from Emory University political scientists Gregory Martin and Josh McCrain as well as a separate study by Martin and Stanford economist Ali Yurukoglu finds] that if Fox News hadn’t existed, the Republican presidential candidate’s share of the two-party vote would have been 3.59 points lower in 2004 and 6.34 points lower in 2008.

Without Fox, in other words, the GOP’s only popular vote win since the 1980s would have been reversed and the 2008 election would have been an extinction-level landslide.

And that’s only measuring the direct impact of the Fox cable network. If you consider the supplemental effect of Sinclair’s local news broadcast, the AM radio shows of Fox personalities like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, and the broader constellation of right-wing punditry, the effect would surely be larger.

 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/23/18004478/hack-gap-explained

 

FoxNews is the tip of the spear for Republican messaging. There is no Democratic equivalent. Barrack Obama never had regular evening phone chats with Rachael Maddow as Trump does with Sean Hannity. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

FoxNews is the tip of the spear for Republican messaging. There is no Democratic equivalent. Barrack Obama never had regular evening phone chats with Rachael Maddow as Trump does with Sean Hannity. 

I don't remember CNN being near as bad as it is now 2 years ago. In my mind it is not a false equivalency to say they are similar in degree of bias to Fox News.

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't remember CNN being near as bad as it is now 2 years ago. In my mind it is not a false equivalency to say they are similar in degree of bias to Fox News.

 

Here is a list of Foxnews employees and contributors literally hired by Trump: John Bolton, Mercedes Schlapp, Scott Brown, Richard Grenell, John D. McEntee, Tony Sayegh, K.T. McFarland, Georgette Mosbacher, and Anthony Scaramucci, Here. 

Former FoxNews Chairman Roger Ailes helped Trump prep for debtaes, Here.

Trump Jr is dating former FoxNews commutator Kimberly Guilifoyle, Here

Trump has done more interviews with FoxNews than all other media outlets combined a few times over, Here

....and then there is stuff like Trump live tweeting FoxNews shows, directing people via twitter to watch various FoxNews Programs, complementing FoxNews at rallies, and etc. There is nothing equivalent happening on CNN that I am aware off. I don't have cable and don't watch either CNN or FoxNews but am aware of the manner in which Foxnews has literally been integrated into Trump's White News. Nothing like it exists over at CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN, or etc. Can you provide examples of Clinton, Holder, Obama, or whomever on the left tweeting gifs of them punching or body slamming FoxNews, live tweeting CNN shows, citing CNN at campaign rallies, and etc, etc, etc??? If it is truly equivalent you'll be able to provide examples. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Here is a list of Foxnews employees and contributors literally hired by Trump: John Bolton, Mercedes Schlapp, Scott Brown, Richard Grenell, John D. McEntee, Tony Sayegh, K.T. McFarland, Georgette Mosbacher, and Anthony Scaramucci, Here. 

Former FoxNews Chairman Roger Ailes helped Trump prep for debtaes, Here.

Trump Jr is dating former FoxNews commutator Kimberly Guilifoyle, Here

Trump has done more interviews with FoxNews than all other media outlets combined a few times over, Here

....and then there is stuff like Trump live tweeting FoxNews shows, directing people via twitter to watch various FoxNews Programs, complementing FoxNews at rallies, and etc. There is nothing equivalent happening on CNN that I am aware off. I don't have cable and don't watch either CNN or FoxNews but am aware of the manner in which Foxnews has literally been integrated into Trump's White News. Nothing like it exists over at CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN, or etc. Can you provide examples of Clinton, Holder, Obama, or whomever on the left tweeting gifs of them punching or body slamming FoxNews, live tweeting CNN shows, citing CNN at campaign rallies, and etc, etc, etc??? If it is truly equivalent you'll be able to provide examples. 

 

Not that I can confirm anything in your post with regard to Fox News but I don't really have any reason to doubt what you say. I think we can probably agree on how bad Fox News is. They seem like they are actively campaigning for Trump and the GOP. I have only watched them recently, and they are horrible. (though sometimes entertaining)

I don't remember CNN being near as bad until recently. They are every bit as bad. They constantly overstate their case against Trump...not sure why they feel it is necessary.

I will give you an example... The buffoon is receiving Kanye West at the oval office:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/12/cnn_cuomo_trump_looked_like_he_had_racist_thoughts_talking_to_kanye_west.html

If their was anything dumber than Trump receiving West in the first place it is Cuomo's rant describing what he thought Trump was thinking. CNN aired this. Show me the equivalent of that for Fox News...

 

[Ten oz]

 

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Interchange Republican/Democrat and Fox News/CNN to suit and you have the state of politics and news in the U.S. right now.

Here the equivalency you are making seems clear. FoxNews is in the bag for Republican and CNN is in the bag for Democrats.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't remember CNN being near as bad as it is now 2 years ago. In my mind it is not a false equivalency to say they are similar in degree of bias to Fox News.

Due to the previous statement I assume the "bias" you are referencing is Republican/Democrat?

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/12/cnn_cuomo_trump_looked_like_he_had_racist_thoughts_talking_to_kanye_west.html

If their was anything dumber than Trump receiving West in the first place it is Cuomo's rant describing what he thought Trump was thinking. CNN aired this. Show me the equivalent of that for Fox News...

The link is Negative Trump coverage but there is nothing pro-Democrat. Are you saying all negative Trump sentiment is pro-Democratic? If so than Nicki Haley, Colin Powell, John McCain, John Kasich, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and many other Republicans who have publicly ridiculed Trump are are actually pro-Democrat.

Separately Republicans follow FoxNews to a significantly greater degree than Democrats follow CNN. 

Quote

 

When voters were asked to write in their “main source” for election news, four-in-ten Trump voters named Fox News.1 The next most-common main source among Trump voters, CNN, was named by only 8% of his voters.

Clinton voters, however, did not coalesce around any one source. CNN was named more than any other, but at 18% had nowhere near the dominance that Fox News had among Trump voters. Instead, the choices of Clinton voters were more spread out. MSNBC, Facebook, local television news, NPR, ABC, The New York Times and CBS were all named by between 5% and 9% of her voters.

The study also suggests that Democrats who backed Bernie Sanders or another Democratic candidate in the primaries prioritized, to some extent, different types of news media than those who supported Clinton – even once the general election had begun. There were fewer differences between those who did and did not support Trump in the Republican primaries.

http://www.journalism.org/2017/01/18/trump-clinton-voters-divided-in-their-main-source-for-election-news/

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

 

 Are you saying all negative Trump sentiment is pro-Democratic? If so than Nicki Haley, Colin Powell, John McCain, John Kasich, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and many other Republicans who have publicly ridiculed Trump are are actually pro-Democrat.

 

 

I think you are hitting pretty strong in the false equivalency department.

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think you are hitting pretty strong in the false equivalency department.

It is a question. Asking you if negative Trump sentiment is equal to partisan pro-Democrat sentiment isn't any sort of an equivalency. The example you provided wasn't one of CNN being pro-Democrat. It was an example of them being negative toward Trump. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive but they also aren't one in the same either. You are insisting that CNN is pro-democrat is an equivalent manner to the way FoxNews is pro-Republican yet Democrats aren't watching CNN at nearly the same levels Republicans watch FoxNews and you have yet to provide an example of CNN being pro-Democrat. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a question. Asking you if negative Trump sentiment is equal to partisan pro-Democrat sentiment isn't any sort of an equivalency. The example you provided wasn't one of CNN being pro-Democrat. It was an example of them being negative toward Trump. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive but they also aren't one in the same either. You are insisting that CNN is pro-democrat is an equivalent manner to the way FoxNews is pro-Republican yet Democrats aren't watching CNN at nearly the same levels Republicans watch FoxNews and you have yet to provide an example of CNN being pro-Democrat. 

 Just for the record, do you think CNN is not pro Democrat? (currently)

 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 Just for the record, do you think CNN is not pro Democrat? (currently)

 

I don't have cable and haven't watched CNN in a few years. From what I have seen online CNN is definitely negative towards Trump. That dispute doesn't seem exclusively politically motivated to me though as Trump regularly attack CNN at rallies and on Twitter. The two seem to have a childish beef going that Trump started and CNN continues for rating. No, I don't think it is in support of the Democratic party. 

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 Just for the record, do you think CNN is not pro Democrat? (currently)

 

This is confirmation that you cannot cite examples of the nature Ten Oz has repeatedly requested and which would actually support your assertions of equivalence, correct?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

This is confirmation that you cannot cite examples of the nature Ten Oz has repeatedly requested and which would actually support your assertions of equivalence, correct?

That would be incorrect.

[iNow]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

That would be incorrect.

Then I’ll repeat his request for examples. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Then I’ll repeat his request for examples. 

If you want examples of CNN pro Democrat equivalence to what Fox is doing pro GOP, I don't think you will find them. 

 CNN being pro Democrat is somewhat more subtle, but when the anti-Trump extreme rhetoric is included, it rises to the same level (IMO, and I think I have more reasons to be less biased than some here, neither being pro Democrat or Republican and certainly anti-Trump)

...and no, I don't think all anti Trump rhetoric is pro Democrat, or anti GOP, but enough I believe that my point stands, (Is "Little GOP Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet!" pro Democrat?) So...Are you looking for examples of pro left, pro democrat, or anti right, anti GOP? (seeing there seems to be agreement CNN is extremely anti-Trump)

If anti-Trump holds no weight whatsoever (it does though, does it not?), CNN is no doubt more neutral than Fox, and clearly make a mild attempt to be more subtle about it, but is it not clear to you they are much more aligned with the Democrats on most issues?

Was this not clear to you during the Kavanaugh hearings? Do you feel they were neutral? (honest question)

I don't really have the stomach to dig up gun control examples (I'm for gun control) , and not believing in climate change is pretty dumb, I've expressed views in another thread wrt voter disenfranchisement, but considering Kavanaugh turned into an emotional debate for some here...what type of example are you after?

If I give an example are you going to assume I have taken a side on it? As much as I've enjoyed hearing views different from mine I get tired of some of the assumptions on mine.