False Equivilence and Logical Fallacies.

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As much as I've enjoyed hearing views different from mine I get tired of some of the assumptions on mine.

I’ve assumed nothing about your views, so this is little more than a red herring and/or strawman (funny given the actual thread topic).

You said repeatedly Fox and CNN are equivalent, essentially two sides of one coin.

Ten Oz pointed out why he felt this was a ludicrous position, provided paragraphs of examples and details as to why, and asked you to provide similar examples which support your position. Your suggestion of equivalence has been challenged. The onus now falls to you to support your claim or retract it.

You instead evaded this direct ask and provided no (maybe 1-ish?) similar examples despite repeated requests.  Even now you ultimately evaded once more and chose to act all self righteous and put upon in your reply to me above as if I insulted your mother or called your baby ugly. 

Here’s the thing... you can’t provide examples of equivalence because they’re not equivalent in the way you’ve suggested. Prove me wrong. Please! 

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

Like Ten Oz, I don't have cable and haven't watched CNN in a few years.

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If anti-Trump holds no weight whatsoever (it does though, does it not?)

Your claim was pro-Democrat, not anti-trump. This was already clarified before.

If we accept your logic that anti-trump means pro-democrat, then we land in the absurd conclusion that folks at the National Review and the Koch brothers are pro-Democrat. 

Calling this absurd is being kind. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve assumed nothing about your views, so this is little more than a red herring and/or strawman (funny given the actual thread topic).

You said repeatedly Fox and CNN are equivalent, essentially two sides of one coin.

Ten Oz pointed out why he felt this was a ludicrous position, provided paragraphs of examples and details as to why, and asked you to provide similar examples which support your position. Your suggestion of equivalence has been challenged. The onus now falls to you to support your claim or retract it.

You instead evaded this direct ask and provided no (maybe 1-ish?) similar examples despite repeated requests.  Even now you ultimately evaded once more and chose to act all self righteous and put upon in your reply to me above as if I insulted your mother or called your baby ugly. 

Here’s the thing... you can’t provide examples of equivalence because they’re not equivalent in the way you’ve suggested. Prove me wrong. Please! 

Like Ten Oz, I don't have cable and haven't watched CNN in a few years.

You did though. You assumed my equivalent was in all the same respects. I have clarified my position. Why would I retract it?

Why do I need to provide more evidence of CNN being anti-Trump? Both you and Ten oz seem to agree with it.

That is the most notable component in CNN's bias. I have readily admitted that without it they don't hold the same level of bias as Fox (read my posts). I clarified, I did not change my position.

I will give you a recent example of CNN's politically correct/left wing over reach : 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/opinions/megyn-kelly-blackface-comments-racism-roxanne-jones/index.html

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Your claim was pro-Democrat, not anti-trump. This was already clarified before.

 

Well let me clarify it again. THAT WAS NOT MY CLAIM... you claimed you weren't making assumptions...yet you bought that from Ten oz.

48 minutes ago, iNow said:

I

If we accept your logic that anti-trump means pro-democrat, then we land in the absurd conclusion that folks at the National Review and the Koch brothers are pro-Democrat. 

Calling this absurd is being kind. 

Read my posts...

Edited October 26, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why do I need to provide more evidence of CNN being anti-Trump? Both you and Ten oz seem to agree with it.

That is the most notable component in CNN's bias. I have readily admitted that without it they don't hold the same level of bias as Fox (read my posts). I clarified, I did not change my position.

Trump tweets attacks against CNN and gifs off himself beating up CNN. Trump himself singles CNN out to publicly brawl with. That plus the fact that Trump is a notorious liar is the root cause for his negative coverage by CNN. It isn't rooted in political bias for as I can tell or for as you have been able to provide examples of. 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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?

Climate science is more aligned with Democrats. That doesn't mean climate scientists is bias. You are making loose unsupported associations. 

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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?

Nearly 70% of the U.S. supports stricter gun control, Here. One doesn't have to be politically bias to have a positive take on gun control. 

You are claiming equivalent political bias so examples of politic bias would be the useful types of examples. 

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I will give you a recent example of CNN's politically correct/left wing over reach :  [Megyn Kelly]

I see you’ve chosen to add moving the goalposts to your approach. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Trump tweets attacks against CNN and gifs off himself beating up CNN. Trump himself singles CNN out to publicly brawl with. That plus the fact that Trump is a notorious liar is the root cause for his negative coverage by CNN. It isn't rooted in political bias for as I can tell or for as you have been able to provide examples of. 

 

Climate science is more aligned with Democrats. That doesn't mean climate scientists is bias. You are making loose unsupported associations. 

 

Where? Where did I even imply that it might be?

Trump is worse than CNN...and much of it is toward CNN. That might explain some of the CNN bias against Trump. It does not mean that CNN is free of bias.

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

I see you’ve chosen to add moving the goalposts to your approach. 

I see you are keeping up with your previous assumptions. Did you re-read the posts?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’ve assumed nothing about your views, so this is little more than a red herring and/or strawman (funny given the actual thread topic).

 

Feel free to quote me, instead of telling me what you think I meant.

Is it unfair to think that this is how the Democrats have close elections against a party lead by Trump? (I realize Republicans do it to...but why are you doing it? If you think I am wrong quote what I said, and stop with what Ten oz implied that I said)

7 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.

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

8 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.

 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't remember CNN being near as bad until recently. They are every bit as bad.

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

CNN being pro Democrat is somewhat more subtle, but when the anti-Trump extreme rhetoric is included, it rises to the same level

That said, I believe in many ways we agree and aren’t as far apart on this as it seems. 

You’re being pushed because of some loose suggestions. Once you clarified, it rapidly became clear that your position is more reasonable. 

If I were a Fox News contributor, I might accuse you of backpedaling. Since I’m not, I’ll thank you for being a decent fellow human. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by iNow

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It does not mean that CNN is free of bias.

Pretty much everyone and everything has some bias. Demanding squeaky clean from others while one's house stinks of shit is something yet again. It's authortarianism.

Quoting the president verbatim is not bias, it's reporting the truth. Quashing the same because it's negative is bias. Insisting others must follow suit is yet again... authoritarianism.

Both under the guise of something else. The false equivalence is how to get there.

It's dirty pool.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, rangerx said:

Pretty much everyone and everything has some bias. Demanding squeaky clean from others while one's house stinks of shit is something yet again. It's authortarianism.

Quoting the president verbatim is not bias, it's reporting the truth. Quashing the same because it's negative is bias. Insisting others must follow suit is yet again... authoritarianism.

Both under the guise of something else. The false equivalence is how to get there.

It's dirty pool.

Agree... and pretty damning on it's own. Why CNN feels the need to take it so much further amazes me. The example I gave of Cuomo describing what Trump was thinking loses Cuomo and CNN credibility.If reacting like that is because Trump calls them "fake News" it is more than a little ironic. 

 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

 

 

That said, I believe in many ways we agree and aren’t as far apart on this as it seems. 

You’re being pushed because of some loose suggestions. Once you clarified, it rapidly became clear that your position is more reasonable. 

If I were a Fox News contributor, I might accuse you of backpedaling. Since I’m not, I’ll thank you for being a decent fellow human. 

Thank you and likewise. I believe the vast majority of Americans are, and deserve political options much closer to the centre, more moderate,  and a much more civil discourse where this same vast majority gets respected. I think this requires new leadership on both sides...or a third option.

Edited October 26, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where? Where did I even imply that it might be?

Trump is worse than CNN...and much of it is toward CNN. That might explain some of the CNN bias against Trump. It does not mean that CNN is free of bias.

I didn't mean to imply you deny Climate Change. Rather I was just giving you an example of how something aligning more with one political party than another doesn't automatically make it bias. 

What I think you are missing here is that Trump himself is the catalyst for his own press. Trump purposefully conducts public feuds with people. It is his thing. He was a reality star before this and public fights were always his thing. Take all the Storm Daniels stuff Stormy is not a Democrat and Democrats are not responsible for the Stormy coverage. Stormy is a pornography actress that Trump slept with and pay offed. Trump calling Stormy Horseface and her calling him tiny back and forth has nothing to do with Political bias. Likewise for Trump firing people like Omarosa. It was Trump who hired Omarosa. She is not a Democrat. All of her coverage and their public feuding has nothing to do with Democrats. Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein are Republicans and both were appointed by Trump. All the threats and insults lobbed at them by Trump has nothing to do with Democrats. Heck, Bob Mueller is a Republican and his investigation was greenlit by Republicans in the DOJ that Trump appointed. It was Trump own Sec of State that call Trump a moron and who Trump later chose to fire via twitter. These are public spectacles of Trump's own creation. Subtract that stuff away from the equation here and what is CNN really doing to help Democrats, nothing. I'd argue they are helping Trump. Have you ever heard the showbiz saying "all press is good press"? Trump baits CNN because Trump loves being the lead story. If CNN stopped doing negative Trump stories tomorrow Trump himself would be upset about it in my opinion. Don't let it fool you. 

In an environment where Trump himself is creating feuds between himself and apolitical figures like reality stars, pron stars, athletes, and etc it simple isn't accurate to conflate all media coverage of Trump with political bias. Democratic based attacks and Democrats support occupies very little space in the U.S. news media currently. 

Another example of a seemingly politically bias Trump feud which actually isn't would be  Colin Kaepernick and the whole issue of athletes and the national anthem. It is in the news a bit and Trump enjoys complaining about athletes at his rallies. It seems very partisan charged............ but it actually isn't.  Colin Kaepernick is no Democrat. Keapernick's position is anti both Democrat and Republican equally. Trump simply has made the whole thing about himself because that is what he does.   

Quote

 

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick offered his thoughts on the first presidential debate Tuesday, making it clear he's not satisfied with either nominee.

"To me, it was embarrassing to watch that these are our two candidates," Kaepernick said, via Yamiche Alcindor of the New York Times. "Both are proven liars, and it almost seems like they’re trying to debate who's less racist. And at this point, talking with one of my friends, it was, you have to pick the lesser of two evils, but in the end, it’s still evil."

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2666244-colin-kaepernick-comments-on-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-presidential-debate

 

 

[Raider5678]

On 10/26/2018 at 5:58 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

.or a third option.

Independents for the win!

[iNow]

I believe Ten Iz already pointed this out, but very few eligible voters are truly “independent” in anything more than self-reported label.

They still very consistently vote with one party over the other in election after election, it’s just that they don’t wish to associate with that party that benefits from their vote... they don’t want the “stink” on them even though they support that stink with their votes the majority of the time. 

[Raider5678]

On 10/25/2018 at 11:01 PM, iNow said:

Once you clarified, it rapidly became clear that your position is more reasonable. 

Honestly, this is probably one of the hardest parts about political discussions.

It's hard to judge just how much farther along the political spectrum someone is.

On 10/26/2018 at 1:52 AM, rangerx said:

Pretty much everyone and everything has some bias. Demanding squeaky clean from others while one's house stinks of shit is something yet again. It's authortarianism.

This is a prime example of such, Ranger.

J.C. Macswell is farther right then you are on CNN, however you've assumed that he's so far to the right that Fox news is his house and that he's demanding squeaky clean from CNN while ignoring Fox. From what I've read in his post, that is not at all his position.

It's something that can lead to misunderstandings and make it difficult to hold a discussion, and is something that I can ensure you I've done before as well.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I believe Ten Iz already pointed this out, but very few eligible voters are truly “independent” in anything more than self-reported label.

They still very consistently vote with one party over the other in election after election, it’s just that they don’t wish to associate with that party that benefits from their vote... they don’t want the “stink” on them even though they support that stink with their votes the majority of the time. 

I'm not claiming with certainty this is untrue, but I very much doubt it. It's like you believe only turnout, or a very small number of independents decide each election.

How could anyone possibly know this, anyway? Ten oz pointed out how overall consistent voting was believed to be among demographics, not as individuals, and no one knows how anyone actually voted except themselves

[iNow]

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not claiming with certainty this is untrue, but I very much doubt it. It's like you believe only turnout, or a very small number of independents decide each election.

How could anyone possibly know this, anyway? Ten oz pointed out how overall consistent voting was believed to be among demographics, not as individuals, and no one knows how anyone actually voted except themselves

We're going further off-topic. It was addressed here. We're not talking about individual votes. We're talking about votes in aggregate. That's important.

Given this... If folks were truly independent in the way(s) being suggested by you and others, then that aggregation would noticeably change from one election to the next. The outcome and vote tallies would show far more dynamism since the candidate running would consistently act as the key deciding factor, not the party they've identified with.

If folks were truly independent in the way(s) being suggested, we'd logically see far less friction in the numbers and far more voters readily dancing back and forth from one side to the other. It just doesn't, happen though.

I'll readily stipulate it's not conclusive, but neither is evidence that smoking causes cancer or humans climate change. Certainty simply can't be your metric on this. The evidence in favor is overwhelming and it easily supports the position Ten Oz and I are putting forth.

You're clearly welcome to disagree, but I'd hope you find contradictory data to support that disagreement (as opposed to just going with your gut and dismissing us out of hand).

Edited November 1, 2018 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

We're going further off-topic. It was addressed here. We're not talking about individual votes. We're talking about votes in aggregate. That's important.

Given this... If folks were truly independent in the way(s) being suggested by you and others, then that aggregation would noticeably change from one election to the next. The outcome and vote tallies would show far more dynamism since the candidate running would consistently act as the key deciding factor, not the party they've identified with.

If folks were truly independent in the way(s) being suggested, we'd logically see far less friction in the numbers and far more voters readily dancing back and forth from one side to the other. It just doesn't, happen though.

I'll readily stipulate it's not conclusive, but neither is evidence that smoking causes cancer or humans climate change. Certainty simply can't be your metric on this. The evidence in favor is overwhelming and it easily supports the position Ten Oz and I are putting forth.

You're clearly welcome to disagree, but I'd hope you find contradictory data to support that disagreement (as opposed to just going with your gut and dismissing us out of hand).

You claimed this:

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I believe Ten Iz already pointed this out, but very few eligible voters are truly “independent” in anything more than self-reported label.

They still very consistently vote with one party over the other in election after election, it’s just that they don’t wish to associate with that party that benefits from their vote... they don’t want the “stink” on them even though they support that stink with their votes the majority of the time. 

It makes no sense if you are talking about votes in aggregate.

[iNow]

Fair enough. I should’ve paid more attention to my word choice. Apologies for multitasking 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I think we can address the questions in the OP without this becoming a GOP vs Democrat argument.

 

[rangerx]

On 10/26/2018 at 2:58 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree... and pretty damning on it's own. Why CNN feels the need to take it so much further amazes me. The example I gave of Cuomo describing what Trump was thinking loses Cuomo and CNN credibility.If reacting like that is because Trump calls them "fake News" it is more than a little ironic.

Well, if Trump said it, what's to discuss?

Let's call a spade a spade here. Fake news as being bantered here is not really fake news. It's merely a reprehensible assertion that is intended to demean reporters who report a story in a negative light.

Enemy of the people? My sore ass! Until that gets burned to the ground, laying at the feet of the media that reports it, instead of checking it at the source is the height of egregiousness.

That's what I'd expect from gangsters and thugs, not leaders. It's a disgrace.

It's the height of a false equivalence.

[Raider5678]

22 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It's merely a reprehensible assertion that is intended to demean reporters who report a story in a negative light.

There is a difference between reporting a story in a negative light and casting a story in a negative light, that'd be a false equivalence.

 

Let's look at the CNN report that J.C. MacSwell specifically mentioned.

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=vBVwLfi6SE6Uo788eDZxnQ

Watch it and tell me what you think of it.

Within 30 seconds he's mad at the media reporting on this so much, "Why fan the flames of the foolish?" as he says. I guess by foolish he could be meaning anything because he doesn't clarify, however it appears to me he's talking about Republicans who are watching it. Correct me if you see it a different way.

Within 90 seconds he's attacking Kanye's mental health because Kanye has admitted to suspecting he has mental health conditions. And he then follows that up by saying that Trump clearly doesn't care about mental health because he's still meeting win Kanye and instead suggests that Trump is only thinking about getting headlines about "Blacks love Trump!"

Within 120 seconds he's saying he doesn't care about what comes out of Kanye's mouth because of his mental health conditions.

Within 150 seconds he says the true story is what Trump is thinking when he's smiling and suggests headlines like "He's blacker than Obama!" is going through his head.

After 180 seconds he's saying Trumps thinking "Yeah. I'm Superman. I can do anything."

And towards the end, he's mocking the media "Click click click click click" for taking pictures of Kanye West hugging Donald Trump which is something that Donald Trump doesn't deserve because of reasons?

 

It seemed extremely biased to me, and not just reporting on a story in a negative light. He took Trump meeting with Kanye West and turned it into an attack on Trump, Kanye's mental health condition, Trump being extremely racist, and more. Sounds exactly like something Fox news would do.

 

 

[rangerx]

I never suggested CNN didn't have bias.

I said that bias is falsely equated to Trump and FOX News level of falsehoods.

[Raider5678]

On 10/26/2018 at 1:52 AM, rangerx said:

Quoting the president verbatim is not bias, it's reporting the truth. Quashing the same because it's negative is bias.

Sorry, I mistook this as you saying it wasn't biased.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

There is a difference between reporting a story in a negative light and casting a story in a negative light

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Will you please elaborate? 

[Raider5678]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Will you please elaborate? 

Reporting a story in a negative light is reporting a story the way it is which would be in a negative light. I.e. Trump says something racist as usually and media reports it as racist.

 

Casting a story in a negative light is taking a story which most people wouldn't consider negative, and portraying it in a negative light. I.e. Trump looks like he's thinking something racist during a meeting with Kanye.

[rangerx]

25 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Casting a story in a negative light is taking a story which most people wouldn't consider negative, and portraying it in a negative light. I.e. Trump looks like he's thinking something racist during a meeting with Kanye.

Some people. Not most people. That's a false equivalence.

Besides that, while it may be wrong to report what Trump may be thinking, it's reporting what Trump says and does that really matters. Another false equivalence.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Besides that, while it may be wrong to report what Trump may be thinking, it's reporting what Trump says and does that really matters. Another false equivalence.

I fail to see how saying that speculative reporting on Trump's thoughts is a false equivelance. I didn't equate it to anything.