False Equivilence and Logical Fallacies.

[StringJunky]

I should take time out guys from this for a bit.

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I should take time out guys from this for a bit.

He accused me of disparagement and implied incoherence (no less in a snide manner). He did not criticize my point. That cannot be allowed to stand.

[StringJunky]

Pistols at dawn then. 

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Pistols at dawn then. 

Tell me String, as an objective contributor on the outside looking in, do you think my comment about CNN, MSNBC and FOX was out of line?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Once again, I would ask that you all please return to the topic outlined in the OP. 

 

[rangerx]

Fair enough. I will rephrase my point.


CNN is infinitely more objective than either FOX or MSNBC. The false equivalency is substituting CNN with MSNBC.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

CNN is an apple and you are an orange. What does that have to do with the OP?

To bring it back on point, by your own admission, FOX has much more effect on voters than CNN, correct? The false equivalency is substituting CNN with MSNBC.

CNN is infinitely more objective than either FOX or MSNBC. Endlessly nitpicking CNN in the absence of context is bias, yet here you are criticizing bias with bias.

OK rx

I'll ignore the first line, CNN being "infinitely more objective" (let me know if you want that taken seriously) and the "endless nitpicking"

Fox has more effect on voters than CNN is probably correct.

No, your claim that I "substituted" CNN with MSNBC (no matter how good or bad an idea that might be) is not an example of the false equivalence fallacy.

 

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OK rx

I'll ignore the first line, CNN being "infinitely more objective" (let me know if you want that taken seriously) and the "endless nitpicking"

Fox has more effect on voters than CNN is probably correct.

No, your claim that I "substituted" CNN with MSNBC (no matter how good or bad an idea that might be) is not an example of the false equivalence fallacy.

 

I dropped the nitpicking part when I rephrased.

My point that CNN is infinitely more objective than FOX and MSNBC stands. Ten Oz clearly spelled those reasons in his comment, so it needs no rehashing.

While you didn't mention MSNBC, my assertion is that is the true equivalence. Had you suggested that, we'd be in agreement. Your assertion of FOX is in the tank for republicans and CNN in the tank for Democrats is a false equivalence.

If you disagree with what I say, a simple --no, I disagree-- will suffice, you don't even have to explain why. If you don't understand my point, the rules on this board provide that you ask for clarification or ignore it. I took back the disparaging part when I rephrased my comment following the mod note. You lectured me on disparaging your point, by disparaging me personally, insulting my intelligence and coherence rather than speaking to the point. Do you take that back?

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I dropped the nitpicking part when I rephrased.

My point that CNN is infinitely more objective than FOX and MSNBC stands. Ten Oz clearly spelled those reasons in his comment, so it needs no rehashing.

While you didn't mention MSNBC, my assertion is that is the true equivalence. Had you suggested that, we'd be in agreement. Your assertion of FOX is in the tank for republicans and CNN in the tank for Democrats is a false equivalence.

If you disagree with what I say, a simple --no, I disagree-- will suffice, you don't even have to explain why. If you don't understand my point, the rules on this board provide that you ask for clarification or ignore it. I took back the disparaging part when I rephrased my comment following the mod note. You lectured me on disparaging your point, by disparaging me personally, insulting my intelligence and coherence rather than speaking to the point. Do you take that back?

I will take it back. 

If you read what I wrote, I was attacking your manner of delivery, not your intelligence.

But I will apologize as it was directed at you, not just at what you wrote.

I am not as familiar with MSNBC, so i can't agree or disagree. All I can say is that your thought that I had substituted CNN for MSNBC is not an example of the false equivalence fallacy.

Nor, IMO, is it a false equivalence to say that CNN has become as bad as Fox News. This is in regard to Trump, the GOP and Democrats, so called Left and Right Wing agendas, racism, and sexism. I do not believe that was the case 2 years ago.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I will take it back. 

If you read what I wrote, I was attacking your manner of delivery, not your intelligence.

But I will apologize as it was directed at you, not just at what you wrote.

Accepted. it's in the past.

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I am not as familiar with MSNBC, so i can't agree or disagree. All I can say is that your thought that I had substituted CNN for MSNBC is not an example of the false equivalence fallacy.

From a personal standpoint, I mainly rely on Reuters. I don't subscribe to FOX or MSNBC, but CNN is thrown in with my TV package so it gets watched more often than not, as I do CBC, CTV and Global. You don't need to remind me about the CBC thing. I get it, though I only partially agree with it, so let's leave it at that.

I'm pretty sure the average person can sort out what's what based on their own observations when they watch CNN. No so much for FOX or MSNBC. Being constantly beat over the head with accusations of fake news or enemy of the people got old really fast. It's ultra-extremism and undermines otherwise reasonable discourse. It "Godwins" the debate. A last resort, often invoked as a primary talking point. It's understandable that folks get defensive when needlessly beat over the head with it day after day, after day. It's a fucking lie that's not even remotely grounded in truth.

A false equivalence.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nor, IMO, is it a false equivalence to say that CNN has become as bad as Fox News. This is in regard to Trump, the GOP and Democrats, so called Left and Right Wing agendas, racism, and sexism. I do not believe that was the case 2 years ago.

The left wing has an agenda, but I don't see anyone mailing bombs or shooting up synagogues by it. As bad as it is, nobody is accusing FOX of being an enemy of the people, though. That is the bottom of the barrel for inexcusable, if not entirely reprehensible IMO, especially when it comes from so-called rigid constitutionalists or the president himself. Now right wing rhetoric involves kicking around the 14th Amendment likes it's some scholarly consensus instead of the eschewing the ramblings of a narcissistic man baby for reneging on his oath and duty. If they had any idea how much that undermines the 2nd, they'd STFU in heartbeat. The slippery slope if you will. It's an invitation to take their guns. I'd dare say the rhetoric would be ramped up tenfold if the show were on the other foot.

The left is rather adept at dehumanizing too, but not to the degree we've seen from the right wing of late.

Disagree as you may, but my opinion that it's a false equivalence stands.
 

[iNow]

When the left gets extreme, people get healthcare. When the right gets extreme, people get shot. Claims of equivalence are absurd, as are those making them. 

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

When the left gets extreme, people get healthcare. When the right gets extreme, people get shot. Claims of equivalence are absurd, as are those making them. 

Yup. Socialism v capitalism (even fascism as you put it). Little do Americans realize they are one of the more socialist societies in the western world. Schools and libraries, fire fighting and police. Disaster relief. The courts and public defenders. The VA, medicare and medicaid. Welfare and food stamps. The Transportation Safety Board. The FAA and the FCC. Radio and TV stations, cellular networks and internet providers use public air waves. Stadiums for sporting events. Harbors for ports, rights of way for trains. Roads are a social construct. If socialism is so horrible, then every road should be a toll road, where land is purchased and controlled by private interests for profit. Commercial and recreational fishing are social constructs. As is game hunting, foraging or parks. Hydro electric power and drinking water depend on public lands, rivers and lakes. Even wells are a social offering apart from surface rights and land ownership. Mining depends on exclusive access by corporations to public resources. Forestry and agriculture are heavily subsidized as are many secondary industries. Ranching is a socialist thing, after all it's done (broadly) on public land by private interests. Land use fees, stumpage, taxation and pollution controls are supposed to balance profits with job creation and spin offs. Tax breaks and relaxed pollution/safety regulations are looked upon as entitlements or privileged exceptions rather than compensation for losses of opportunity by others. Yet many who's dependency stem from those things, deny socialism even exists, so long as it's in their self interest. When religions use politics to convey their messages, they should pay property taxes like anyone else. Let's not forget the trade war, where governments put a hand in everyone's pocket by applying tariffs.

Then of course the biggest, baddest taboo of all, universal healthcare and the slippery slope to the gulags, even though the majority of the countries that have it are capitalistic.

If those are not a false equivalences, nothing is.

[iNow]

I’m sympathetic to the points you’re making, though do want to acknowledge they’re different points from my own. 

Some forms of extremism are extremist only because they pushback so passionately against the status quo. Other forms are extremist because they instead push back against shared liberties and equal protection of human rights. 

Pushing for a broader version of “us” is hardly equivalent to pushing for a broader version of us/them. 

[Ten oz]

On 10/25/2018 at 3:52 PM, 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

In addition to all the FoxNews employees who work for Republicans FoxNews also gets superior Ratings to CNN and has more partisan viewers. The President literally live tweets FoxNews shows and tells his supporters they are the best. Sean Hannity was working with Trump's private lawyer Micheal Cohen. There is simply no equivalent to FoxNews for Democrats. Not CNN or MSNBC. 

The argument seems to be that because superficially CNN or MSNBC cover things which in a manner that better aligns with Democrats they are the similar to FoxNews which is doing the same for Republicans. This attitude fails to appreciate that the scale of what FoxNews is and what it does. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

When the left gets extreme, people get healthcare. When the right gets extreme, people get shot. Claims of equivalence are absurd, as are those making them. 

You are for health care, as am I. You are for gun control, as am I. We are still both capable of assessing both sides of the argument without calling the side we don't agree with absurd...even when pumped up by all our friends with similar views, or watching News with similar views that for some reason feel the need to distort what the other side is saying.

CNN has Don Lemon calling "white men" the biggest terror threat in America. No one from CNN called him out. This is what they have become.

There is no equivalent from Fox News disparaging any race that I am aware of.

Fox News is openly rooting for Trump and the GOP. CNN is not quite doing the equivalent for the Democrats, but it is pretty clear they have a Democrat agenda.

Overall, not equally bad in all respects, but pretty much equally bad overall... currently.

If you want to say Fox is worse because they have a bigger audience...fair enough...but that is well outside of the definition of the false equivalence fallacy.

But it is getting to the point where many cannot recognize even a very poor or one sided argument coming from the "side" they feel they are on...somehow everything from that side is justifiable.

Edited November 4, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

49 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Fox News is openly rooting for Trump and the GOP. CNN is not quite doing the equivalent for the Democrats, but it is pretty clear they have a Democrat agenda.

Overall, not equally bad in all respects, but pretty much equally bad overall... currently.

"Rooting for" is inaccurate. Working for or working with is more accurate. That is the part you are missing. You keep trying to equate would is said and ignore the rest. Don Lemon will never work for White House admin, run a national political campaign, advise a POTUS on policy in private late night phone calls, or etc. His counter parts at FoxNews do. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

"Rooting for" is inaccurate. Working for or working with is more accurate. That is the part you are missing. You keep trying to equate would is said and ignore the rest. Don Lemon will never work for White House admin, run a national political campaign, advise a POTUS on policy in private late night phone calls, or etc. His counter parts at FoxNews do. 

...and the part you are missing is that what I consider "equally bad" does not pertain exclusively to "Democrats vs Republicans". 

Working for or working with at some levels may very well be accurate. That doesn't make "rooting for" inaccurate.

Don Lemon has taken up talking as a racist. I hold out hope he isn't racist, and will stop doing it.

8 hours ago, rangerx said:

Yup. Socialism v capitalism (even fascism as you put it). Little do Americans realize they are one of the more socialist societies in the western world. Schools and libraries, fire fighting and police. Disaster relief. The courts and public defenders. The VA, medicare and medicaid. Welfare and food stamps. The Transportation Safety Board. The FAA and the FCC. Radio and TV stations, cellular networks and internet providers use public air waves. Stadiums for sporting events. Harbors for ports, rights of way for trains. Roads are a social construct. If socialism is so horrible, then every road should be a toll road, where land is purchased and controlled by private interests for profit. Commercial and recreational fishing are social constructs. As is game hunting, foraging or parks. Hydro electric power and drinking water depend on public lands, rivers and lakes. Even wells are a social offering apart from surface rights and land ownership. Mining depends on exclusive access by corporations to public resources. Forestry and agriculture are heavily subsidized as are many secondary industries. Ranching is a socialist thing, after all it's done (broadly) on public land by private interests. Land use fees, stumpage, taxation and pollution controls are supposed to balance profits with job creation and spin offs. Tax breaks and relaxed pollution/safety regulations are looked upon as entitlements or privileged exceptions rather than compensation for losses of opportunity by others. Yet many who's dependency stem from those things, deny socialism even exists, so long as it's in their self interest. When religions use politics to convey their messages, they should pay property taxes like anyone else. Let's not forget the trade war, where governments put a hand in everyone's pocket by applying tariffs.

Then of course the biggest, baddest taboo of all, universal healthcare and the slippery slope to the gulags, even though the majority of the countries that have it are capitalistic.

If those are not a false equivalences, nothing is.

While I agree with much of what you are saying, I think the bolded is not generally considered true. I do agree that capitalism should be managed as a tool for the people, and not just as a tool for the rich.

Overall in Canada I think we get the balance right to some degree, but never of course as efficiently or effectively as it could be. Private enterprise often helps in that regard. Government controlled enterprises are often inefficient.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

even when pumped up by all our friends with similar views,

Your implication here is that I’m only saying that claims of equivalence are absurd because I’m in a safe space with likeminded lemmings.

Given that the evidence clearly supports my position, as well as the fact that I share my position equally in far less safe places and do so consistently makes this claim also absurd. 

If you’re hung up on the word absurd, then offer me another which so appropriately fits and I’ll try to begin using that instead.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

CNN has Don Lemon calling "white men" the biggest terror threat in America. No one from CNN called him out.

Unfortunately, once again his statement is accurate and supported by evidence. 

https://qz.com/1435885/data-shows-more-us-terror-attacks-by-right-wing-and-religious-extremists/

Quote

An analysis by Quartz of the same Global Terrorism Database confirmed that the trend persisted in 2017, when most attacks in the US were committed by right-wing extremists. Out of 65 incidents last year, 37 were tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations.

That list includes an attack by neo-Nazi extremist James Fieldsagainst a crowd of counter-protestors in Charlottesville, which left one person dead. It also includes attacks against a gay bar in Puerto Rico, mosques in Washington, Texas, and Florida, and a vehicle decorated with Jewish iconography in New York.

In the same period, seven attacks were linked to Islamic extremists, and 11 attacks were inspired by left-leaning ideologies.

That right-wing activity is fueling a surge in terrorism in the US. Overall, the US had only six attacks a decade ago, but 65 in 2017. The number of fatalities is also increasing, in contrast to a global decrease in terror attacks.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is no equivalent from Fox News disparaging any race that I am aware of.

I quickly googled and found more than 10 obvious examples on my first page of search results. Before I copy/paste a bunch of links with clear examples, will you please tell me in advance how many it will take to convince you of the absurdity of your claim?

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you want to say Fox is worse because they have a bigger audience...fair enough...but that is well outside of the definition of the false equivalence fallacy.

That’s not what I (or others) are saying, though. 1) Their content is worse, more focused on division, and studies show viewers of Fox are more misinformed about issues than people watch no news at all. 2) Their impact is greater, they have a broader reach, are seen as a consistent propaganda arm of the Republican Party, and have what are at best unethical relationships with powerful people in the White House

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#2bda821e12ab

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and the part you are missing is that what I consider "equally bad" does not pertain exclusively to "Democrats vs Republicans". 

Working for or working with at some levels may very well be accurate. That doesn't make "rooting for" inaccurate.

Don Lemon has taken up talking as a racist. I hold out hope he isn't racist, and will stop doing it.

Given your mis-characterizations of things said by others like Holder and Booker I don't feel I can take your word for it Lemon stated a racist position as you are claiming. That said I have never seen a Lemon telecast so I guess anything is possible. As I have already cited CNN's ratings are low. The majority of cable news viewers are watching something else. CNN gets the lowest ratings among cable news and Lemon is not their most watched. In other words Don Lemon is one of lowest rated cable news pundits on TV. Don Lemon is no equivalent to FoxNews pundits who quadruple his ratings and have direct access to the President for private conversations about message strategizing and policy. Don Lemon is just some guy on TV that says things you don't like. Don Lemon's sphere of influence is marginal.

Call Don Lemon stupid, uniformed, or whatever. Say his show is terrible and no one should ever watch it. I doubt anyone here will argue with you. The problem is you are in a thread about false equivalencies mentioning Don Lemon as alongside with what's doing over at FoxNews. The situations are very different. 

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

are seen as a consistent propaganda arm of the Republican Party,

Considering how many people at FoxNews have been hired on by Republicans, have helped manage national campaign, personally advise the GOP officials, and are referenced as a trusted source by Republicans for their supporters to use I'd say your use of the word "seen" is overly polite. FoxNews is the propaganda arm of the GOP. I feel the evidence supports that. Obama never live tweeted CNN shows or took lat night calls from Rachel Maddow to get advice on how to sell the ACA. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your implication here is that I’m only saying that claims of equivalence are absurd because I’m in a safe space with likeminded lemmings.

Given that the evidence clearly supports my position, as well as the fact that I share my position equally in far less safe places and do so consistently makes this claim also absurd. 

If you’re hung up on the word absurd, then offer me another which so appropriately fits and I’ll try to begin using that instead.

Unfortunately, once again his statement is accurate and supported by evidence. 

https://qz.com/1435885/data-shows-more-us-terror-attacks-by-right-wing-and-religious-extremists/

 

Why do you take it to this extreme? Why do you feel the need to exaggerate what I said at all, never mind to that degree?

Lemon did not say "white male extremists", or "white nationalists", he said "white men". It was an intentionally racist statement.

What if someone stated "black men" were a problem?  Would that be OK? Clearly not. (I'm going to assume no one here is racist and doesn't believe criminality of any group is inherent in there DNA or anything to do with skin colour...if a mod feels that is inappropriate for this thread please delete it)

If you look at the statistics without the broader social and socio-economic context you can cite statistics to back up a (very incorrect) racist view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Would that make it right to say "black men" are a problem? Absolutely not. So why is it OK for Lemon to make the statement he did? And why would you defend him?

I get that "white men" are overrepresented in both privileged positions and (separately I think) on the "far right". This does not justify a racist view any more than "black men" being overrepresented in prisons.

I believe Lemon was asking us to stop and think. I would like think he is not racist. But unfortunately he chose to speak and act like a racist. He's not the first nor only one. You can find many examples coming from the left right now...which is a shame considering the civil rights advances of the past mostly came from the left.

There is no justification for racist statements...not even "but Trump".

 

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Given your mis-characterizations of things said by others like Holder and Booker I don't feel I can take your word for it Lemon stated a racist position as you are claiming. That said I have never seen a Lemon telecast so I guess anything is possible. As I have already cited CNN's ratings are low. The majority of cable news viewers are watching something else. CNN gets the lowest ratings among cable news and Lemon is not their most watched. In other words Don Lemon is one of lowest rated cable news pundits on TV. Don Lemon is no equivalent to FoxNews pundits who quadruple his ratings and have direct access to the President for private conversations about message strategizing and policy. Don Lemon is just some guy on TV that says things you don't like. Don Lemon's sphere of influence is marginal.

Call Don Lemon stupid, uniformed, or whatever. Say his show is terrible and no one should ever watch it. I doubt anyone here will argue with you. The problem is you are in a thread about false equivalencies mentioning Don Lemon as alongside with what's doing over at FoxNews. The situations are very different. 

Many times in this thread I have been attacked for a "false equivalency" in stating CNN has become as bad as Fox. If you ask me to defend this position I have to use examples of CNN's decline. I have already admitted Fox News might be worse due to "ratings". That might make CNN less dangerous but does not excuse how bad they have become.

[iNow]

I barely know Lemon we’ll emough to care. 

CNN and Fox News can both be bad. CNN can even be worse than it used to be. They’re still hardly equivalent. 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I barely know Lemon we’ll emough to care. 

CNN and Fox News can both be bad. CNN can even be worse than it used to be. They’re still hardly equivalent. 

This sums it up well. 

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Many times in this thread I have been attacked for a "false equivalency" in stating CNN has become as bad as Fox. If you ask me to defend this position I have to use examples of CNN's decline. I have already admitted Fox News might be worse due to "ratings". That might make CNN less dangerous but does not excuse how bad they have become.

I have no issue with CNN criticism. I have an issue to drawing equivalencies between them and FoxNews. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

I barely know Lemon we’ll emough to care. 

CNN and Fox News can both be bad. CNN can even be worse than it used to be. They’re still hardly equivalent. 

So. We disagree. So be it.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So. We disagree. So be it.

Less of a difference in opinion and more of a difference in perspective though. You insist on a purely subjective view referencing things Lemon and Coumo said that you don't like. Surely you understand that your feelings about what CNN pundits say is subjective and not tangible. Meanwhile others in this thread have posted facts regarding ratings, political affiliations, partnership, and etc which exist regardless of ones subjective interpretation of them. At no point have I singled out a Cable News pundit and criticized their individual comments as you have been doing with CNN. I have focused on provable facts about the organizations and not on my own subjective media tastes. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Less of a difference in opinion and more of a difference in perspective though. You insist on a purely subjective view referencing things Lemon and Coumo said that you don't like. Surely you understand that your feelings about what CNN pundits say is subjective and not tangible. Meanwhile others in this thread have posted facts regarding ratings, political affiliations, partnership, and etc which exist regardless of ones subjective interpretation of them. At no point have I singled out a Cable News pundit and criticized their individual comments as you have been doing with CNN. I have focused on provable facts about the organizations and not on my own subjective media tastes. 

Ten oz. To your credit, you bring up facts and back them up. That's fine.

What facts might I bring up regarding the (moral, as opposed to ratings/business related) decline of CNN without citing examples?

I think I am more objective than most. My willingness to look at both sides of an argument should demonstrate that, as well as my willingness to recognize and even concede points at times. But I understand if you don't see that.