False Equivilence and Logical Fallacies.

[iNow]

Another thing this whole FOX News v Don Lemon discussion misses is how much local news has been absorbed and shaped by pro-Trump Sinclair group.

Most tend to see local news as less partisan, but it’s simply not (for 72% plus US households).

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So. We disagree. So be it.

I’m perfectly fine with that. Appreciate the exchange. Hope one day to do it face to face alongwith a few brews.  

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

None, you are making a subjective argument. It can't be proved. 

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think I am more objective than most.

Oneself is not the most objective source for confirming such. 

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

I wouldn't say a willingness to treat Martin Luther King's and the Klu Klux Klan's evenly makes one objective. Both sides don't always have a fair point. Anti-climate science doesn't deserve equal attention or consideration as Climate Science. Both sides should be considered for what they are worth and both sides aren't always, seldom ever in my opinion, worth the same. Over consideration for something undeserving is bad a thing as no consideration at all in my opinion. 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’m perfectly fine with that. Appreciate the exchange. Hope one day to do it face to face alongwith a few brews.  

Thanks.

Also for the Data/graphs.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

None, you are making a subjective argument. It can't be proved. 

Oneself is not the most objective source for confirming such. 

I wouldn't say a willingness to treat Martin Luther King's and the Klu Klux Klan's evenly makes one objective. Both sides don't always have a fair point. Anti-climate science doesn't deserve equal attention or consideration as Climate Science. Both sides should be considered for what they are worth and both sides aren't always, seldom ever in my opinion, worth the same. Over consideration for something undeserving is bad a thing as no consideration at all in my opinion. 

First bold: nor disproven...

Second: If one started from a point of total ignorance, one could argue it would...starting out...but a willingness to look at everything "equally" is not usually necessary to have a reasonably objective view.

I think it helps to look at the other side. Even if it does not change your opinion. (obviously this particular extreme example is...particularly extreme)

Even asking "would this argument make sense if the shoe was on the other foot?"or"if the skin was a different colour", etc I think goes a long way...but you are right that none of us are the best judge of our own objectivity.(yes...even might apply to me )

Edited November 4, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m perfectly fine with that. Appreciate the exchange. Hope one day to do it face to face alongwith a few brews.

With the exception of having a few brews, I've always found face to face discussions much more meaningful than online discussions.

Don't get me wrong,  online discussions have their pros, but face to face it's like you can automatically gauge exactly what the other person means when they say something, as compared to trying to figure it out.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

With the exception of having a few brews, I've always found face to face discussions much more meaningful than online discussions.

Don't get me wrong,  online discussions have their pros, but face to face it's like you can automatically gauge exactly what the other person means when they say something, as compared to trying to figure it out.

Nonverbal communication offers several more channels and layers of information. It’s like listening to music in stereo versus mono.

It’s also part of the reason being cautious with our language and precise with our meaning is so much more critical when not interacting F2F. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It’s also part of the reason being cautious with our language and precise with our meaning is so much more critical when not interacting F2F. 

Agreed. 

However, there is one thing that's always a bit concerning. While one may fair extremely well F2F as you put it, there's always the possibility it's simply because the person they're discussing with doesn't have time to think about what they said, doesn't have the information, etc.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

While one may fair extremely well F2F as you put it, there's always the possibility it's simply because the person they're discussing with doesn't have time to think about what they said, doesn't have the information, etc.

Charisma and charm is also more relevant in person, as is physical attractiveness, style of dress, and scent. 

[Ten oz]

Face to face conversations is a totally different ball game. Many people have specific images they seek to project. It impacts they way people dress, the car they drive, diet, speech, and etc. In many cases a person's persona can be totally factious or contrary to who they really are. Making friends, finding a mate, having healthy relationships, a good professional reputation, and etc are things different people either excel at or struggle with. As a result face to face conversations can be just as complicated as more so than online ones. 

Politically speaking I seriously doubt most people who have ever spent time alone with Barrack Obama didn't find themselves agreeing with him. He is smart, handsome, thoughtful, and projects a sense of respect for whatever topic he is discussing. Meanwhile Al Gore almost tempts debate because he is often difficult to follow, comes across as pretentious, and his words are forgettable. Yet Obama and Gore probably say 99% of the same things on political issues. However Gore is a much better writer than Obama in my opinion. Al Gore's 2007 book  "Assault on Reason"  was the single best breakdown of today's political environment I have read. We all are already aware of the the work Gore did with his 2006's book  "An inconvenient Truth". Gore is every bit smart as Obama but Gore lacks charisma.  

A bit more on topic I think it would be a false equivalency to compare the charisma between those on the left and those on the right. On the right strength appears to be the personality trait most often projected. Where Democrats attempt project thoughtfulness Republicans seek to  project confidence, where Democrats are compassionate Republicans are tough, and so on. Obama might be the person most people would prefer to be friends with but Trump is the one many egocentric types wish they could be (rich, macho, demanding, etc). 

*I strongly recommend Al Gore's "Assault on Reason". Every bit as informative as "An Inconvenient Truth" but it is about News Media and political organizations. 

[Ten oz]

On 10/25/2018 at 7:05 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

 

Quote

 

CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO. — Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro joined President Trump on stage at his final campaign rally of the midterms, singing the president's praises and urging attendees to vote Republican.

"I have a few people that are right out here, and they’re very special," Trump said, teasing their appearances. "They’ve done an incredible job for us. They’ve been with us from the beginning, also." Trump, who has a well-known penchant for Fox News programming, proceeded to call Hannity on stage,"

"While Hannity and Pirro are vocal Trump supporters and frequently speak to him, it's unusual for cable news anchors to give candidate-style speeches at campaign rallies. On stage, Hannity promptly decried the press in attendance as "fake news," and echoed the president's mantra of "promises made, promises kept."Here

 

There you have it. FoxNews on stage rallying Republicans the day before an election. No one at CNN was brought on stage by any Democrats. There is simply no equivalent. CNN is not in the tank for Democrats the way FoxNews is for Republicans. There is a demonstrable difference.  

Edited November 6, 2018 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

There you have it. FoxNews on stage rallying Republicans the day before an election. No one at CNN was brought on stage by any Democrats. There is simply no equivalent. CNN is not in the tank for Democrats the way FoxNews is for Republicans. There is a demonstrable difference.  

I have said CNN has recently become equally bad (ratings notwithstanding, which would leave Fox News still effectively worse ), not equally biased with regard to the 2 parties, and have explained the difference as to why I believe that.

Is Fox News getting worse also? I think that is a real possibility leading up to today's vote.

 

 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I have said CNN has recently become equally bad (ratings notwithstanding, which would leave Fox News still effectively worse ), not equally biased with regard to the 2 parties, and have explained the difference as to why I believe that.

Is Fox News getting worse also? I think that is a real possibility leading up to today's vote.

 

 

I take no issue with the idea that CNN is bad from a information, journalistic, or even entertainment perspective. My issue is with an implication that they are in the tank or on side of Democrats akin to the way FoxNews is for Republicans. In that regard there is no comparison. Democrats do not direct their supporters to watch CNN and CNN do not direct their audience to vote for Democrats as Republicans and FoxNews do.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I take no issue with the idea that CNN is bad from a information, journalistic, or even entertainment perspective. My issue is with an implication that they are in the tank or on side of Democrats akin to the way FoxNews is for Republicans. In that regard there is no comparison. Democrats do not direct their supporters to watch CNN and CNN do not direct their audience to vote for Democrats as Republicans and FoxNews do.

I would, and already have, agreed CNN is not as bad in that specific regard.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would, and already have, agreed CNN is not as bad in that specific regard.

That specific regard being Political bias? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

That specific regard being Political bias? 

Fox bias to Republicans, and against Democrats being worse than CNN bias to Democrats/against Republicans

Edited November 6, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Fox bias to Republicans, and against Democrats being worse than CNN bias to Democrats/against Republicans

Than I guess the only thing left to debate is why you won't give up watching both. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Than I guess the only thing left to debate is why you won't give up watching both. 

bad habits...