Mr Skeptic Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 So again to paraphrase: "We won't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states even in the case of a biological or chemical attack. Unless we decide otherwise."
D H Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 Whoops, mea culpa... All right then. So, what will bascule do next: Move the goal posts, or use some fallacy? Which one, which one? So I take it you still think it's justified for Fox to paraphrase this: Still, given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons. as this: even in the case of a biological or chemical attack. We have a winner! Both!
Pangloss Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 No kidding. The conversation was about ridiculing, not how *bipartisan* a comedy show was or not. Right, we were discussing is whether Jon Stewart ridicules conservatives. You said he doesn't ridicule conservatives, he just points out what they do. I say he bases his humor on liberal ideology and uses that to generate humor based on ridicule. I knew you couldn't provide real examples. Then you "knew" wrong. Evidence of CNN and MSNBC behaving badly has been provided in previous threads. Show us where the other networks are forming/heading "grassroots" movements (yet pretending otherwise). Something of that caliber. No evidence has been provided that Fox News does this either. No evidence that differs from the exact same evidence that one could use against MSNBC or CNN. Say, videos of anti-war protesters that focus on close-ups ignoring empty streets around them, or making statements that make those demonstrations sound more grandiose than they are. That's all you've accused Fox of doing, and the behavior is the same. The fact that we've seem a larger number of examples of Fox posted here is a reflection on community preferences, not scientific analysis. You want me to post similar videos from CNN/MSNBC so that you can dismiss them claiming that they're not representative, or that they don't demonstrate an example of "networks forming/heading movements". And you'd be right -- they aren't. Nor are they such when they come from Fox News. If you keep insisting they're all equal, I can only assume you'd say they're equal to the 2003 Information Minister or to a sensationalist tabloid. Come on, that is an insult and an attempt at ridicule, and hardly conducive to a friendly discussion. I thought we were just talking here. It's fine to state opinions, but to use them as the structural foundation of counter-arguments isn't much practical. Neither is calling your opponent the Iraqi Information Minister!
bascule Posted May 3, 2010 Author Posted May 3, 2010 (edited) So, what will bascule do next: Move the goal posts, or use some fallacy? Which one, which one? We have a winner! Both! Okay, I'll bite. Explain please. You're standing behind this statement? What factual inaccuracies? The quoted phase is exact, and the non-quoted phrase is a fair summary of Gates statements regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US. Edited May 3, 2010 by bascule
D H Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 Okay, I'll bite. Explain please. That you are moving of the goal posts is a bit obvious. You have claimed that the entire quote is baseless. Your basis for this claim was a statement made by Hillary Clinton rather than Robert Gates. So, "mea culpa", but lets move the goal posts anyhow and attack again. The fallacy is that your are using a straw man argument. I explicitly said that the policy is "If any state eligible for this assurance were to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies or partners, it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response," not some waffle words about how this weak administration might change this verbose statement in some hypothetical future. The issue is not what the policy might be in some hypothetical future; the issue is what the policy is now. Do you deny that the policy right now is that nuclear weapons are off the table even if a Non Proliferation Treaty signatory attacks us with non-nuclear WMD?
bascule Posted May 3, 2010 Author Posted May 3, 2010 The issue is not what the policy might be in some hypothetical future; the issue is what the policy is now. Do you deny that the policy right now is that nuclear weapons are off the table even if a Non Proliferation Treaty signatory attacks us with non-nuclear WMD? Right now? Sure. But my opinion is if some country weaponized an airborne strain of ebola and killed millions of Americans, you'd see that policy reversed tomorrow (a scenario given by Newt Gingrich on Hannity's program, where he was arguing that we wouldn't use nukes even in that case) If anything then, given the wording of the statement, it's a bit hollow. However, you're claiming: the non-quoted phrase is a fair summary of Gates statements Do you really think: even in the case of a biological or chemical attack is a fair summary of Gates' statements?
The Bear's Key Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 (edited) Right, we were discussing is whether Jon Stewart ridicules conservatives. You said he doesn't ridicule conservatives, he just points out what they do. I say he bases his humor on liberal ideology and uses that to generate humor based on ridicule. His focus is on their deeds or arguments, not on ridiculing conservatives themselves. Specific ones like Palin maybe, but not focused on ridiculing the whole conservative ideology. Then you "knew" wrong. Evidence of CNN and MSNBC behaving badly has been provided in previous threads. Evidence of CNN and MSNBC behaving badly consistently and to the same degree throughout the network has been provided in previous threads. If you had meant it like that, and it really happened, it'd settle the matter. But no one has provided such a link. Not even close. Just misbehavior here and there, which can be said of any network including Fox Tabloids. Show us where the other networks are forming/heading "grassroots" movements (yet pretending otherwise). Something of that caliber. No evidence has been provided that Fox News does this either. Well it's possible you missed the conversation... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=523383#post523383 (bascule's posts) If those of you defending Fox can at least acknowledge that they're organizing politically-oriented events like the 9.12 Protests, that'd be swell. It's a lot different covering protests when your employees thought of them, picked the date and created the encompassing "project", then used your mass medium to tell everyone to be there. At that point you're not covering the news, you're creating the news, and at that point you cease to be a news organization. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=523759#post523759 Fox is effectively a political action committee. They organize anti-government protests. Then they "cover" the protests they themselves organized on their "news programs". Do you think organizing anti-government protests should be a function of a news organization? What exactly is it that MSNBC does which Fox isn't doing which makes MSNBC not a news organization in your head? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=523772#post523772 (Phi for All's) This reminds me of the intellectual dishonesty prevalent in Intelligent Design promotion. They themselves make the claim that science is wrong in certain aspects, then make it sound like it's a big controversy, so it's wrong not to "teach the controversy" in public schools. It's a bit like me purposely running a red light and causing an accident to prove how unsafe the intersection is. What FOX does is not news, it's carefully rigged deceit. Ok now that we're caught up a bit, Pangloss, might you clarify where anyone has posted similar offenses by other news agencies, in a consistent manner? You want me to post similar videos from CNN/MSNBC so that you can dismiss them claiming that they're not representative, or that they don't demonstrate an example of "networks forming/heading movements". So make sure they're representative, and not just grasping for straws or "reaching". From previous experience, you should know I wouldn't excuse behavior that's shitty from anyone, regardless how much I like their other stuff. i.e. my ego's not more important than a problem in need of solving. You keep insisting the news act equally. Show proof, or acknowledge it's an opinion. Better yet, test it. At the end of this post are links to Google searches for news websites to see how they use ideological keywords, to promote their own ideologies or to bash the opposition? -- also, more importantly, perhaps...to do neither of those. Why don't you give it a try, and use whatever keywords you can think of? Also, try it with other news sources I didn't list. It's a much better plan than forming an opinion and blindly sticking to it. If you keep insisting they're all equal, I can only assume you'd say they're equal to the 2003 Information Minister or to a sensationalist tabloid.Come on, that is an insult and an attempt at ridicule, and hardly conducive to a friendly discussion. I thought we were just talking here. Pangloss, I meant the news sources we just discussed being equal to him, I didn't say you (nor implied that). [hide] Instead of just saying who's more biased, let's do a critical examination of reality. That's our strength. It's the reason false "conservatives" likely hate Wikipedia, stats, records, anything that can a bright shine light on their invented reality. Onward. Below are links to Google searches of certain political words on the major news websites, for us to examine the search results and compare how each news website promotes their supposed ideological bias. Also, for quickness you can read just the brief snipets of each website for a quick preview, without clicking on it, but if something looks incriminating, then do open the link to make sure it's not from the reader comments section. How do each of the networks report on supposedly "favorite" political ideologies? For liberals, you'd expect them to defend, promote, and be in favor of strikes, public assistance, regulations, keynesian thought, peace, intervention, and of course -- the word liberal. And more importantly, how do each of the major networks treat the political keywords of their supposed "opposition"? Does the news report on the events? Or do they consistently promote favorites and bash the opposition? welfare FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news public assistance FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news milton friedman FOX news MSNBC news strike FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news mises FOX news MSNBC news regulations FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news regulation FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news peace ABC news MSNBC news CNN news keynes ABC news MSNBC news CNN news keynesian ABC news MSNBC news CNN news intervention FOX news ABC news church state FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news liberal FOX news ABC news MSNBC news CNN news conservative FOX news ABC news CNN news CNN news You can do your own searches and comparisons. Type a keyword followed by.... site:http:// and the appropriate website. For example.... keyword site:http://scienceforums.net And that simple. [/hide] Edited May 3, 2010 by The Bear's Key added more clarification
Pangloss Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 His focus is on their deeds or arguments, not on ridiculing conservatives themselves. Specific ones like Palin maybe, but not focused on ridiculing the whole conservative ideology. Here we might be closer to agreement, I suspect. He has conservatives on the show, and is polite and respectful towards them as host. He's no wacky extremist. But I wouldn't say that so he's focused on accuracy that he never misleads people just to get a laugh. He has no hesitation about pulling out a tiny snipet of a video and then staring into the screen with that wonderful, shocked, deadpan expression. It's pretty obvious his show is built around the liberal perspective, and that's all I mean by "ideology" -- I'm not even implying partisanship. Give the man credit for finding his audience and giving it what it wants: Conservatives (and others, but especially conservatives) served up on a plate. Daily. You keep insisting the news act equally. No, I think Fox News Channel is more clearly partisan in its behavior than CNN or MSNBC. What I don't buy is your (and bascule's) thesis that they're deliberately subversive and behind various conservative populist movements. Or that their motivation is anything other than the same motivation that CNN and MSNBC have -- ratings through sensationalism. 50 or 100 examples of Fox behaving badly wouldn't make the point you're saying it makes either. A straw man is a straw man is a straw man. (Although I suppose 100 straw men could make a pretty stable structure. At least until the spring rains come!)
D H Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 Right now? Sure. OK, then. We agree then that the policy right now is that nuclear weapons are off the table as a response to an attack with non-nuclear WMD. Isn't that exactly what Fox News said? Continuing (emphasis mine): But my opinion is if some country weaponized an airborne strain of ebola and killed millions of Americans, you'd see that policy reversed tomorrow (a scenario given by Newt Gingrich on Hannity's program, where he was arguing that we wouldn't use nukes even in that case). Now we are venturing into the realm of opinion rather than fact. My opinion: Changing the policy after the fact and reacting with this newly changed policy would be a case of "too late". A nuclear response might start a nuclear exchange with countries that truly can wipe us (and all of humanity) off the map. However' date=' you're claiming: the non-quoted phrase is a fair summary of Gates statements[//QUOTE]Do you really think: even in the case of a biological or chemical attack is a fair summary of Gates' statements? There you go again, bascule. You ofttimes are the first to accuse someone of using fallacies. Why then do you have such a proclivity to employ them yourself? Here you are quoting out of context to create a straw man. Putting your quote of my statement in context, the non-quoted phrase is a fair summary of Gates statements regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US. Stop with the fallacies, bascule.
jryan Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 Here we might be closer to agreement, I suspect. He has conservatives on the show, and is polite and respectful towards them as host. He's no wacky extremist. But I wouldn't say that so he's focused on accuracy that he never misleads people just to get a laugh. He has no hesitation about pulling out a tiny snipet of a video and then staring into the screen with that wonderful, shocked, deadpan expression. It's pretty obvious his show is built around the liberal perspective, and that's all I mean by "ideology" -- I'm not even implying partisanship. Give the man credit for finding his audience and giving it what it wants: Conservatives (and others, but especially conservatives) served up on a plate. Daily. Also note that The Daily Show is now writing jokes for President Obama.
bascule Posted May 3, 2010 Author Posted May 3, 2010 My opinion: Changing the policy after the fact and reacting with this newly changed policy would be a case of "too late". A nuclear response might start a nuclear exchange with countries that truly can wipe us (and all of humanity) off the map. Then I take it we disagree? There you go again, bascule. You ofttimes are the first to accuse someone of using fallacies. Why then do you have such a proclivity to employ them yourself? Here you are quoting out of context to create a straw man. Putting your quote of my statement in context, Stop with the fallacies, bascule. Okay, apparently you feel the words "regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US" radically alter the meaning of your statement. That said, I strongly disagree that that Fox's paraphrase provides a fair summary of Gates statements regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now