[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139122]Oh, my bad. It seemed like it was just presenting the book's views as the books presents them. If it is in fact an opinion piece, then it's kind of a bad post.
[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]
To be fair, people like Olbermann and Maddow are not really comparable to Savage, Beck, or Limbaugh.
They're on entirely different levels of extremism, and frankly you can't call Maddow or Olbermann extremists.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you certainly can. Just because you agree with the things they're saying does not make what they are doing any more accurate or correct than what any other person in their field is doing. They speculate, accuse, twist, misinform, and skew information in an attempt to entertain and sway opinion. You may argue that they use less extreme tactics, but their tactics are no more honest, and [i]that[/i] is a fact.
It is infotainment, through and through. Enjoying the contents and presentation of the message does not make the message true.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32139201]Yes, you certainly can. Just because you agree with the things they're saying does not make what they are doing any more accurate or correct than what any other person in their field is doing. They speculate, accuse, twist, misinform, and skew information in an attempt to entertain and sway opinion. You may argue that they use less extreme tactics, but their tactics are no more honest, and [i]that[/i] is a fact.[/QUOTE]
I'm still going to have to disagree with you. If you watch the Rachel Maddow Show and Glenn Beck's program side-by-side, it's notably different in tone. Glenn Beck talks about how Obama has connections to Marxists and how an Islamic Caliphate is going to form in Europe, where as Rachel Maddow talks about how corporations make record profits and how she thinks tax cuts for the rich is a bad idea. They both obviously have a political message to give, but they really are not comparable in terms of how factual they are.
You are creating a false equivalence.
[editline]5th September 2011[/editline]
In this same vein I would say that MSNBC is not the polar opposite of Fox News. MSNBC is pretty biased with some of its programming, but to say it's the Left-Wing counterpart to Fox is like saying that CNN is the Leftist equivalent of the BBC, it's just not a fair comparison.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139311]I'm still going to have to disagree with you. If you watch the Rachel Maddow Show and Glenn Beck's program side-by-side, it's notably different in tone. Glenn Beck talks about how Obama has connections to Marxists and how an Islamic Caliphate is going to form in Europe, where as Rachel Maddow talks about how corporations make record profits and how she thinks tax cuts for the rich is a bad idea. They both obviously have a political message to give, but they really are not comparable in terms of how factual they are.
You are creating a false equivalence.[/QUOTE]
This is the premier for the current season of Crossfire with Keith Olbermann, guest starring Michael Moore.
[video=youtube;VJrZ8zcKX90]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJrZ8zcKX90[/video]
When comparing their calm attitude and friendly discussion side-by-side with Glenn Beck's ranting and raving, it might make the viewer think, "Yeah, definitely. Olbermann and Moore are [i]way[/i] more reasonable and objective than Glenn Beck."
This is a stupid and dangerous conclusion to come to. If you'll watch the show, you'll notice that Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann, while calm and reassuring throughout the episode, do not once present a piece of objective evidence, and in most cases operate without evidence [i]at all[/i]. In fact, there is a segment during this very episode where Michael Moore, to Olbermann's ready agreement, states that President Obama's "illegal war" in Libya is more forgivable than President Bush's "illegal war" in Iraq and Afghanistan because Bush's war was for personal gain, whereas President Obama's heart was in the right place, and was only "breaking the law" because he thought it was the right thing to do.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with that statement, you cannot possibly argue that it is any more factual than the accusation that Obama has Marxist connections. While it may be less "crazy" sounding, it is still purely speculation. It is misinformation, speculation, and interpretation of intentions and events based on [i]the analyst's personal view of them.[/i]
News analysts are [i]exactly that[/i], they analyze and interpret the news based on their perception of it. That is why they are not called "Reporters." They do not report, they interpret. It is the defining line between what is truly a credible source, and what is nothing more than infotainment. By this definition, Olbermann, Maddow, and Moore are no more than opposite sides of the same coin as Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage. Their tone may be different, but their information is no more credible or unbiased.
Men and women like this are responsible for perpetuating the schism between the "leftist state" and the "conservative state" that exists in America. It is because of this stupid propaganda and the system that has spawned it that our country's social growth is stunted. We are so busy arguing among ourselves about who is right and who is wrong, who is stupid and who is smart, who is crazy and who is sane, that we have failed to uphold the chief purpose of the government: to swiftly address all threats and limitations to our personal liberties, and to ensure that everybody is truly treated as an equal.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139311]In this same vein I would say that MSNBC is not the polar opposite of Fox News. MSNBC is pretty biased with some of its programming, but to say it's the Left-Wing counterpart to Fox is like saying that CNN is the Leftist equivalent of the BBC, it's just not a fair comparison.[/QUOTE]
This is not the argument I am making, you're misrepresenting my position. The argument I am making is that our country is cruelly divided into a bipartisan system that is more concerned with making each of its parties look bad than it is with actually addressing the issues of our country, and that political analysts like Michael Savage are a symptom of that idiocy, and should be discounted as no more than infotainers NOT that one side's analysts are better or worse than the other side's.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32139502]This is the premier for the current season of Crossfire with Keith Olbermann, guest starring Michael Moore.
[video=youtube;VJrZ8zcKX90]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJrZ8zcKX90[/video]
When comparing their calm attitude and friendly discussion side-by-side with Glenn Beck's ranting and raving, it might make the viewer think, "Yeah, definitely. Olbermann and Moore are [i]way[/i] more reasonable and objective than Glenn Beck."
This is a stupid and dangerous conclusion to come to. If you'll watch the show, you'll notice that Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann, while calm and reassuring throughout the episode, do not once present a piece of objective evidence, and in most cases operate without evidence [i]at all[/i]. In fact, there is a segment during this very episode where Michael Moore, to Olbermann's ready agreement, states that President Obama's "illegal war" in Libya is more forgivable than President Bush's "illegal war" in Iraq and Afghanistan because Bush's war was for personal gain, whereas President Obama's heart was in the right place, and was only breaking the law because he thought it was the right thing to do.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with that statement, you cannot possibly argue that it is any more factual than the accusation that Obama has Marxist connections. It is misinformation, speculation, and interpretation of intentions and events based on [i]the analyst's personal view of them.[/i]
News analysts are [i]exactly that[/i], they analyze and interpret the news based on their perception of it. That is why they are not called "Reporters." They do not report, they interpret. It is the defining line between what is truly a credible source, and what is nothing more than infotainment. By this definition, Olbermann, Maddow, and Moore are no more than opposite sides of the same coin as Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage. Their tone may be different, but their information is no more credible or unbiased.[/QUOTE]
No, and I would not call Keith Olbermann a credible source without other sources to support what he or his guests say. If you believe the intention of Keith Olbermann's programming is to skew information and misinform, then you'd be wrong. And yes, I can imagine a scenario where I can argue for the factual-ness of the Libyan Intervention being technically illegal and saying that calling Obama a Marxist is incorrect.
To be honest, you can't base whether or not these kinds of people are of the same ilk when you're solely basing it on whether or not they provide a source every time someone says something. Like at least when some like Maddow cites a Gallup poll or a video of someone, it's generally not misrepresented, but if you compare that to Bill O' Reilly, let's say, they had that poll about poor people owning refrigerators. They completely mischaracterized that poll and made it sound like poor people had all the luxuries of the world.
This sounds like the same sort of argument I hear from people who say the Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same. It goes something like this, "both parties bow to special interest groups to different extents, therefore they are the same". Yours comparatively sounds like this, "both network's opinion people present events in a skewed manner to different extents, therefore they are the same". I don't find that to be very fair.
No Michael, you are the mental disorders.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;32139727]No Michael, you are the mental disorders.[/QUOTE]
and then michael was a liberal
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139709]No, and I would not call Keith Olbermann a credible source without other sources to support what he or his guests say. If you believe the intention of Keith Olbermann's programming is to skew information and misinform, then you'd be wrong. And yes, I can imagine a scenario where I can argue for the factual-ness of the Libyan Intervention being technically illegal and saying that calling Obama a Marxist is incorrect.
To be honest, you can't base whether or not these kinds of people are of the same ilk when you're solely basing it on whether or not they provide a source every time someone says something. Like at least when some like Maddow cites a Gallup poll or a video of someone, it's generally not misrepresented, but if you compare that to Bill O' Reilly, let's say, they had that poll about poor people owning refrigerators. They completely mischaracterized that poll and made it sound like poor people had all the luxuries of the world.
This sounds like the same sort of argument I hear from people who say the Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the same. It goes something like this, "both parties bow to special interest groups to different extents, therefore they are the same". Yours comparatively sounds like this, "both network's opinion people present events in a skewed manner to different extents, therefore they are the same". I don't find that to be very fair.[/QUOTE]
You continue to misrepresent my argument, and have completely dismissed the point of everything I've said. You are arguing that conservative news analysts are "crazier" than liberal news analysts, and are trying to skew my argument to match the inverse of yours, but that is not what I'm arguing. I am arguing that news analysts are, by definition, people who analyze and interpret the news based on their personal perception of it, and try to influence their viewers that [i]their[/i] opinion is the correct one, and that they do this through the intentional selection of biased or subjective sources, and through their scanted interpretation of information, and that neither side of the issue is immune to that.
The second part of my argument is that the reason they do this is because the country's political system has devolved into such a state where people who make a living through feeding off public opinion can thrive by fueling the split between the Democratic and Republican parties, and that the issues often take a backseat to political maneuvering and mudslinging.
If you disagree with my argument, then please tell me why you disagree and cite some examples of how I am wrong. Or will you insist on continuing to misrepresent my case?
I personally think political analysts are all equally dumb as well. I mean you shouldn't need to have someone analyze news for you. Humans are logical creatures, they can come to their own conclusions without someone spoon feeding them to you.
which type of liberalism? Classical liberalism which is closer to the conservatives of today or FDR sort of liberalism?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32140043]I personally think political analysts are all equally dumb as well. I mean you shouldn't need to have someone analyze news for you. Humans are logical creatures, they can come to their own conclusions without someone spoon feeding them to you.[/QUOTE]
I hate to say, but you'd be surprised how many people don't want to and won't analyze stuff.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32139992]You continue to misrepresent my argument, and have completely dismissed the point of everything I've said. You are arguing that conservative news analysts are "crazier" than liberal news analysts, and are trying to skew my argument to match the inverse of yours, but that is not what I'm arguing. I am arguing that news analysts are, by definition, people who analyze and interpret the news based on their personal perception of it, and try to influence their viewers that [i]their[/i] opinion is the correct one, and that they do this through the intentional selection of biased or subjective sources, and through their scanted interpretation of information, and that neither side of the issue is immune to that.
The second part of my argument is that the reason they do this is because the country's political system has devolved into such a state where people who make a living through feeding off public opinion can thrive by fueling the split between the Democratic and Republican parties, and that the issues often take a backseat to political maneuvering and mudslinging.
If you disagree with my argument, then please tell me why you disagree and cite some examples of how I am wrong. Or will you insist on continuing to misrepresent my case?[/QUOTE]
If that is all you are saying, then I cannot say I disagree.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;32140099]I hate to say, but you'd be surprised how many people don't want to and won't analyze stuff.[/QUOTE]
It really is not hard. It takes 2 steps to do a basic analysis:
1) Read/hear story
2) Ask yourself: Do you agree or disagree with what happened?
There you go, that's an analysis.
[editline]6th September 2011[/editline]
It literally takes as much effort if not less than listening to an analyst.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32139502]
Regardless of whether or not you agree with that statement, you cannot possibly argue that it is any more factual than the accusation that Obama has Marxist connections. While it may be less "crazy" sounding, it is still purely speculation. It is misinformation, speculation, and interpretation of intentions and events based on [i]the analyst's personal view of them.[/i]
[/QUOTE]
Except that the last couple of conflicts the US was involved in (with some exception of course) wasn't sanctioned by the UN, and thus illegal insofar as conflicts can be, whereas calling Obama marxist is like calling George Bush marxist, considering the wealth he comes from, and his achievements.
[editline]6th September 2011[/editline]
And yes I'm aware that he presents himself as coming from the middle class, but that's a bit hard to swallow.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32139502]
News analysts are [i]exactly that[/i], they analyze and interpret the news based on their perception of it. That is why they are not called "Reporters." They do not report, they interpret. It is the defining line between what is truly a credible source, and what is nothing more than infotainment. By this definition, Olbermann, Maddow, and Moore are no more than opposite sides of the same coin as Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage. Their tone may be different, but their information is no more credible or unbiased.[/QUOTE]
Tone matters though. You can analyze the news and present opinions in one of two ways - professionally, or unprofessionally. The video you showed could be an example of professionally, two people discussing something and sharing their opinions. Unprofessionally could be something like Glenn Beck, one guy yelling at a chalkboard with swastikas all over it.
Agenda matters too. I only see pundits on one side actively encouraging revolution and putting pictures of crosshairs over politician's faces.
So yeah, both sides are just talking out of their ass most of the time, but in a different way and for a different reason.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32140124]If that is all you are saying, then I cannot say I disagree.[/QUOTE]
[quote]You continue to misrepresent my argument, and have completely dismissed the point of everything I've said. You are arguing that conservative news analysts are "crazier" than liberal news analysts, and are trying to skew my argument to match the inverse of yours, but that is not what I'm arguing. I am arguing that news analysts are, by definition, people who analyze and interpret the news based on their personal perception of it, and try to influence their viewers that their opinion is the correct one, and that they do this through the intentional selection of biased or subjective sources, and through their scanted interpretation of information, and that neither side of the issue is immune to that.[/quote]
I do disagree, conservatives tend to be 'more' wrong and biased, relying on less fact.
With the exception of firearms, anyway, most liberal news personalities are off in the clouds with that.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32140313]Tone matters though. You can analyze the news and present opinions in one of two ways - professionally, or unprofessionally. The video you showed could be an example of professionally, two people discussing something and sharing their opinions. Unprofessionally could be something like Glenn Beck, one guy yelling at a chalkboard with swastikas all over it.
Agenda matters too. I only see pundits on one side actively encouraging revolution and putting pictures of crosshairs over politician's faces.
So yeah, both sides are just talking out of their ass most of the time, but in a different way and for a different reason.[/QUOTE]
Whatever you you wish to say about Fox and MSNBC, only one of those networks fought in court to gain the right to lie to their viewers.
[QUOTE=CunningHam;32137761]He's been saying this for years, actually it comes up at least once a week on his radio show.
PS he thinks autism and ADD/ADHD are made up disorders.[/QUOTE]
Well, most of the time kids are misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD by money-hungry psychiatrists and lazy parents, making them zombies with the cocktail of drugs that are forced on them for being children.
So I guess I see where he got the idea but it's completely misguided.
[QUOTE=Contag;32140250]Except that the last couple of conflicts the US was involved in (with some exception of course) wasn't sanctioned by the UN, and thus illegal insofar as conflicts can be, whereas calling Obama marxist is like calling George Bush marxist, considering the wealth he comes from, and his achievements.[/QUOTE]
And now you are also guilty of straw man arguments. I am not arguing either way about the legality of the engagements, which is why I put quotation marks around "illegal war," as I was only quoting Michael Moore's specific choice of words. I was arguing that Michael Moore's statement, and Olbermann's hearty agreement, about Obama perpetrating his engagement because his "heart is in the right place" and that he was "only trying to do what it is right," is biased speculation, pure and simple. Michael Moore has no grounds to make such a claim, he cannot read minds. That is a clear-cut case of Moore and Olbermann trying to swing public opinion in favor of their political views by painting their candidates/party of choice as being more "compassionate" than the the parties and figures which they oppose through representing their baseless speculations as fact.
While it may seem a humorous comparison, [i]"Obama is only in Libya because he is trying to draw attention away from the concerns over his nationality"[/i] is just as credible (which is to say, baseless) an accusation as, [i]"Obama is in Libya because he is compassionate, and wants nothing more than to extend freedom to the poor, downtrodden rebels."[/i]
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;32140389]Well, most of the time kids are misdiagnosed with ADD/ADHD by money-hungry psychiatrists and lazy parents, making them zombies with the cocktail of drugs that are forced on them for being children.
So I guess I see where he got the idea but it's completely misguided.[/QUOTE]
i believe that's an ever so slight misrepresentation of the situation
i really doubt that that many child psychologists go into the business thinking "MWAHAHA, I will diagnose all of the children with ADD and get drug money! And no one can stop me! Haha!"
[editline]6th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32140420]And now you are guilty straw man arguments, as well. I am not arguing either way about the legality of the engagements, which is why I put quotation marks around "illegal war," as I was only quoting Michael Moore's specific choice of words. I was arguing that Michael Moore's statement, and Olbermann's hearty agreement, about Obama perpetrating his engagement because his "heart is in the right place" and that he was "only trying to do what it is right," is biased speculation, pure and simple. Michael Moore has no grounds to make such a claim, he cannot read minds. That is a clear-cut case of Moore and Olbermann trying to swing public opinion in favor of their political views by painting their candidates/party of choice as being more "compassionate" than the the parties and figures which they oppose through representing their baseless speculations as fact.
While it may seem a humorous comparison, [i]"Obama is only in Libya because he is trying to draw attention away from the concerns over his nationality"[/i] is just as credible (which is to say, baseless) an accusation as, [i]"Obama is in Libya because he is compassionate, and wants nothing more than to extend freedom to the poor, downtrodden rebels."[/QUOTE]
yeah
i see nothing wrong with people on the news talking about how they feel about current events, so long as they don't make a bunch of completely ridiculous claims and demand they be treated as fact
there is a huge fucking difference between "Obama is only in Libya because he is trying to draw attention away from the concerns over his nationality" and"Obama is in Libya because he is compassionate, and wants nothing more than to extend freedom to the poor, downtrodden rebels.". Because one assumes that he's a compassionate guy, which is plausible, and the other assumes there's a massive intergovernmental world conspiracy to hide his Kenyan origins.
For example, I listen to Cenk Uyger on TYT. It's not because I think he's right about everything, in fact I think he's kind of a bull headed self righteous dick. But he's a bull headed self righteous dick who openly and quite often states that everything he says is completely his opinion, except for when he does give a source.
I see nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is "There is a Muslim Kenyan conspiracy going on to erode the foundations of America and liberal communists are behind it".
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32140420]And now you are guilty straw man arguments, as well. I am not arguing either way about the legality of the engagements, which is why I put quotation marks around "illegal war," as I was only quoting Michael Moore's specific choice of words. I was arguing that [B]Michael Moore's statement, and Olbermann's hearty agreement, about Obama perpetrating his engagement because his "heart is in the right place"[/B] and that [B]he was "only trying to do what it is right,"[/B] is biased speculation, pure and simple. Michael Moore has no grounds to make such a claim, he cannot read minds. That is a clear-cut case of Moore and Olbermann trying to swing public opinion in favor of their political views by painting their candidates/party of choice as being more "compassionate" than the the parties and figures which they oppose through representing their baseless speculations as fact.[/i][/QUOTE]
IS THAT WHAT THEY SAID?
:v: :v: :v:
oh shit I take back what I said, they're all fucking nuts.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32140313]Tone matters though. You can analyze the news and present opinions in one of two ways - professionally, or unprofessionally. The video you showed could be an example of professionally, two people discussing something and sharing their opinions. Unprofessionally could be something like Glenn Beck, one guy yelling at a chalkboard with swastikas all over it.
Agenda matters too. I only see pundits on one side actively encouraging revolution and putting pictures of crosshairs over politician's faces.
So yeah, both sides are just talking out of their ass most of the time, but in a different way and for a different reason.[/QUOTE]
Their agendas are the same, it is only their presentation which differs. The overall tone and subjective level of "professionalism" of one particular program over another may make it seem a more credible source of information, but in trusting a news/political analyst for your information, you are subjecting yourself to his agenda, and the agenda of his group, which is to convince you to that the candidates and parties which they back are the "correct" choice, and to choose otherwise is contrary the public interest.
As to how they accomplish this agenda, it is truly a matter of personal style. Olbermann does this by painting unfair stereotypes of Liberal candidates and voters being more enlightened, compassionate, and intelligent than republican candidates voters. Michael Moore does this by speculating about the integrity and malevolent intentions of Republican supporters and ideologies, to a background of scary music in his many self-proclaimed "documentaries." Glenn Beck does this by screaming buzz-words into a microphone and accusing opponents of his ideologies as trying to "tear down the American Way." Michael Savage apparently does this by accusing people of differing ideologies as being "mentally ill," and claiming that the Republican ideal is the only true "American" ideal.
These men are all products of the same system, a system which profits off of adding fuel to the fire of the natural split in our bipartisan state. Their methods might be different, but the nature of their goals is all the same.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32140427]i believe that's an ever so slight misrepresentation of the situation
i really doubt that that many child psychologists go into the business thinking "MWAHAHA, I will diagnose all of the children with ADD and get drug money! And no one can stop me! Haha!"
[editline]6th September 2011[/editline]
yeah
i see nothing wrong with people on the news talking about how they feel about current events, so long as they don't make a bunch of completely ridiculous claims and demand they be treated as fact
there is a huge fucking difference between "Obama is only in Libya because he is trying to draw attention away from the concerns over his nationality" and"Obama is in Libya because he is compassionate, and wants nothing more than to extend freedom to the poor, downtrodden rebels.". Because one assumes that he's a compassionate guy, which is plausible, and the other assumes there's a massive intergovernmental world conspiracy to hide his Kenyan origins.
For example, I listen to Cenk Uyger on TYT. It's not because I think he's right about everything, in fact I think he's kind of a bull headed self righteous dick. But he's a bull headed self righteous dick who openly and quite often states that everything he says is completely his opinion, except for when he does give a source.
I see nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is "There is a Muslim Kenyan conspiracy going on to erode the foundations of America and liberal communists are behind it".[/QUOTE]
Well a vast majority of psychiatrists are actually good people that want to help instead of getting money but there are people that think as long as they get paid the ends justify the means
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32140427]i believe that's an ever so slight misrepresentation of the situation
i really doubt that that many child psychologists go into the business thinking "MWAHAHA, I will diagnose all of the children with ADD and get drug money! And no one can stop me! Haha!"
[editline]6th September 2011[/editline]
yeah
i see nothing wrong with people on the news talking about how they feel about current events, so long as they don't make a bunch of completely ridiculous claims and demand they be treated as fact
there is a huge fucking difference between "Obama is only in Libya because he is trying to draw attention away from the concerns over his nationality" and"Obama is in Libya because he is compassionate, and wants nothing more than to extend freedom to the poor, downtrodden rebels.". Because one assumes that he's a compassionate guy, which is plausible, and the other assumes there's a massive intergovernmental world conspiracy to hide his Kenyan origins.
For example, I listen to Cenk Uyger on TYT. It's not because I think he's right about everything, in fact I think he's kind of a bull headed self righteous dick. But he's a bull headed self righteous dick who openly and quite often states that everything he says is completely his opinion, except for when he does give a source.
I see nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is "There is a Muslim Kenyan conspiracy going on to erode the foundations of America and liberal communists are behind it".[/QUOTE]
The only difference between the statements is their apparent plausibility from your perspective, but the fact remains that one statement is no less speculative than the other.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32140754]The only difference between the statements is their apparent plausibility from your perspective, but the fact remains that one statement is no less speculative than the other.[/QUOTE]
except one requires far more assumptions than the other
one requires the assumption that:
obama is a nice guy
the other requires the assumptions that:
the government is engaging in a conspiracy to keep a foreign citizen in office
the government is capable of containing the birth location of arguably the most important man on the planet secret with no leaks or turncoats
Don't even fucking try and argue they're the same statement. You might as well be saying that "Planes are unsafe" and "Elevators eat people" are the same statement.
I'd like to read what the guy has to say just for laughs.
Having listened to this man in the past, he's insane. Insane and ignorant. Moreso than most crazy conservative talkshow hosts. But it's the price of free speech, so we can't do anything about him.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32141367]
Don't even fucking try and argue they're the same statement. You might as well be saying that "Planes are unsafe" and "Elevators eat people" are the same statement.[/QUOTE]
I would actually say that "Planes are unsafe" is a more misleading statement than "Elevators eat people". Not because the former is less factual(it is in fact as factual), but because the former misleads more people(most people know elevators don't eat people, but less people know planes are incredibly safe). If it manipulates more sensible people over less sensible people it doesn't make it less manipulative, and the fact sensible people are better able to defend their stance makes it a bit more dangerous.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32141777]I would actually say that "Planes are unsafe" is a more misleading statement than "Elevators eat people". Not because the former is less factual(it is in fact as factual), but because the former misleads more people(most people know elevators don't eat people, but less people know planes are incredibly safe). If it manipulates more sensible people over less sensible people it doesn't make it less manipulative, and the fact sensible people are better able to defend their stance makes it a bit more dangerous.[/QUOTE]
you're really missing the point
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32141853]you're really missing the point[/QUOTE]
Maybe I am.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32141872]Maybe I am.[/QUOTE]
He's just saying that the two statements are not equivalent in their "wrong-ness".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
