|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 12, 2015 22:07:24 GMT -5
I watched the most of the first, and a bit of the second.. they were such a circle jerk I couldn't stomach it. I thought the MSNBC (or was it CNBC?) one might be better (since they both have an actual liberal bias), but that was just a snark fest. I've found it pretty useful to read the fact checking and Politico analysis, though. I think if I had to pick one, I think it'd be Rubio, but it's a bit choosing between 90s Image comics. Are you saying Rubio is the 1963 of Republican candidates? I hope so because that means he won't make it to the finish. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 12, 2015 22:13:01 GMT -5
LOL... More like Troll as compared to Youngblood and Brigade.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 12, 2015 22:21:15 GMT -5
Let's break it down this way, if you take all the hateful pundits, all the totally hawkish conservative lawmakers, the people you worked with on that newspaper and anyone you've conversed with online you get what, maybe a 600 people? Let's be really generous and say your sample size is 2,000 people. I must just be very unlucky in that I have never run into one of these sensible, thoughtful conservatives that are working their butts off to get some sane people into office and into the conservative media chairs. Uh, that might be why I said "most" in my original post, changed it to "many," rewrote my original statement into a purely factual one about my own experiences and conceded that there might be some sensible, thoughtful conservatives in the post to which you are responding. I can't speak to how lucky or unlucky you are in your sample size, I'm just saying that statistically speaking your sample size is very small, even given my generous estimate of it's size and taking that logically you cannot accurately transpose those experiences onto the the larger population, even if you change it to most or many. Trying to massage the statistics doesn't make your generalization a stronger argument either it just doubles down on the fallacies, making it not only easier for your opponents to dismiss any further points you might want to make, which is a great disservice to yourself. It's very easy to make an argument about just how wrong the right is about the so called liberal media, all you really have to do is point out how they covered Bush's "Mission Accomplished" or really the whole lead up to war on Iraq, just about every news channel was 100% on board for that, so if they were really so biased why would they throw their weight so whole heartily behind a conservative President? It's easy, you can back it up with facts and it doesn't involve hasty generalizations. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 0:19:47 GMT -5
I must just be very unlucky in that I have never run into one of these sensible, thoughtful conservatives that are working their butts off to get some sane people into office and into the conservative media chairs. Uh, that might be why I said "most" in my original post, changed it to "many," rewrote my original statement into a purely factual one about my own experiences and conceded that there might be some sensible, thoughtful conservatives in the post to which you are responding. I can't speak to how lucky or unlucky you are in your sample size, I'm just saying that statistically speaking your sample size is very small, even given my generous estimate of it's size and taking that logically you cannot accurately transpose those experiences onto the the larger population, even if you change it to most or many. Trying to massage the statistics doesn't make your generalization a stronger argument either it just doubles down on the fallacies, making it not only easier for your opponents to dismiss any further points you might want to make, which is a great disservice to yourself. It's very easy to make an argument about just how wrong the right is about the so called liberal media, all you really have to do is point out how they covered Bush's "Mission Accomplished" or really the whole lead up to war on Iraq, just about every news channel was 100% on board for that, so if they were really so biased why would they throw their weight so whole heartily behind a conservative President? It's easy, you can back it up with facts and it doesn't involve hasty generalizations. So which logical fallacy am I using with this factual statement: "Every single conservative with whom I have ever discussed media bias has gotten angry and refused to discuss the subject further after I told them I disagreed with that talking point and asked them to provide examples of the so-called liberal media that we could discuss. Every single one." So how many of the GOP debates did you watch? Just curious. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 4:39:54 GMT -5
You judged an entire group of people (or at least "most" of them). You seem to be implying judging people in a political party is the same thing as judging them on some racial or such grounds. There's a difference between bigotry and judging people for the beliefs of a group they voluntarily join... You may have missed this clarification. And I don't like being compared to people who hate African-Americans, women, etc. My dislike for the conservative ideology is based on my experiences with conservatives. But that second point is EXACTLY what my father used to say in defense of his judging all African Americans. I am not saying they are the same thing, but the logic is the same. Not the same magnitude of wrong by any stretch, but still logically flawed, inflammatory, and non-productive. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 4:47:15 GMT -5
So which logical fallacy am I using with this factual statement: "Every single conservative with whom I have ever discussed media bias has gotten angry and refused to discuss the subject further after I told them I disagreed with that talking point and asked them to provide examples of the so-called liberal media that we could discuss. Every single one." So how many of the GOP debates did you watch? Just curious. Nothing you have stated in the instance above is inaccurate, but the implicit assumptions can be. Assumption #1: Every conservative you have spoken with has self-identified as such. It's possible, for example, that the more level-headed ones simply choose to avoid a heated discussion and thus, neither self-identify nor engage). Assumption #2: You are not having an impact upon their responses. For example, if you're leading with statements such as "All conservatives," or "you conservatives," that might actually provoke them to become angry and unwilling to discuss the subject further. My mother in law, on the other hand, has a tendency to begin such conversations in a civil manner but then refuses to actually listen to what the other person is saying. She is polite, non-aggressive, but also completely unyielding in her assumptions, so people become frustrated with her and ultimately refuse to continue discussing the matter when they realize that nothing they are saying is actually being heard; she's just reeling off prepared arguments. If the discussion is less a discussion and more of a preaching or a holding of court, then of course the other participant is going to get frustrated and choose to disengage. When you speak with these people, are you truly listening to them with the same open mind with which you expect them to listen to you? If not, it's no surprise you're getting these responses, even from reasonable people. Assumption #3: That you have noticed and accurately remembered every encounter you have had with a conservative. Numerous studies show that people remember encounters that support their assumptions and tend to forget ones that do not. Assumption #4: That the people you have spoken with are a statistically accurate cross sampling of conservatives in America. This is not to say that you are factually wrong, but rather that the logic is clumsy and has potential for considerable error. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 5:01:39 GMT -5
Well, people are people, but policies... Is any of candidate's policies not dangerous in the long run, even for themselves? The one that actually scares me the most sadly is the woman, as she also seems genuinely angry as well.
Edit : I meant to write "republican candidate's policies", appologies to Shaxper.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 5:29:24 GMT -5
The one that actually scares me the most sadly is the woman, as she also seems genuinely angry as well. Why is that more scary to you than the others? I hope not just because she is female. I'm no fan of Hillary's (as the title of this thread suggests), but I think she's actually a little less angry than Sanders, and the only thing that scares me about her is how status quo she is. I think it's okay to be angry in American politics right now. In fact, it's even appropriate. I don't mind anger in a candidate as long as he/she demonstrates clear thinking to go along with it. Thus, I like Bernie. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 6:00:05 GMT -5
The one that actually scares me the most sadly is the woman, as she also seems genuinely angry as well. Why is that more scary to you than the others? I hope not just because she is female. I'm no fan of Hillary's (as the title of this thread suggests), but I think she's actually a little less angry than Sanders, and the only thing that scares me about her is how status quo she is. I think it's okay to be angry in American politics right now. In fact, it's even appropriate. I don't mind anger in a candidate as long as he/she demonstrates clear thinking to go along with it. Thus, I like Bernie. I hope you're not seriously asking, hahaha! Well, Fiorina's anger does appear to me of a very different kind than the one you're talking about. From what I saw, she just seems very nervous about it. I find that extremely scary as she almost feels like struggling to contain it, so much that you can suspect it through the cracks, a little too much. So nothing to do with the fact she's a woman. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 7:33:00 GMT -5
Why is that more scary to you than the others? I hope not just because she is female. I'm no fan of Hillary's (as the title of this thread suggests), but I think she's actually a little less angry than Sanders, and the only thing that scares me about her is how status quo she is. I think it's okay to be angry in American politics right now. In fact, it's even appropriate. I don't mind anger in a candidate as long as he/she demonstrates clear thinking to go along with it. Thus, I like Bernie. I hope you're not seriously asking, hahaha! Well, Fiorina's anger does appear to me of a very different kind than the one you're talking about. From what I saw, she just seems very nervous about it. I find that extremely scary as she almost feels like struggling to contain it, so much that you can suspect it through the cracks, a little too much. So nothing to do with the fact she's a woman. Ah, I thought you were talking about Hillary. My bad! "The female" probably isn't the most helpful way to refer to a politician, btw  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 7:42:09 GMT -5
Well, to be fair, I thought it was quite polite to refer to Fiorina as a woman... (I'm pretty sure she is Skynet incarnated)
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 8:01:30 GMT -5
All puns aside, this conversation made me really interested in those elections and candidates, had me do a lot of research, and I fully agree on your assertion that Sanders' anger is justified and maybe practical.
It's also pretty heartwarming to hear the democrat candidates more or less on the same page and gratious towards each others, which means they seem to at east be able to work with each others, far from a given on the other side.
About Clinton's political expediency, I'm enclined to believe that she currently finds herself in a position where she finally dares let her beliefs evolve and go more or less full way the honest analysis leads you to. Sanders surely is way more genuine and deserving about all this, but Clinton doesn't seem to be less realistic about the issues, increasingly so.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 8:54:46 GMT -5
About Clinton's political expediency, I'm enclined to believe that she currently finds herself in a position where she finally dares let her beliefs evolve and go more or less full way the honest analysis leads you to. Sanders surely is way more genuine and deserving about all this, but Clinton doesn't seem to be less realistic about the issues, increasingly so. A fair synopsis indeed. Clinton has historically been outspoken and genuine in her beliefs, willing to fight hard for some of them, but she also has a LOT of establishment businesses in her back pocket, and I don't just mean her campaign financers. She's been in bed with some shady people for decades upon decades now. It's funny how those trying to discredit her don't go back to the Whitewater scandal during Bill's presidency. They gave it up when they couldn't pin anything on him, but there was a heck of a lot pointing at Hillary. There was also the cattle trading scandal for Hillary. I don't think either event has been mentioned by a mainstream media outlet in decades. I'd characterize Hillary as being passionate, capable, and generally of the same beliefs and attitudes as me, but I do not trust her to be the champion of those beliefs and attitudes because of her friends and cronies. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 8:59:22 GMT -5
So tell me guys, why is it that almost every interaction between western world liberals and american democrats can be summed up by us hearing you all want Saunders but are pretty much resigned to get Clinton? Is it mostly because of the money and medias? We don't have the US medias here, unless we chose so, so appart from watching the debates on youtube, I could presume (naivly) that sanders stands as much a chance as Clinton, and hearing him speak, he seems the logical choice.
On a side-note, I want to say I appreciate some of Webb's long term concerns and analysis.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 9:04:06 GMT -5
So tell me guys, why is it that overstate, almost every interaction between western world liberals and american democrats can be summed up by us hearing you all want Saunders but are pretty much resigned to get Clinton? Is it mostly because of the money and medias? We don't have the US medias here, unless we chose so, so appart from watching the debates on youtube, I could presume (naivly) that sanders stands as much a chance as Clinton, and hearing him speak, he seems the logical choice. On a side-note, I want to say I appreciate some of Webb's long term concerns and analysis. That's pretty much what this entire thread was intended to discuss before it went so deeply off topic Honestly, I'm not so sure there are all that many people still saying "I like Bernie, but I'm voting for Hillary." Some recent polls are showing that, at least in Iowa, the majority of the people supporting Hillary are folks who don't know anything about Sanders and haven't taken him seriously enough to look deeper. As media coverage has begun to shift and acknowledge Sanders as a serious candidate, I think that reluctance to get to know him is changing. Then again, that's my optimism talking. At the end of the day, if Hillary wins, I'll live. I don't think she'll do any harm, and I think she'll do some good, but I don't think she'll do much to change the things that really need changing because she and her friends benefit too much from the current status quo. And, at the end of the day, I don't think a Trump or a Carson could ever get the majority of the popular vote. So my only real fear is that Bush, Rubio, or maybe even Kasich will sneak to the front of the line and win in the end. |
|
