Dangerous thinking

Post #426,778 by drook 12/14/18 9:14:49 AM 12/14/18 9:14:49 AM Reply	Dangerous thinking That's not too far from saying, "If they were smarter they'd agree with me." It's possible for intelligent people to see all the same things as you and still reach different conclusions. -- Drew
Post #426,781 by mmoffitt 12/14/18 12:18:06 PM 12/14/18 12:18:06 PM Reply	I've been saying since I was 26 years old (that's 33 years now)... The fundamental problem is that too few people can follow a modus ponens argument. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #426,798 by rcareaga 12/15/18 9:31:49 PM 12/15/18 9:31:49 PM Reply	This is part about what troubles me… in discussions of “media bias.” Is there such a thing? Of course there is. The New York Times, for example, has had a hate-on for the Clintons since 1992. The imbalance in their 2016 coverage of the two contenders has been documented ad nauseam. Implicit in these criticisms, whether they come from the left or the right, is the speaker’s stance: “Of course, I, with my superior powers of discernment, can see right through these pathetic attempts to frame the narrative, but most of the citizenry, or should I say sheeple, are weaker-minded than I, and frankly ought to be protected from these shamelessly slanted stories.” It’s not too far from that to “fake news!” and from that to this. cordially,
Post #426,806 by boxley 12/15/18 10:59:39 PM 12/15/18 10:59:39 PM Reply	back in the old days when owning a printing press was considered a dangerous profession the news folks did defend themselves against violence. Looks like those times are back. Maybe add a shooting course to a journo degree? "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #426,838 by mmoffitt 12/18/18 1:48:59 PM 12/18/18 1:48:59 PM Reply	That's dangerous thinking. You're not seriously suggesting, are you, that the reason we disregard anything reported on Fox News until confirmed by a more reputable source is solely on account of our own biases? Or that we are to give equal weight to a discussion on climate change to the scientist and admitted non-scientist lest we be accused of bias? In short, you are not, are you, arguing that Fake News and Actual News are merely the manifestations of the observer? bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #426,841 by Ashton 12/18/18 3:08:28 PM 12/18/18 3:08:28 PM Reply	Or it might be simply that, the %uninformed.. on down to %pig-ignorant of The Consumers of these Services--as we speak--is such a drag on catalyzing actual thought that: even the more articulate, educated Reporters (were there more of these) would still ..have a tough row to hoe. Now throw in the bias of the Owners-of-the-presses, their Oil-portfolios for just one ... and what do we get? Wish I could find the long-ago Frank & Ernest comic (that grungy pair of master quippers) wherein: A big pot is simmering on the rickety stove. Big sign over pot: Do Not Stir the Soup Customer asks ~ Why not? Ans: Because, Sir.. you would not like what you would see. And that's how we got custom what-would-you-Like-us-to-say? Newsfotainment, innit? (And That's why ..there remains so little Hope.) And.. ^THAT-all^ is why those scaffolds must-be-Built: for service in 2019; 'sabout TIME that ..there comes some Good-real-News ..lest both the auto-seppuku-rate and the Meth-usage hit "*e^x dx dx" [Thence --> playing the hymn Sleepers Awake!* shall fall upon dumber/deafer ears and ..well, we Know.]
Post #426,849 by rcareaga 12/19/18 12:36:56 PM 12/19/18 12:36:56 PM Reply	Re: That's dangerous thinking. You're not seriously suggesting, are you, that the reason we disregard anything reported on Fox News until confirmed by a more reputable source is solely on account of our own biases? No. Nor indeed do I regard the imputation as a serious construal of my comment. cordially,

Welcome to IWETHEY!