Originally posted by FeceMan
*Shrugs.*I don't know. I use Wikipedia regularly for my information needs. There's a chance that whatever is written on there is crap, but I take it at face-value.
however, as you may notice, wikipedia tends offer links to reputable sources which the author sites (in cases where they are accurate, that is). if no sources are sited i would take it with a grain of salt
Originally posted by PVS
however, as you may notice, wikipedia tends offer links to reputable sources which the author sites (in cases where they are accurate, that is). if no sources are sited i would take it with a grain of salt
Exactly.
Just as the sites mentioning liberal bias had links to CNN broadcasts, TIME and Newsweek journalists quotes, and stuff from NBC....
Just as the site mentioning illegal immigrants being responsible for rapes and murders had links to the F.B.I.'s most wanted list, and NBC, and whatever local newspapers described the crimes.....
Just as the site claiming trickery in the Hezzbolah photos gives links to the original photo journalist.....
You say that Wiki is OK, if there are links to credible sources.
However, you switch from that position when arguments are brought up against your own.
Then it becomes "That's a biased website. INVALID!"
Which is complete and utter bullshit, if the site wants you to see a certain side of an issue, so what?
As long as the facts that they present are true and accurate, and can be backed up by official sources, then your whining and posturing mean nothing.
You can tell me that there is no liberal bias in media, even though people like Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and countless others have said so on the record and have had such admissions compiled on a website.
You can tell me that the argument of illegal immigrants killing more americans each year than the Iraq war and 9/11 combined is wrong, even though the crimes committed by them are reported by official sources and compiled on a website.
You can tell me that the photo journalist who says his photos were mis-represented to be different from the truth is wrong, simply because the website offering his story has a point to prove.
You can tell me alot of things, but you would be wrong.
I think the point is that facts can be misconstrued. For example, you could say that illegal immigrants kill more Americans a year than the war in the middle east does. And that could be true. But if that number isn't proportionally different from the number of legal immigrants or citizens that kill Americans, then it has no bearing and isn't indicative of anything.
That's his point. I think.
SS, you missed the point entirely. there is a hige difference between claiming that your sources are valid and siting those sources in detail
Originally posted by Kinneary
I think the point is that facts can be misconstrued. For example, you could say that illegal immigrants kill more Americans a year than the war in the middle east does. And that could be true. But if that number isn't proportionally different from the number of legal immigrants or citizens that kill Americans, then it has no bearing and isn't indicative of anything.That's his point. I think.
well, more simply put: figures dont lie, but liars figure
Originally posted by PVS
SS, you missed the point entirely. there is a hige difference between claiming that your sources are valid and siting those sources in detail
Yup, and the sites that I have used in arguments in the past, sites that you have "debunked" as being biased, are ones that cited their sources in detail.
You just didn't like what they had to say.
Side note: any website that presents a point of view will appear "biased."
Example: Take the illegal immigrants committing crimes against americans.
You would see a report by a reporter explaining each particular crime, and what led to it.
You would never see a reporter interject an opinion like : "This just goes to show you that illegal immigrants kill more American citizens each year than our war in Iraq and 9/11 have."
Never.
Those are personal opions that objective newspeople are not supposed to make.
Even if there was a growing trend being shown, by and large the media won't mention it.
It's not their job to.
They put out the info. and people take it and make opions, changes, policies, etc... based on the events in our country.
So, if one wanted to explore an issue, like liberal bias in the media for example, they could not turn directly to "credible websites", seeing as how the most common definition of "credible" is: impartial and un-biased.
What they could do, I suppose, is to gather all individual and particular instances from the "credible" media, and compile them in such a way that the "credible" evidence proves the point that they are trying to make.
But then it's a catch 22, since the website you would compile has a biased point of view, and wether your facts are accurate or not, your site is therefore discredited.
THAT's what my point was.
It's complete bullshit, since the "credible" sources of info. will never compile them in ways that are controversial, or make dramatic statements about our society.
It's up to the individual or organization that wants to make a point to take all evidence and put it together. Their own personal beliefs and intentions shoud NOT stand in the way of the facts that they are presenting.
As far as I know, its been people who've proven and changed things (one way or the other) throughout history, that have taken all the info. and presented it to prove their point.
What do you think?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yup, and the sites that I have used in arguments in the past, sites that you have "debunked" as being biased, are ones that cited their sources in detail.You just didn't like what they had to say.
Side note: any website that presents a point of view will appear "biased."
Example: Take the illegal immigrants committing crimes against americans.
You would see a report by a reporter explaining each particular crime, and what led to it.
You would never see a reporter interject an opinion like : "This just goes to show you that illegal immigrants kill more American citizens each year than our war in Iraq and 9/11 have."
Never.
Those are personal opions that objective newspeople are not supposed to make.
Even if there was a growing trend being shown, by and large the media won't mention it.
It's not their job to.
They put out the info. and people take it and make opions, changes, policies, etc... based on the events in our country.
So, if one wanted to explore an issue, like liberal bias in the media for example, they could not turn directly to "credible websites", seeing as how the most common definition of "credible" is: impartial and un-biased.
What they could do, I suppose, is to gather all individual and particular instances from the "credible" media, and compile them in such a way that the "credible" evidence proves the point that they are trying to make.
But then it's a catch 22, since the website you would compile has a biased point of view, and wether your facts are accurate or not, your site is therefore discredited.
THAT's what my point was.
It's complete bullshit, since the "credible" sources of info. will never compile them in ways that are controversial, or make dramatic statements about our society.
It's up to the individual or organization that wants to make a point to take all evidence and put it together. Their own personal beliefs and intentions shoud NOT stand in the way of the facts that they are presenting.
As far as I know, its been people who've proven and changed things (one way or the other) throughout history, that have taken all the info. and presented it to prove their point.
What do you think?
i think you're more concerned with feeling right and smart than grasping the painfully simple scope of the argument/point. i know you like to just tirelessly rebutt until you know you've made a fool of yourself and then you'll just sidestep out of the thread without another word, so this dance is over.
i leave you with the point i must saddly repeat:
back up your facts/figures with a credible source. though many sources can be bias, that does not throw out the rule. i will pay attention to a posted article from foxnews.com, dispite the company's blatant bias, since they are forced to at least follow base guidelines of journalism (though that is even slipping given the recent memo which detailed their will to parallel the democrat victory with terrorist celebration) i will NOT however, pay any attention to your agenda sites of wingnuttery any more than you should pay attention to a michael moore flick. dont like it? well why dont you cry about it?
You're dodging.
The sites that I've used in arguments past were given to me by Google, not some "wingnut" right wing conspiracy.
The sites that I cited, compiled all of their info. from credible sources (CNN, Newsweek, Time, NBC,etc....).
That matters little to you in an argument, as you've proven by calling them "biased" and saying that the info they present is then somehow void.
You're back-peddling now by saying that you would listen to a "biased" source if its info was corraboratable by other credible sources, but your past actions don't show that you believe that.
They show that you will try to call out credible info as "right-wing, Bush's nut swinging, bullshit", if it goes against the point that you are trying to make.
I can post the original debates, if you like.
Along with my arguments, the sites that I pulled some info. from, and the sources that they list for their info.
The point is simple:
Getting true and accurate info from credible sources will then give you an opinon on something. (kinda the point of good info., isn't it?)
Once you've seen enough true and accurate info. from credible sources, it may prompt you to make an assesment, or a diagnosis of a particular situation or thing.
Putting all that info together for folks to see your view-point, and to try to prove said assesment is how things have always been proven.
Guess when it goes against your views though, its "biased".
Maybe, but no more so than a prosecutor compiling evidence is biased towards the crime he is trying to prove, or a math teacher is biased towards the formulas he wants you to learn.
Its an idea, a point of view, supported by facts.
Only a fool would ignore the facts because the person presenting them wants you to see them his way.
You can either take them and refute them... (hard to do if they are from credible sources)
Or you can listen and come to see his point of view (hard to do if you are ideologically opposed to him)
Or, best for you, take his facts and say nothing, as you have been WTFpwned.
BUMP
*gasp*
No pithy comeback?
What happened?
(perhaps you went back to the original argument about liberal bias, checked the website, saw the compiled evidence from credible sources such as CNN, Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, etc.....
then went back to the argument about illegal immigration, checked the website, saw the compiled evidence from NBC, local area newspapers, and even the F.B.I.'s most wanted list....
then realized that calling a website "biased" or "invalid", when they are presenting corroberatable, credible evidence in trying to prove their point is foolish, and that you can only question their conclusions and not their facts....
and realized that you've lost both of the original debates and now this one.)
Perhaps....