Dems cancel Nevada Pres Debate on Fox

[Kulindahr]

why spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to secure a right that you never intend on using? that is a dishonest assertion. it is simply not a thing that would happen.

and btw....

calling someone a republican apologist is only a personal insult if you think republicans are a bad thing to apologize for, and if he spends alot of time apoligizing for them, i fail to see how it would be an insulot for him to hear.

kul is able to take up for himself

why dont we let him, Eh?

and lastly?

that logical fallacy catchphrase?

it sounds kind of high school debate team. this is not childrens hour. just answer the points raised. otherwise it is just an evasive tool used to avoid answering a real question with real answers.

Andreus...

Your first line shows you didn't even read his post -- maybe the words went by your eyes, but you didn't read it.
That's the problem here -- people are so stuck with caricatures and slogans they aren't seeing the facts. If I'm an apologist for anything, it's facts -- not emotional mendacious hype, like, "suing to gain a right to lie".
A high school debate team would be doing a lot better job than you partisans here -- they know they can't bring in ad hominem and sophistry, or facetious replies like yours to the absolutely correct accusation of ad hominem.

And since I'm getting hell from some Republicans for defending you Democrats by attacking Bush, I'm going to be laughing a long time about your apologist accusation.

And if a Democrat debate sounded anything like the Democrats here, it would have to be scheduled on Comedy Central.

 

[radical matt]

freedom of the press does not entail lying to the public

fox is an entertainment corporation that intentionally lies to pander to a specific democraphic

that is not the same thing

freedom of speech is entirely different from freedom of the press

You asked a question, I answered it. Unlike me, you DIDN'T answer my points, and now you bring out more, as if quantity will avail you where quality has not. But, I'll be extra generous and keep up with you, because I'm cool like that.


According to a Florida appeals court, freedom of the press DOES entail lying to the public.

Fox is a news and entertainment corporation that uses a mix of facts and biased/spun views to represent and appeal to a specific (and rather large) demographic.


I agree they aren't the same thing. Lying and spining (bias) aren't the same thing. One person can look at the Human body and marvel at the chance required for its evolution, another can look at it and see it's utility and beauty and suppose that it must have had an intelligence behind its design. Both will "spin" the topic if you talk to them about it, but neither is lieing.


Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are entirely different, I agree with you totally. Now, stop, take a deep breath: What does this have to do with anything? : )


I suggest you work more on quality as quantity doesn't suit you either.

it was not a loaded question

it was a direct and blunt one

Yes it was a loaded question. "Fox sued for the right to lie, doesn't this make them illegitament?" Someone posted a link on page one of this thread (I think) about what a loaded question is (the Greek for it means "many questions"). The most common example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This is actually three questions in one:

Do you have a wife?
If so, have you been beating her or beaten her in the past?
If so, have you stopped beating her?

But, if you ask it as one question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" there are only two answers:

Yes, I have (which is saying that you HAVE a wife, and you HAVE beaten her in the past or been beating her, and you have just NOW stopped beating her.)

OR

No, I have not (which is saying that you HAVE a wife, you HAVE beaten her in the past or been beating her, and you are continuing to do so.)


But what if you don't have a wife? What if you have a wife but haven't been beating her? Well, you can only answer "No, I have not", because you haven't been beating her (so you can't stop doing something you aren't doing) and if you don't even have a wife, you couldn't have EVER been beating her, so you obviously, again, can't stop beating her.


Your question requires that I first say that Fox sued for the right to lie, which it did not, it appealed a suit that said they had wrongly fired an employee. So your question is actually several questions, thus a loaded question:

Did Fox sue for the right to lie?
If so, doesn't this make them illegitament?


The answers I will give you are:

No, they didn't sue for the right to lie. (This makes the second question mute.) If you then pressed, I would say that if someone DID sue for the right to lie, that STILL doesn't (technically) make them illegitament, it just makes them dangerously close to bad media, if they aren't already. However, since Fox didn't sue for the right to lie, this means that Fox isn't illegitament or bad media (based on that claim alone.)


Your question, by the way, is not blunt at all. It's subtle and sneaky, kinda like a snake. And it's that subtle that makes it dishonest, and the sneakiness that makes it a loaded question. So basically, it WAS loaded and was NOT blunt...essentially the exact opposite of what you said. Which makes me wonder why I'm even bothering responding to your posts...

 

[Andreus]

this is getting no where

you have yet again refused to answer and you have ignored any post that presents evidence outside of your world view and personal interpretation

 

[radical matt]

you seem to be rather alone in your observations, as a few others have noted.

you made a good try at shooting the messenger and ignoring the question, yet again, i may add, but it didnt fool anyone.

now you can just answer the question asked and stop going personal or just move on.

Gee...someone needs to take his own advice. You "shoot the messenger" (Kuhl) and when I call you on it, you say it's perfectly alright, but when he does it, it's somethin bad that "didnt fool anyone"? Hm...this is what is called a double standard, right?

 

[Andreus]

hey guys

you seem to be of the impression that this is a rocket science

as is by burying us in a subterfuge of overblown, myopic and reaching thought processes it will change the fact that fox is the most disreputable channel on the television and that there have been posts and posts here citing their past lies and their legal maneuvers to continue the trend they have set for themselves

no low brow high school debate antics will distract or delay from that basic reality

don't you guys have a limbaugh book to read or something?

you're running out of talking points

 

[Kulindahr]

you have parsed words, spun ad neauseam and created two overly verbose posts that have, quite frankly, worn the scroll wheel out on my mouse, but never not once have you answered a basic question...

why would a corporation sue to recieve a right that they did not intend on using?

They didn't.
You're either fantasizing or deliberately clinging to this lie.
Your claim is a falsehood, documentable and documented.
Maybe if you would ask a question that had something to do with the truth, someone would answer -- but only a fool falls into the trap of buying into the other guy's lie.

The tactic is like a general maneuvering his opponent to attack across a swamp. If the foe knows it's a swamp, what do you call him if he makes that attack?

Radical Matt is pointing out that we know it's a swamp, and you're just saying, "No, it's firm ground!"

 

[Andreus]

Gee...someone needs to take his own advice. You "shoot the messenger" (Kuhl) and when I call you on it, you say it's perfectly alright, but when he does it, it's somethin bad that "didnt fool anyone"? Hm...this is what is called a double standard, right?

i am a muslim apologist

there is no shame in that

kulindahr and chance are the republican aplogists here as well as seapuppy and now aparently you''

there is no dishonor in the truth

only someone ashamed of the repuiblicans they are defending would attempt to call that label an insult.

try it sometimes

 

[Andreus]

See why you shouldn't talk on the phone and online at the same time? It is not only rude but you end up saying or typing something that makes no sense. I meant to say that my friend and myself could "NOT detect a logical fallacy in Andreus' question."

Just because Andreus made a mistake regarding the origin of the "right to lie", it is argumentum ad logicam to conclude that the conclusion in his question (attacking Fox's credibility as a news source) must then be false.

That being said, claiming that there is a fallacy in someone else's argument without stating it is ridiculous and rude; in much the same way as I used my being on the phone to justify sloppily typing up my post. Further, Claiming that "bois" coming into a bar or some other red herring prevents you from properly fulfilling your argumentative role is sloppy, lazy and fallacious. It isn't someone else's job to make your argument, or ruin someone else's argument, for you.

just in case you guys didnt read this

ps

i know you did and are just pretending that it doesnt exist

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr's guilty of his own fallacy when he denigrates all lawyers as a class. Andreus was asking what validity could a news source have if it would go to court to stand up for its right to lie. That it lacks any systemic integrity and that it can be bought by corporate pressure led to the firing of two journalists that were attempting to expose a potential public health risk.

Stating a question in a way that brings a lie into the situation is fallacious. You just did it again by introducing a covering lie. Spin, part 2.

"Denigrates all lawyers as a class"?
Um, I was quoting what actually happened when lawyers were introduced into the situation. If that "denigrates all lawyers", well... maybe they've earned it.

 

[Kulindahr]

you seem to be rather alone in your observations, as a few others have noted.

you made a good try at shooting the messenger and ignoring the question, yet again, i may add, but it didnt fool anyone.

now you can just answer the question asked and stop going personal or just move on.

Answering the question would be buying into your fallacy.

BTW, have you stopped beating your wife?

I haven't been "going personal", I've been pointing out what you're doing: telling lies.

"Alone in [my] observations"? Andreus, have you been reading this thread? You seem so fixated on getting your lie accepted that you're skipping most of what's here.

Let's get the facts straight before going on: FOX didn't sue anyone. They didn't go to court to secure a "right to lie" (that's impossible in the first place... unless you're granting from the start that a "right to lie" exists").

Lying to pursue your points in a debate is despicable -- when Fox does it, and when you do it.

 

[Kulindahr]

And to answer a loaded question that you can't get over your orgasmic joy of asking, the answer itself with linguistic skill and intelligence:

A corporation would sue to recieve a right they did not intend on using if they were doing it to further some other end. In this case, freedom of the press.

Correct.

It is better to protect more than a right guarantees than to protect less. It is better to err on the side of liberty.
To illustrate from another topic, it is better to presume that the detainees in Guantanamo are covered by the right of habeus corpus than to start with the contrary presumption.

 

[Kulindahr]

What "fallacy" is this? Cite it exactly and by name of the fallacy itself.

Well... that's still a fallacy.

1. The name is "falsehood". that's so basic it doesn't even need a formal designation. Introducing a falsehood into a statement makes the statement false. Call it deception if you want, or verbal fraud.

2. No, it isn't. Is "the Germans were defeated at the Battle of the Bulge" a fallacious statement?

 

[Kulindahr]

That's the fallacy you are accusing me of doing now? I thought that was the one Andreus was doing.

No, because it was a statement of fact and can be referenced in an encyclopedia. Can you point to me where in an encyclopedia that "all lawyers muck things up"?

You did it in covering for him.

And now you did it again -- introducing a falsehood into a question.

"The Germans were defeated at the Battle of the Bulge" is a generalization. So is "this is what happens when you get lawyers involved". Both are true, as generalizations, because they are based on the specific though general facts of the case.

How we got diverted from the fact that Andreus introduced lies into the debate... Fox would love this study in spin.
It isn't necessary to lie about why Fox went to court to know that they have lied. All the major networks have lied, occasionally -- for the individuals involved -- deliberately. But I have seen ABC, NBC, and CBS apologize for that behavior, and can individuals who have engaged in it.
Yes, they're all biased -- but I will not grant that they are on par, as Chance is suggesting, until I hear apologies from Fox.

I would be happy to hear something along the lines of "Yes, our lawyers argued in court that the law does not prohibit setting lies before the public. We condone this argument because we believe it is true to the law, and in this specific case entails protection of freedom of the press. We do not, however, approve of lying to the public. Pursuant thereunto, the following individuals have been fired...."

But I still think that the Democrats who decided not to go with a debate on Fox are playing the coward. Going on would have been gutsy, and could just have given them some entertaining fuel for, ah, talking points in the future.

Not that it would likely have been a real debate; they rarely are; they're too sanitized.

 

[Nishin]

No I do not agree with that. To my awareness, none of the media is entirely honest. Apparently, this doesn't make them illegitimate, it makes them "biased", even if they're lieing. But ligitimacy is a legal term anyway. It makes them bad media, that's what it does. As long as the FCC doesn't shut them down, they're just as legit as the next one.

I didn't ask the FCC, I asked YOU. Would YOU consider legitimate a media that is proven to deliberatly lie to its audience?
I never said other media are free of bias, I said FOX DELIBERATLY LIES to its audience.

Well, by your arguments it's logical to infer that you DON'T seriously listen to Fox. As to what other stations you watch or do not watch I can't say, though if you follow typical Human behavior patterns, they are likely ones you agree with at least on some level.

Well I'm glad you at least admit you have no idea what I watch or agree with, contrarily to your previous allegation.
I don't watch news to agree or disagree, I watch news to learn what is going on, to get facts, therefore I expect news to tell me what's going on, not to feed me with propaganda and lies. This is why indeed I can not SERIOUSLY listen to a media (Fox news) that is NOT SERIOUS about news and facts.
I do not rely on a single source of information either, i watch right-wing news, I watch left-wing news, I watch international news, but I will indeed not willingly watch LYING news or give them any credit or condemn people who don't want to be associated with them.

As for Fox, they've admited themselves of lieing? They just put out a press release saying "We lie in our broadcasts"? Can you provide a copy of this press release?

I provided link to an article on the court case already where FOX defended its right to deliberatly lie, it's basically the same, it's called a tacit admission.

Do you remember FOX' slogan... "fair and balanced" ? ... ADMITTED LIE:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
Scott Norvell, London bureau chief for Fox News

http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/index.php?p=341

Oh, I do, but more as a philosopher than a scientist. Besides which, I've only stated those are my passtimes. A statement of fact does not a boast make. My claims in this thread have largely been counters to claims that other people have made, and such things as those I can support by a careful reading of their own evidence and with a close examination of the logic and support of their arguments. When referencing someone else's claims, you don't need to find a claim of your own to support it since you're talking about something that is clearly presented. As for your claims, yes, you do TRY to prove them...whether you succeed or not...

No, I'm sorry, when you counter-claim that other media deliberatly lie, you have to prove it. Be it an original claim or counter-claim, A claim is a claim and has no value without backing up.

They are part of the process, but not the entire process. It's always important to note where things go adrift, ya know? That is to say, make the distinction between the people working for the company, the company itself (as an entity), and certain people that have the ability to pull strings at the last minute. If you're going to fix a problem, or even draw attention to it really, you need to be able to find the source of the problem.

I don't get what you're trying to say here... what I see is that at the end of the day, or rather on FOX News air waves, LIES and misleading claims are spread.
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/fox_news_crazy_.html
And when journalists refuse to lie, they get fired.

I may be wrong, but I took this to mean that the station was willing to go with the work that the Akre and Wilson had produced, but that THEN word came from the higher ups that it needed to be "edited".

In other word, you interpreted a statement to fit what you wanted it to mean... that's not what scientifical (or rather semantics in this instance) method is about.
According to you, what was the "edit" about?
What was the "edit" going to introduce?

You didn't, but you quoted Andreus who WAS making that claim, which means by extension that I had to address it (AGAIN). (You quoting his question and my response to it meaning I had to address both the question, since it is a loaded one, as well as your response to my response. I wasn't saying that you made that claim, but by quoting him making it, it implied that you did not disagree with it, which meant that I had to address it...again...)

I never ever quoted Andreus in this thread.

 

[Andreus]

nishin and ICO

you guys are wasting time

kul is dedicated to winning arguements, not exchanging ideas, even when it is pointed out to him in technicolor that he is wrong.

 

[Kulindahr]

nishin and ICO

you guys are wasting time

kul is dedicated to winning arguements, not exchanging ideas, even when it is pointed out to him in technicolor that he is wrong.

Kul is dedicated to getting the facts straight -- and right now the fact is that you lied about Fox, as Matt showed so nicely.
Then IC lied by mistating your assertion.
And you are clinging to those lies.

The only argument I'm trying to win here is to get people to stop lying in order to make their case against Fox -- it doesn't need lies.

The one wasting time here is you, Andreus. Admit you lied and let's get back to the actual discussion.

 

[Andreus]

the only lying going on here is you kulindahr

you are lying by omitting the answers to questions and you are lying by using subterfuge to camoflage the FACT that Fox lies as you apologize for their behavior

i dont know if you noticed buyt you just got your debating skills trounced and your "Logic" exposed for what it is.

When did you become the FFS protege?

 

[Kulindahr]

the only lying going on here is you kulindahr

you are lying by omitting the answers to questions and you are lying by using subterfuge to camoflage the FACT that Fox lies as you apologize for their behavior


When did you become the FFS protege?

You said Fox sued to obtain a right to lie -- that was a lie.
You then followed it with other lies.
You added three more lies in this post.

FFS? The Fantastic Four's Super-fans?

Simon and Garfunkel once sang, "A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest". You go beyond that, Andreus, putting words in other people's mouths (i.e. lying) on a regular basis.

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps you missed the post where I admitted to restating his assertion? This goes back to the technicality that Fox didn't sue for its right, and I corrected it by stating Fox's defense depended on that right to lie; is that to what you were referencing?

It's hardly a "technicality". The "right to lie" is a legal bit that dates back before the existence of Fox; it was played up long ago in a movie called "Absence of Malice". All the lawyers for Fox did was invoke what has been employed by lawyers of all stripes for decades (at least).

People are presenting things as though Fox made this "right" up in order to support their happy use of misleading, inaccurate, and flat-out false information. That itself is misleading, inaccurate, and false.

 

[radical matt]

I didn't ask the FCC, I asked YOU. Would YOU consider legitimate a media that is proven to deliberatly lie to its audience?

...and I said that ligitimacy is a matter of FCC regulation, not individual presumption. Some people believe Bush is an iligitimate president (from 2000), but the Constitution is what gives a president legitimate claim to the office, and IT is what he got his from. Likewise, a news agency is "legitimate" so long as the FCC allows it to exist under the banner of a news agency. In this case, that means that Fox is legitimate. It doesn't matter what I think of the matter, it's the FCC, not I, who grant legitimacy to broadcasts over the airwaves. So either you don't understand, or you're asking an uninformed question.

Well I'm glad you at least admit you have no idea what I watch or agree with, contrarily to your previous allegation.

Indeed, and I apologize for any "allegation" to the contrary.

I don't watch news to agree or disagree, I watch news to learn what is going on, to get facts, therefore I expect news to tell me what's going on, not to feed me with propaganda and lies. This is why indeed I can not SERIOUSLY listen to a media (Fox news) that is NOT SERIOUS about news and facts.
I do not rely on a single source of information either, i watch right-wing news, I watch left-wing news, I watch international news, but I will indeed not willingly watch LYING news or give them any credit or condemn people who don't want to be associated with them.

As is your perogative. In general, I avoid news as it's all so biased I'd rather not watch it, what with having more imediate concerns in my life which I can deal with from my own observations, lacking foreign biases.

I provided link to an article on the court case already where FOX defended its right to deliberatly lie, it's basically the same, it's called a tacit admission.

Hm...NOW I'm going to have to differ with you...again. Defending a right does NOT mean one intends to use it. I think I own a gun, but it's at my parents' house and I never use it (don't even go there but one weekend a month anyways), a bow and few arrows (which are also there), a bo staff (also there), and a boken which...may be in my car trunk, actually. I hate guns and have no real interest in them at all...however, I consider the second amentment deathly (literally) important for protection of liberty (or, as the amendment's writers said it themselves, "...which is neccessary for the security of a free state.") Whenever anyone asks me about it, I'm always anti-gun control and for total freeness of weapon ownership. Why? While I hope it never comes to it, if I and everyone else can own weapons, it serves as a deturant for the government taking over or for a military coup. Technically speaking, an armed citizenry also tends to decrease the incidences of crime (and the logic behind this SHOULD be apparent...)

...so while I fight for the freedom to own weapons, I own few myself, most of those were given to me, and I don't even have possession of them. But the right is important to me for the sake that, if it someday came to it, I could get such a thing to fight for the freedom of my nation and the individual rights of her people. Something I dearly hope NEVER happens (so I fight for a right that I, myself, hope never to have to use!)

Fighting for a right, any right, is never an admission that one intends to use it. Further, this isn't an "admission" of anything. Fox didn't, according to your OWN quoted article, admit to anything. They didn't deny anything, but they didn't admit it in any wise. Get it? Got it? (probably not...)

No, I'm sorry, when you counter-claim that other media deliberatly lie, you have to prove it. Be it an original claim or counter-claim, A claim is a claim and has no value without backing up.

Alright, fine, I would THINK this one obvious though. The CBS (wasn't it?) forged documents WITHIN WEEKS of the 2004 election to try and sway the results in Kerry's favor. Not ONLY were the trumped up (READ: [BLIES[/B]), but they were ALSO a MAJOR attempt to sway the results of the highest election in the land. Is that one well enough documented, or do you need me to do a net search and get you a link?

I don't get what you're trying to say here... what I see is that at the end of the day, or rather on FOX News air waves, LIES and misleading claims are spread.
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/fox_news_crazy_.html
And when journalists refuse to lie, they get fired.

Hm, a question; how many documented lies do you know of? How many days are there in a year? Oh, and how many cases do you have of journalists getting fired for refusing to lie? For the last question, I've seen one case you've posted, do you have more so that you can establish a pattern of operation (as opposed to it being an isolated incident)?

In other word, you interpreted a statement to fit what you wanted it to mean... that's not what scientifical (or rather semantics in this instance) method is about.

No, I read it and from my capabilities of analysis and understanding, that was what I inturpreted it to mean. Generally, when a group or organization is "excited" about something, they sanction it for the sake of doing something with it, something they intend to carry through. It is, therefore, logical for me to assume that that was their original intent.

According to you, what was the "edit" about?
What was the "edit" going to introduce?

The edit comes after the fact. Most reports are edited to fit time alotments, themes, ect. To say one is going to "edit" something doesn't mean anything nearly as malicious as you intend. In writing a scientific paper, generally if you have your base paper that contains ALL your information, then it must be edited down into a form that people can actually get something useful from. You don't simply publish your raw report. To suggest that this EVER happens is somewhat rediculous on your part...

I never ever quoted Andreus in this thread.

Hm...alrighty, it was something else, wasn't it? Sorry bout that. ^_^ I stand corrected again.