MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Charlottetown, Virginia  (Read 21486 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #75 on: August 23, 2017, 18:07 »
+4
Again? Everyone knows the parties switched. All this does is prove you're untruthful and aren't allowed to say this stuff on the SS forums any more, so you're forced to spew it here.


Bad Company

« Reply #76 on: August 23, 2017, 18:18 »
+2
Probably time to end this string to do more worthy things like actually taking photos  8)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #77 on: August 23, 2017, 20:14 »
+1
Seems like Civil War #2 has already begun. Congrats on squabbling over your own versions of the truth. 

« Reply #78 on: August 23, 2017, 21:43 »
+3
Seems like Civil War #2 has already begun. Congrats on squabbling over your own versions of the truth.

I wonder who's the divisive "leader" who started it...  :o
And I guess you realise that the same culprit is not far from starting serious international wars, not only civil  >:(, just to prove that he doesn't have "small hands"
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 21:49 by Zero Talent »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #79 on: August 23, 2017, 22:19 »
+3
Seems like Civil War #2 has already begun. Congrats on squabbling over your own versions of the truth.

I wonder who's the divisive "leader" who started it...  :o
And I guess you realise that the same culprit is not far from starting serious international wars, not only civil  >:(, just to prove that he doesn't have "small hands"

I'm no fan of Trump. I was also no fan of Obama. They equally catered to their own sides which based on the almost 50/50 split of the last election this nation is clearly divided. This last election also uncovered the lying cheating mess that is both parties. We are not each other's enemies. We are just being led to believe that by the barrage of biased news, echo chamber social media, and other sources of questionable information. Wikipedia? Snopes? News blogs? Liberal CNN or Conservative Fox News? It's all bull$hit. The more people argue, the better the ratings, and the more money there is to be made at our expense. Division is big business. Carry on.

« Reply #80 on: August 24, 2017, 00:25 »
+1
Are you seriously comparing wikipedia and snopes to fox news?

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #81 on: August 24, 2017, 07:20 »
+2
Are you seriously comparing wikipedia and snopes to fox news?

You're missing the point which is accuracy and bias of information which varies.

You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are. You just choose to get your information from whatever "news" outlet caters to your bias.

Wikipedia? While I think the intent is good the crowdsourced information is questionable. It may be getting better in accuracy but not there yet. Ever used it? I have and I've found quite a bit of copy-paste from other websites.

Snopes? Who fact-checks them? Exactly.



« Reply #82 on: August 24, 2017, 08:14 »
+2
Are you seriously comparing wikipedia and snopes to fox news?

You're missing the point which is accuracy and bias of information which varies.

You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are. You just choose to get your information from whatever "news" outlet caters to your bias.

Wikipedia? While I think the intent is good the crowdsourced information is questionable. It may be getting better in accuracy but not there yet. Ever used it? I have and I've found quite a bit of copy-paste from other websites.

Snopes? Who fact-checks them? Exactly.

If only Trump could understand that this is normal in a democracy!
But no, for him only those kissing his a@@ are the owners of the truth. For him, truth cannot come from "from many sides".
Instead, "many sides" are wrong when he wants to defend neo-*, KKK and white supremacists.
"Good" comes only from one side, evil from "many sides".

« Reply #83 on: August 24, 2017, 08:22 »
+4
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.

The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox.  Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times).  To equate the two is ridiculous.

« Reply #84 on: August 24, 2017, 11:51 »
0
Agreed.
Everyone has a bias. But there's a continuum.  Sometimes it appears as selective reporting, sometimes as outright lies and fabrication. What I want avoid is false equivalency or you end up with Russia, where the powers that be have ensured no one trusts anyone anymore.

On related news apparently fox may get more fact based (though still with a rightwing bias) soon after all the scandals and now that breitbart and Sinclair media are eating into their lunatic fan base.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #85 on: August 24, 2017, 12:13 »
+2
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.

The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox.  Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times).  To equate the two is ridiculous.

Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline -  Black man killed while assaulting white man

These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2017, 12:32 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #86 on: August 24, 2017, 13:15 »
0
Seems like Civil War #2 has already begun. Congrats on squabbling over your own versions of the truth.

I wonder who's the divisive "leader" who started it...  :o
And I guess you realise that the same culprit is not far from starting serious international wars, not only civil  >:(, just to prove that he doesn't have "small hands"

I'm no fan of Trump. I was also no fan of Obama. They equally catered to their own sides which based on the almost 50/50 split of the last election this nation is clearly divided. This last election also uncovered the lying cheating mess that is both parties. We are not each other's enemies. We are just being led to believe that by the barrage of biased news, echo chamber social media, and other sources of questionable information. Wikipedia? Snopes? News blogs? Liberal CNN or Conservative Fox News? It's all bull$hit. The more people argue, the better the ratings, and the more money there is to be made at our expense. Division is big business. Carry on.

Bravo ++++++++++

« Reply #87 on: August 24, 2017, 13:37 »
+3
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.

The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox.  Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times).  To equate the two is ridiculous.

Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline -  Black man killed while assaulting white man

These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?

As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions.  That goes beyond bias to fabrication.  Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #88 on: August 24, 2017, 21:01 »
0
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.

The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox.  Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times).  To equate the two is ridiculous.

Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline -  Black man killed while assaulting white man

These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?

As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions.  That goes beyond bias to fabrication.  Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.

Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html

« Reply #89 on: August 25, 2017, 02:00 »
+3
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.

The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox.  Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times).  To equate the two is ridiculous.

Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline -  Black man killed while assaulting white man

These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?

As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions.  That goes beyond bias to fabrication.  Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.

Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html
Wouldn't it be good if politicians resigned when they lied or did something shady?  I have no doubt there would be no president Trump if that happened.  Every time he complains about fake news, I wonder how he fools himself into thinking nobody notices the way he uses fake news when it suits his agenda?  Perhaps he really is stupid enough to believe some of the lies he has helped spread?  Either way, I think he has proven to be completely incompetent and out of his depth as president and the longer he does the job, the more damage it will do to the US.

« Reply #90 on: August 25, 2017, 03:03 »
+1
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.

The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox.  Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times).  To equate the two is ridiculous.

Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline -  Black man killed while assaulting white man

These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?

As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions.  That goes beyond bias to fabrication.  Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.

Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html
Wouldn't it be good if politicians resigned when they lied or did something shady?  I have no doubt there would be no president Trump if that happened.  Every time he complains about fake news, I wonder how he fools himself into thinking nobody notices the way he uses fake news when it suits his agenda?  Perhaps he really is stupid enough to believe some of the lies he has helped spread?  Either way, I think he has proven to be completely incompetent and out of his depth as president and the longer he does the job, the more damage it will do to the US.
No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.

niktol

« Reply #91 on: August 25, 2017, 05:15 »
+2

No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.

I think it's not just large, it's the majority. More than half population will go wherever their leaders will take them. Which is more of a psyche thing than analytical abilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 05:19 by niktol »

« Reply #92 on: August 25, 2017, 07:06 »
+3

No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.

I think it's not just large, it's the majority. More than half population will go wherever their leaders will take them. Which is more of a psyche thing than analytical abilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

It doesn't seem like the majority of Americans want to go where Trump is forcing them to.

« Reply #93 on: August 25, 2017, 09:04 »
+4
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.

The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox.  Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times).  To equate the two is ridiculous.

Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline -  Black man killed while assaulting white man

These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?

As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions.  That goes beyond bias to fabrication.  Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.

Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html

Oh, please, get over it.  There was a problem with a minor CNN story that was never widely reported and they immediately took action to retract the story and the involved people resigned.  A mistake that was quickly corrected, which shows the integrity of the organization.

In contrast, Fox has completely and deliberately fabricated numerous main stories, does not retract them at all or only after a very long time and the people who made up the "facts" are still with them.  One organization has integrity and the other doesn't - there is no comparison at all.

« Reply #94 on: August 25, 2017, 10:17 »
0
You called out Fox. Do you think CNN isn't biased? They all are.

The difference isn't bias, it's in the truth - CNN doesn't make up complete lies like they do at Fox.  Reporting what is happening, even with a bias, is not the same as making up propaganda, which is what is they do at Fox (and has been verified many times).  To equate the two is ridiculous.

Liberal news type of headline - White man kills black honor student
Conservative news type of headline -  Black man killed while assaulting white man

These both could be the same incident, the truth and based on fact. The bias is what facts are chosen to be reported or ignored. And again you keep pointing out Fox and drawing the division line. Have you not seen any of the CNN antics? Or like the news do you only choose to point out information that supports your side of the division line?

As fas as I know CNN has never promoted a lie as fact - Fox has on numerous occasions.  That goes beyond bias to fabrication.  Bias in reporting is one thing, making up lies and becoming a news maker rather than reporting what happened is something else entirely.

Of course. CNN would never lie to do anything shady. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/retracted-cnn-story-a-boon-for-president-at-war-with-media.html

Oh, please, get over it.  There was a problem with a minor CNN story that was never widely reported and they immediately took action to retract the story and the involved people resigned.  A mistake that was quickly corrected, which shows the integrity of the organization.

In contrast, Fox has completely and deliberately fabricated numerous main stories, does not retract them at all or only after a very long time and the people who made up the "facts" are still with them.  One organization has integrity and the other doesn't - there is no comparison at all.

In all fairness, Fox also fired O'Reilly & Co, or exactly those who were preaching integrity, respect for values and morality, from a very high pedestal, while in fact, they were those "squeezing the cat in the dark".
And I even here more and more Fox voices criticizing Trump! Imagine that!
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 10:20 by Zero Talent »

niktol

« Reply #95 on: August 25, 2017, 10:29 »
0

No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.

I think it's not just large, it's the majority. More than half population will go wherever their leaders will take them. Which is more of a psyche thing than analytical abilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

It doesn't seem like the majority of Americans want to go where Trump is forcing them to.

Noone says their should be only one leader/group of obedient followers in a society. Regardless, tribal behavior is here to stay.

« Reply #96 on: August 25, 2017, 11:28 »
0

No he's not stupid but some of his supporters are but that is also true of other parties. When i look at Facebook I think there is a large population incapable of any critical reasoning or ability to see that not everything is black and white.

I think it's not just large, it's the majority. More than half population will go wherever their leaders will take them. Which is more of a psyche thing than analytical abilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

It doesn't seem like the majority of Americans want to go where Trump is forcing them to.

Noone says their should be only one leader/group of obedient followers in a society. Regardless, tribal behavior is here to stay.

So it is not the majority of the population, the way you stated it.

After all, a vast majority of the population is following A leader or another, for a defined period or for longer. Very few choose not to follow any leader ever.
I guess these are the tiny anarchist or survivalist minority.

In a way, following a leader is the very definition of democracy. The majority is electing a leader (except for USA  :o) and then the leader is setting the direction the majority committed to follow, until a new leader is elected.

Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.

niktol

« Reply #97 on: August 25, 2017, 12:47 »
0

So it is not the majority of the population, the way you stated it.

I did not state it. I merely repeated what a Yale researcher (and some others after him) concluded from his/their experiments. Not being a psychologist myself I cannot test the veracity of this statement. It sounds about right, but I am always open to an expert's alternative interpretation.


Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.

Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 12:50 by niktol »

« Reply #98 on: August 25, 2017, 13:48 »
+1

Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.

Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.

Same for me: majority means >50%.
If >50% will always blindly follow their leader, that leader would be re-elected forever because he/she will ask those >50% blind followers to vote for him/her, over and over again. And they will blindly follow his/her request.

Because this is NOT happening in real life, it means that initial assumption is wrong.
Or, in other words, the majority is not always blindly following their leader.

Maybe some majorities are blindly following their leaders, but not all majorities.
And USA, today, is an example where >50% of the population is not blindly following the leader.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 13:54 by Zero Talent »

niktol

« Reply #99 on: August 25, 2017, 14:50 »
0

Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.

Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.

Same for me: majority means >50%.
If >50% will always blindly follow their leader, that leader would be re-elected forever because he/she will ask those >50% blind followers to vote for him/her, over and over again. And they will blindly follow his/her request.

Because this is NOT happening in real life, it means that initial assumption is wrong.
Or, in other words, the majority is not always blindly following their leader.


To be honest, I really don't care about voting in USA (or anywhere else for that matter, I can't be bothered to vote). But I do care about math, even if it's very simple. I guess I have to be very detailed to explain my point.

Let's say you have 100 voters in a given country C.

51 of them voted for "leader A" today. 80% of them vote for leader A no matter what. That constitutes 0.8x51~ 41 people who trust leader A unquestionably. We'll call the remaining 10 people swing voters who today voted for leader A.

49 of the total pool of voters voted for "leader B" today. 80% of those who trust leader B unquestionably is 0.8x49~39 people. The remaining 10 people we'll call swing voters who today voted for leader B.

As a result of this election "leader A" won.

Now let's say by tomorrow leader A screwed up somehow, fell out of favor. None of the swing voters in group B were affected, because they did not vote for A. Let's say two swing voters out of group A decided that they now will vote for leader B. The group A is now reduced by 2 people (49 votes remaining), while the group B becomes larger by 2 people (51 votes). If the election is to be held tomorrow, the leader B will win.

To summarize. 80% of all voters vote never change their opinions (41 vote for A, 39 for B). Nonetheless, a small shift in swing votes changed the election outcome. Where do you see a contradiction?


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results