Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'm glad you can admit that. Now if we can just get you to start being big on facts, there's hope for you yet.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New Study Strongly Suggests that Fox News Viewers are Exceptionally Misinformed
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
- Status
I'm glad you can admit that. Now if we can just get you to start being big on facts, there's hope for you yet.
You're not big on facts either.
You just don't know it.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Seeing as how it's a fact that I'm big on facts, and you're not big on facts, I guess it's not surprising you don't understand that I'm big on facts.
See...you think that's a fact, but it isn't.
Tis just faith in your own opinion.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Again, we already know you're not big on facts, therefore it's not surprising to realize that you don't recognize the fact that I am big on facts.
Alceste
Vagabond
Wow, you won't respond to any attempt at empirical study or any factual claims with meaningful methodological criticism, contrary evidence or evidence-supported counter-claims, and still you are absolutely, inflexibly certain that Fox is exactly the same as any other news network, and anyone who believes otherwise is irrational. Furthermore, everybody else is on even shakier ground than you, since at least you KNOW your opinion is based on nothing. And to top it off, you don't even watch it, so you have no way to assess its potential bias for yourself!
That's incredible. Is there an award for that sort of thing on RF? Maybe there should be, although it would be a toss-up between you and Rick for the win.
Wow! You read so much extra into my posts. Let me pare away your additions:
- Fox is not exactly the same as other sources. All have bias, but there are differences in degree & how it is handled.
- People may disagree with me & be entirely rational. (Of course, not all are.)
I'm hoping for an award for mostest revoltingful posts since they don't have one for shovel holding or fist waving.
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
And Kathryn; don't forget Kathryn.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I know everything about stuff that I've never seen.
No need for an award though. Just call me daddy.
Alceste
Vagabond
Kathryn is in a category of her own. She looks stuff up, it just never seems to be directly related to the topic at hand. I call that type of thing a "fact bomb". You get a million links to non-relevant information that is somewhat credible and can spend all afternoon reading it, but afterward you always feel like you've been hoodwinked into changing or dropping the subject. Case in point - I only need to see one single credible study that concludes Fox is not the worst, or that all networks are equally biased and my opinion will change. Instead we have to look at a million links to right wing editorials, attacks on the organization that performed this study and a bunch of other irrelevant stuff that I can't even remember any more.
You set too high a standard. If a source doesn't confirm points you want made, then it's irrelevant.
If one criticizes shortcomings of your source, then it's dismissed as an "attack".
Answering your needs is above my pay grade.
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Haha! Oh, hypocrisy, you are so wonderful. Nice try, old man.
****MOD POST****
After staff review, we decided to reopen this thread.
If we want to keep it open, the personal remarks have to stop.
The staff is going to closely moderate this thread from this point forward and will deal with any further violations harshly.
After staff review, we decided to reopen this thread.
If we want to keep it open, the personal remarks have to stop.
The staff is going to closely moderate this thread from this point forward and will deal with any further violations harshly.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
That's good because I don't admit to you being wonderful either.
See, mods....we might be slow, but we can learn to be respectful.
Alceste
Vagabond
You're a bit off, there. I set a high standard, but the information that gets a pass has little to do with simply affirming my opinions. In fact, my opinions change all the time in response to the information that passes through my high standards.
You'll run across these standards again and again in these debates. Loads of us have them: Peer-reviewed published research, particularly from an academic institution and preferably not funded by industrial interests, primary, unfiltered documentation such as that provided by services like wiki-leaks, layman's books on various topics written by respected and accomplished experts, again not funded by industrial interests.
That sort of thing. And of course apart from all that it has to be relevant.
There you go - you know my achilles heel. Armed with the above, you too can change my opinions, even with a single post. It happens all the time when I talk to the other liberals, centrists and moderate conservatives around here, but conservative extremists just don't seem to be able to tear themselves away from the Heritage Foundation. That doesn't cut it for me.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I know you didn't mean this as a compliment, but in a bass ackwards way, it IS one.
But then, I'm a positive person.
By the way, your post about me perfectly illustrates an issue that I've been pointing out - a certain unattractive predisposition of some forum members to insist on turning what should be an objective debate into an opportunity for personal insults.
As I've said before, this tends to undermine your credibility. In all honesty, I recommend that you try to refrain from making things personal, and stick to the issue that's being debated.
You're right - I do look things up, and give sources for my assertions - which I think is a good discipline. If you can't connect the dots, I'm truly sorry. But I think this is more an issue of you simply disagreeing rather than an issue of information being presented.
See above. I get a lot of positive feedback from many of my posts - so once again, I think this is more a matter of simply not acceptinig the information presented.
And thanks once again for pointing out that I do source my position. At least I think it's obvious that I don't just shoot from the hip. I really enjoy researching topics and sharing that information. It gives perspective to my position - and hey, I actually learn things when I research!
Why would I want to defend Fox over other media sources? I believe that Fox IS a biased newsource - and I think I've made that clear. My argument here has been that the study is flawed and of poor quality.
I think you must be confusing my posts with posts from other people. I don't believe I've posted links to "right wing editorials" or any other right wing organizations on this thread (if I have, it's been a rarity, and most likely balanced by some other source).
In fact, I generally avoid such sources - in part because I realize that such sources not only would probably not give ME a balanced view of whatever it is I'm researching, but also because I realize that posting such sources would be a waste of time, and actually detrimental to the integrity of my post. I genuinely try to glean my facts and my position from the most neutral sources I can dig up.
In fact, one reason why I learn so much as I research issues here (and why I enjoy the challenges that I often find on this site), is because I believe that if I want to truly understand someone's position (whether it be a fellow RF member or a politician) I should listen directly to THEM - go directly to THEIR website or book or post - rather than base my opinion on someone else's opinion. In other words, if I want to know what Obama says about something - read HIS words, not Sean Hannity's. If I want to know the Catholic Church's position on something, read the catechism, not the editorial in the Huffington Post.
Only after I research an issue from that perspective do I then branch out and begin to research differing opinions.
I do realize though that some people don't approach issues that way - but to me, that's indicative of a personal agenda and a closed mind.
I see otherwise.
You cull that which suits you, imagine that your sources are better, & bend these "facts" to your needs.
We all do this to varying extents. Some just don't know it.
Last edited:
- Status