Author Topic: Latino kids are getting separated from their parents. Whose fault is it?  (Read 2282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
So please clarify your position.

Here's the problem I have with your attempted Socratic method, Miles. Ostensibly you're engaging in what is meant too look like a free-flow conversation that gently but ultimately steers us towards the conclusion you already assume to be the most accurate one. The problem is either in your reading comprehension, or your inflexibility with regard to modifying your beliefs as new information is gained, or perhaps the comprehension of this new information. In any case, it's an exercise in futility. If your summary of my post is your genuine understanding of what I said, then there's no point in clarifying anything because there's no expectation of comprehending the clarification.

Well, this is what you said:



Or one might say that humans have evolved with a natural instinct called "empathy." To one who is familiar with this instinct, knowing when and why it would be applied is as basic to the human condition as understanding when and why one might sleep or eat. One who is not familiar with this instinct, or who lacks this instinct naturally, might consider learning a little simple biology first before jumping into more complicated topics.

You say that empathy is a natural instinct. That makes it biological, right? (you go on yourself to suggest that it is).

So, if someone treats someone badly, they display a lack of empathy. Surely that is an uncontroversial conclusion. And yet, our society punishes those who treat others badly, and labels it 'wrong'.

Can you suggest why that is reasonable?

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +360/-4
You say that empathy is a natural instinct. That makes it biological, right? (you go on yourself to suggest that it is).

So, if someone treats someone badly, they display a lack of empathy. Surely that is an uncontroversial conclusion. And yet, our society punishes those who treat others badly, and labels it 'wrong'.

Can you suggest why that is reasonable?

Not while you are attempting to use this poor excuse of the Socratic method, for reasons I just explained.

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
You say that empathy is a natural instinct. That makes it biological, right? (you go on yourself to suggest that it is).

So, if someone treats someone badly, they display a lack of empathy. Surely that is an uncontroversial conclusion. And yet, our society punishes those who treat others badly, and labels it 'wrong'.

Can you suggest why that is reasonable?

Not while you are attempting to use this poor excuse of the Socratic method, for reasons I just explained.

Right. If I misinterpret your post, its all about my deficiencies, no chance you simply explained things poorly or ambiguously.

Maybe Velkyn can explain why people should be held accountable by society for behaving in a way that demonstrates a lack of biological traits.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Interesting that you still haven't provided a response to that. Are you prepared to?

Wow, that's damn near trolling, under the circumstances.

And of course, there's that ever-present hypocrisy too.

You're on a roll Miles.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
Interesting that you still haven't provided a response to that. Are you prepared to?

Wow, that's damn near trolling, under the circumstances.

And of course, there's that ever-present hypocrisy too.

You're on a roll Miles.

No hypocrisy. I either address posts or I don't. Velkyn has a habit of commenting on posts without addressing the question asked. "I think its hilarious that..." "Isn't it great to se..." etc etc etc

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Miles, I can't take you seriously at this point. At all.

You put up a poll (OMThor, you've got to be kidding me  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ) asking the forum to let you ignore the rules, and you appear to have done so with a straight face.

I don't care if velkyn is annoying you. You've got no basis to complain under the circumstances.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
Miles, I can't take you seriously at this point. At all.

You put up a poll (OMThor, you've got to be kidding me  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ) asking the forum to let you ignore the rules, and you appear to have done so with a straight face.

I don't care if velkyn is annoying you. You've got no basis to complain under the circumstances.

Didn't complain. Asked if she was going to address the actual question. She has now. (not very convincingly, mind you)

And I don't ignore the rules, or I am sure big J would put me on moderation. There is no rule to say I need to stay engaged in one thread for eternity. And you know as well as me that a theist would never be allowed to have the final say in ANY thread, so if I didn't move on, they WOULD go for eternity.

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
and you appear to have done so with a straight face.


Apart from the Velkyn theist crush option. That was tongue in cheek.

Why wouldn't I create such a poll with a straight face? It allows people to anonymously tell me to piss off from the forum if they so desire. I thought it was quite thoughtful of me.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Wow, I thought it was among the most arrogant things I've ever seen.

Obviously, we see it differently.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +360/-4
Right. If I misinterpret your post, its all about my deficiencies, no chance you simply explained things poorly or ambiguously.

That is a possibility Miles, but no one else seems to have the same problems understanding as you. Instead of trying to restate what I say with conclusions you assume I'm pointing to, why don't you say what you think directly?

Quote
Maybe Velkyn can explain why people should be held accountable by society for behaving in a way that demonstrates a lack of biological traits.

Case in point. No one said people should be held accountable by society for behaving in a way that demonstrates a lack of biological traits.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 01:45:50 AM by albeto »

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
Right. If I misinterpret your post, its all about my deficiencies, no chance you simply explained things poorly or ambiguously.

That is a possibility Miles, but no one else seems to have the same problems understanding as you. Instead of trying to restate what I say with conclusions you assume I'm pointing to, why don't you say what you think directly?

Quote
Maybe Velkyn can explain why people should be held accountable by society for behaving in a way that demonstrates a lack of biological traits.

Case in point. No one said people should be held accountable by society for behaving in a way that demonstrates a lack of biological traits.

Velkyn confirmed that people should be accountable for their actions. But if their actions are driven by lack of empathy or low intelligence, wouldn't that mean they are being punished for their biology?

What's your take on it?
G

Offline magicmiles 2.0

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Darwins +14/-30
If I physically hurt someone to get what I need, in what sense is that morally wrong, if I lack empathy?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18386
  • Darwins +446/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"

 
More
As a requirement prior to returning their children, two mothers who fled domestic violence and relocated to my district in #MA were asked whether they were Christian and attended church. This must stop.

Source? If this can verified, I will 100% share your outrage.

source? The people who experienced it and the representative reporting it.  And no, MM, I don't believe for a second you would be outraged at this.  Not considering your excuses for Christianity, including the claim that morals only come from you god. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18386
  • Darwins +446/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"


Yes, people should be held accountable because we aren't only led by instinct.  We have intellect.

What does intellect have to do with it?

Intellect allows one to override instinct.   But nice try to avoid the obvious.


 
Quote
I wouldn't blame a dog for biting me, but I would a human.  Empathy is a purely biological trait,  we have no magic supernatural parts.  You've failed again, MM.

I think you're really struggling with this line of questioning. You say on the one hand that empathy is purely biological, but you then say it is right that those without empathy should be blamed for it. It seems like an entirely unreasonable and contradictory POV. And bringing up 'intelligence' doesn't bring much clarity, either. All that does is say people should also be punished for having a lower intelligence.

nice baseless claim again, MM.    Again, empathy is purely biological.  Intellect is completely biological and yes, people who make choices, because we can, can be held accountable. 

Please do explain why this is an "entirely unreasonable and contradictory POV".  Surely you can, right?  Or are you just making more baseless claims, hoping that someone else will do your work for you.  And nice try again, no one said anything about people being punished for having a lower intelligence.   

and where miles again tries to twist words and fails hilariously

Quote
Maybe Velkyn can explain why people should be held accountable by society for behaving in a way that demonstrates a lack of biological traits.

getting further and further afield because he can't keep his attempts to twist words straight.

And dear Miles, evidence please for this baseless claim
Quote
Velkyn has a habit of commenting on posts without addressing the question asked. "I think its hilarious that..." "Isn't it great to se..." etc etc etc

citing those statements doesn't show that I've not addressed questions.   But again, nice try in moving the goalposts when you don't get the response you think you can demand. 

and this is an outright lie by MM

Quote
And you know as well as me that a theist would never be allowed to have the final say in ANY thread, so if I didn't move on, they WOULD go for eternity.
  And I have no problem saying that. 
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 07:25:17 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
He's obviously being prompted by the Holy Spirit.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +360/-4
Velkyn confirmed that people should be accountable for their actions. But if their actions are driven by lack of empathy or low intelligence, wouldn't that mean they are being punished for their biology?

What's your take on it?
G

If I physically hurt someone to get what I need, in what sense is that morally wrong, if I lack empathy?

I agree with Emergence. This is so far off topic, and such a randomly selected point in which to jump in and start playing the "but why" game that it really does appear as if your function here is simply to disrupt conversation.

Nevertheless, if you start another thread I'd like to participate. I enjoy this topic very much in general.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
To have no concern about the well-being of others is immoral.

Why?

That should be obvious to you.

Humans are a social species.   

This argument that morals are irrelevant if there are no gods is pathetic. If the only reason you are kind or not violent is to please an all-powerful God, then your moral reasoning is no more than that of a young child.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4930
  • Darwins +358/-117
  • Gender: Female
  • MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT. Seeing is believing!
Quote from: MagicMiles
Please clarify your position. Are you saying that people SHOULD be held accountable for being different biologically?

Yes you have to hold people accountable for breaking societal contracts. The well-being of the many take precedence over the well-being of one. That being said, that person with a biological defect should be treated in an ethical way.
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change...
Michael Jackson and Batman

Offline John 3 16

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Darwins +5/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
According to the White House website, building a border wall to address illegal immigration is the first, highest priority. It's even written out in bold.
I believe with a physical border wall, the number of people who risk their lives crossing the border will be far less.  Hence, less children will be in danger.
Quote
Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. At best it's just a distraction, but mostly it's the childish temper tantrum like behavior we both don't want to see any more.
I was stating a fact, if you've been watching CNN or MSNBC you could easily find out.  It surely is nothing but a distraction towards Trump administration.
Quote
I call shenanigans on this argument as well. If your contention is our democracy is in a state of threat, then addressing the greatest threat to that democracy is the logical approach. Surely you don't mean to argue that rape is a greater threat to democracy than tampering with the democratic process itself.
You are putting words in my mouth.  Let's go back in time a little.

My contention was that the family separation at the border is the irresponsible parents' fault not the Agency who enforces the law.  And we must obey all US laws, we cannot follow some and ignore others, that is the way to protect our democracy. 
Hacking happens all the time, that doesn't mean we should take it lightly but I still do believe Children's lives are far more important than anything.  How about you? do you disagree?
BTW, if the Democrats think foreign interference and hacking is the number one issue, why aren't they investigating Hillery's email which 17 intelligence agencies agree that any rookies can hack into all those classified info.
Quote
Also, you're assuming this particular group provides the greatest threat of violent crimes. This argument isn't based on fact, as both these arguments are objectively false (a simple fact-checking will reveal this). This argument is based on a historical trend of identifying the next wave of immigrants as dangers to the American way of life. This trend goes back generations and generations.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I think it's caused by either your bias or your ignorance.  I just hope its latter.
I have been saying that people are people Latino, blacks, Asians, Whites, there will always be a few bad apples in a big batch of people.

Quote
If your contention is people who engage in unwanted sexual assault are dangerous to the security and integrity of the nation, then a self-admitted assaulter shouldn't be sitting in the highest office of the government. Violent crimes would be addressed through efficient means, such as finding common causes of such behavior and addressing risks before adverse behaviors present themselves. Poverty wouldn't be addressed as a kind of natural consequences for not trying hard enough, it would addressed by supplementing the lack of opportunities known to contribute to these conditions. It would be addressed by increasing efforts to provide education, job experiences, stress reduction, medical care (including family planning, including abortion), and increasing the sense of community rather than division. Prisons would be reorganized to stop operating as punishment/vengeance centers for profit and provide instead educational, emotional, social, mental and job skills necessary to integrate into society in a productive, cooperative way.
Strawman.
Quote
I think what you really are doing, based on your posting history and on the rhetoric you use, is trying to find a legitimate reason to blame a group of people who you feel threaten your overall way of life, your culture, the future of your family and community. The problem is, the facts don't support the fear that this group of people is a threat to your way of life, your culture, or the future of your family and community. I wonder if what is really the problem is watching the world evolve in a way that makes you feel unsettled. That's totally understandable. It's human nature. The older generation has always tried to warn the young generation that they're going to hell in a hand-basket if they don't shape up and return to the old ways.

But there are more direct, more efficient, kinder ways to address that. Demonizing (to use your word) groups of people in hopes that will alleviate this fear has a history of being ineffective, in addition to knowingly unleash unnecessary and regrettable suffering on people. If it is your goal at all to not be the instrument of unjust suffering, then you might take the time to see how you can solve your problem without doing so. I suspect the problem you have isn't illegal immigration, that's just the proposed solution. I suspect the real problem is fear of a dying culture.
I am becoming tired of your stawman attacks, I just hope it's a misconception.  Also that is normally what happens when you skimm through a thread and jump in without notifying other members like this time.  I advise you not to do that next time.  It creates unnecessary misunderstanding and a lot of noise.
If I ever stop showing up here.
You know I am unjustly banned by Mods.

Offline John 3 16

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Darwins +5/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
That's quite amusing.

You think? Have you rethought your philosophy regarding participation here?


Not at all. I'll always move on to a different thread at a certain point -  a point of my choosing.
As the owner of this thread, you are welcomed to stay as long as you wish. Mr. Miles.
If I ever stop showing up here.
You know I am unjustly banned by Mods.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +360/-4
I believe with a physical border wall, the number of people who risk their lives crossing the border will be far less.  Hence, less children will be in danger.

That's a fine sentiment, but unrelated to your comment, "illegal immigration is a small part of its many immigration policies." You were explaining a belief you had, one that I showed was in conflict with information you can observe yourself.

Quote
I was stating a fact...

You are referring to your comment that every time Trump mentions our illegal immigration problem, main steam media on the left screams "Trump is anti immigration!!" You say you are stating this as a fact. What is your source? How are you defining main stream media on the left? How are you quantifying screaming? How do you account for the times Trump mentions the problem of illegal immigration and a news source doesn't scream this? What do you think it means for something to be a fact?

Quote
You are putting words in my mouth.  Let's go back in time a little.

I don't believe I am. The idiom "putting words in my mouth" refers to falsely attributing a statement or belief to someone. You said, "By definition, anything illegal must be stopped to keep our democracy," and I offered some examples of illegal activities that I submit present a greater threat to our democracy. By definition this is not putting words into your mouth but rather following up on what you said by providing specific examples for your clarification.

Quote
My contention was that the family separation at the border is the irresponsible parents' fault not the Agency who enforces the law.  And we must obey all US laws, we cannot follow some and ignore others, that is the way to protect our democracy. 

That was not your contention to me in the context of our discussion. Your contention to me, in reply to the question why the wall was so important now, was that it provides protections to keep our democracy.

Quote
Hacking happens all the time, that doesn't mean we should take it lightly but I still do believe Children's lives are far more important than anything.  How about you? do you disagree?

So is your argument that democracy must be protected, or children must be protected? If it's democracy, why not address activities that are known to produce greater threats than illegal immigrants? If it's children, why not address demographics that are known to produce greater threats than illegal immigrants? If it's both, why not address those activities that are known to produce greater threats to the safety and well being of both our democratic policies and children? Why do you think this group, known to be a lesser threat for all the things you claim are worthy of addressing, has become such a focal point of this administration in lieu of other variables known to create greater threats?

Quote
BTW, if the Democrats think foreign interference and hacking is the number one issue, why aren't they investigating Hillery's email which 17 intelligence agencies agree that any rookies can hack into all those classified info.

This question is misleading and a distraction from the topic we are discussing. This is a red herring.

Quote
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I think it's caused by either your bias or your ignorance.  I just hope its latter.
I have been saying that people are people Latino, blacks, Asians, Whites, there will always be a few bad apples in a big batch of people.

Again, I'm not attributing false statements, I'm following up with what you said. You have been saying the Trump administration goes after illegal immigrants in order to "keep our democracy." To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't know how illegal immigrants are understood to thwart our ability to keep our democracy.

If there are a few bad apples in a big batch of people, why such enormous efforts to stop and separate people at the border? Why focus on a physical wall for a few bad apples? Which is it, a few bad apples, or a sizable threat to democracy, one that requires the top priority of the office of the president?

Quote
Strawman.

A straw man argument is one in which one person gives the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. I'm not refuting an argument you didn't make, I'm using your direct words and applying them in context of what is happening today. You say very specifically that illegal immigrants are raping kids at the border. If your argument is that people who commit sexual assaults are dangerous to our democracy (which is a paraphrase of what you've been saying, I can link to specific comments if you'd like), then why is the office of the president held by a man who joked and bragged about committing sexual assaults? This is not a straw man argument but another follow up question based on your answers to previous questions.

Quote
I am becoming tired of your stawman attacks, I just hope it's a misconception.

Arguably, this is not a straw man argument either by definition simply because it is my stated opinion. I'm summarizing your behavior and seeing a similar, greater trend.

Quote
Also that is normally what happens when you skimm through a thread and jump in without notifying other members like this time.  I advise you not to do that next time.  It creates unnecessary misunderstanding and a lot of noise.

First of all, I didn't skim the parts of the thread to which you and I had a direct dialog, and those are the only parts to which I have been referring.

Secondly, I don't know what you mean by jumping in without notifying other members. To the best of my knowledge, our participation is notification enough, as anyone who reads is immediately aware of who posts.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 10:45:52 PM by albeto »

Offline John 3 16

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Darwins +5/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
That's a fine sentiment, but unrelated to your comment, "illegal immigration is a small part of its many immigration policies." You were explaining a belief you had, one that I showed was in conflict with information you can observe yourself.
You are right about that and I thank you for the correction.
Quote
You are referring to your comment that every time Trump mentions our illegal immigration problem, main steam media on the left screams "Trump is anti immigration!!" You say you are stating this as a fact. What is your source? How are you defining main stream media on the left? How are you quantifying screaming? How do you account for the times Trump mentions the problem of illegal immigration and a news source doesn't scream this? What do you think it means for something to be a fact?
I wrote what I experienced.  It seems very dishonest that self proclaiming neutral news channels such as CNN, MSMBC their coverage is like 97% anti Trump messages.  Very dishonest.  Is it relevant to our discussion? could be.
Quote
I don't believe I am. The idiom "putting words in my mouth" refers to falsely attributing a statement or belief to someone. You said, "By definition, anything illegal must be stopped to keep our democracy," and I offered some examples of illegal activities that I submit present a greater threat to our democracy. By definition this is not putting words into your mouth but rather following up on what you said by providing specific examples for your clarification.
I didn't think you were doing it intentionally either.  You said
Quote
Also, you're assuming this particular group provides the greatest threat of violent crimes.
It's pretty bold statement but I never said that.  Find me in this thread, anything close to what I said something like that.

Quote
That was not your contention to me in the context of our discussion. Your contention to me, in reply to the question why the wall was so important now, was that it provides protections to keep our democracy.
Well there is greater context than the context of our discussion, it's the context of the entire thread.  If you want the actual context it's best to read the entire thread starting from my OP.
That's why I said skimming and jumping in isn't always the best way but you did, I do it quite often myself as well but I think when we do it, it helps by informing  other members by saying "I haven't followed the entire thread" that way, if there is any statement out of context, you can be corrected instead of being misrepresented.

Quote
So is your argument that democracy must be protected, or children must be protected? If it's democracy, why not address activities that are known to produce greater threats than illegal immigrants?
Strangest false dichotomy, why can't we walk and chew gum at the same time by building a wall.
Save the children from the risk, save democracy by enforcing all laws.

Quote
If there are a few bad apples in a big batch of people, why such enormous efforts to stop and separate people at the border? Why focus on a physical wall for a few bad apples? Which is it, a few bad apples, or a sizable threat to democracy, one that requires the top priority of the office of the president?
We lock our front doors not because all of our neighbors are bad right? it's always few bad people that make us protect ourselves.
If you believe cyber security is a greater threat than anything that's fine by me.
I still believe people's lives hold far greater value than anything.

Quote
A straw man argument is one in which one person gives the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. I'm not refuting an argument you didn't make, I'm using your direct words and applying them in context of what is happening today.
You created another John who asserts "we must fight our greatest threat to our democracy, which is illegal immigrants!!" which is false.  Take a look at my original post and the title of this thread.  It's not "save our democracy from dangerous Mexicans!!"

Quote
First of all, I didn't skim the parts of the thread to which you and I had a direct dialog, and those are the only parts to which I have been referring.

Secondly, I don't know what you mean by jumping in without notifying other members. To the best of my knowledge, our participation is notification enough, as anyone who reads is immediately aware of who posts.
Firstly, if you want the context, read the whole book by starting from the page 1, which is the very first post in this thread.  Because I don't have time to explain the entire context every time someone jumps in.
Secondly, notifying other members implies letting other people know that you don't know the entire conversation because you are skimming and seeing a few interesting posts and jumping in.
If I ever stop showing up here.
You know I am unjustly banned by Mods.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18386
  • Darwins +446/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
I wrote what I experienced.  It seems very dishonest that self proclaiming neutral news channels such as CNN, MSMBC their coverage is like 97% anti Trump messages.  Very dishonest.  Is it relevant to our discussion? could be.

in that this isn't true, dishonesty is relevant to the discussion and any discussion one might have with you, j316.   

Please support your claim.  You made it, now you are held responsible for it.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline John 3 16

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Darwins +5/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
If I ever stop showing up here.
You know I am unjustly banned by Mods.

Offline John 3 16

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Darwins +5/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative

And, Velkyn unless you take 180 degree turn from your despicable behavior towards people who disagree with you, you won't hear a word from me anymore.
If I ever stop showing up here.
You know I am unjustly banned by Mods.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative

And, Velkyn unless you take 180 degree turn from your despicable behavior towards people who disagree with you, you won't hear a word from me anymore.

Your article literally says that it's simply because of all the shit that's happened since Trump became president. So maybe it's not that 93% of the coverage is negative; maybe it's that 93% of the stuff he's involved in is negative.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
I don't know what argument John is making, but the article he cites is copied in full:


How negative was press coverage of President Trump's first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.

That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Ninety-three percent negative — that's a lot by anybody's standards. "CNN and NBC's coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks," the study noted. "Trump's coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity."

The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nation's history," the authors wrote, "has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."

But the authors made clear that journalists are very much part of the problem. "At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it," the study said:

The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump's first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse. The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties. The news media's exemplary coverage of Trump's cruise missile strike on Syria illustrates the type of even-handedness that needs to be consistently and rigorously applied.

The Harvard team is undoubtedly now studying coverage of Trump's second 100 days. (They issued reports on key periods in the presidential campaign, as well.) The question is, will anything change?


As I said, I don't know what 'argument' John is making, but based on what I see in quotes, he either didn't read the entire article, or he deliberately ignored parts of it.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline John 3 16

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
  • Darwins +5/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Darwins +0/-1,000,000,000
My argument is this.

If I ever stop showing up here.
You know I am unjustly banned by Mods.

Offline stuffin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1641
  • Darwins +119/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
My argument is this.



If you showed him trump it would only be seconds before he found the crime.
Don't stop smiling at the world and keep your head full of hope.