American election.

[Immanuel Can]

You mean you think journalists should do "whatever the public happens to suppose"? So propagandizing, hiding the truth, or even telling outright lies is "good" journalism, so long as that's what the public wants to believe?

What I think journalists should do has no bearing on what journalists actually do.

I didn't say it did. I didn't ask you what journalists do, since plausibly some are good and some are bad at it; I asked you to say what you think journalists should do, how they morally ought to conduct their craft. In other words, I asked you what are the objectives of a good journalist, one who practices his profession with journalistic integrity.

So please answer.

Do you mean to imply that I think wildly inaccurate reporting is "good"?

I hope you don't. I'm asking, not telling.

It is simply the case that many news agencies have an editorial bias.

Irrelevant. My question is "OUGHT they to strive for objectivity? not "Are they all perfect at it?" As I said before, one doesn't have to be perfect in order for it to be very valuable to pursue an ideal. For instance, no doubt your spouse wishes you to pursue the ideal of fidelity, even if, as a consequence of your moral imperfections, your eyes sometimes have wandered.

In my view it is to your credit that you question what you heard, but intentionally or otherwise, by posing the rhetorical "Where, then, is "the will of the people"?" you will have given some people the impression that something happened that they should be angry about.

No, no...I did not assert or assume or "give the impression" of anything. Notice the word "then" above. It's an "if-then," not a "therefore." In other words, I'm asking, "IF there has been misleading of the public, then what does that do to the concept 'the will of the people'?"

And the answer, obviously is rhetorical. And you know what it would mean. It would mean that the election was no longer "the will of the people," because their vote was premised on falsehoods and lack of honest data. They were misled as to what the real options and facts were. The journalists propagandized them by withholding important, true information that they needed in order to make an informed choice.

[Immanuel Can]

It’s interesting that now, any criticisms of Joe Biden will hasten both his departure and the installation of Kamala Harris.

The source for this information?

Logic.

Links on how to think? Not necessary.

Yes, I suspect the same. We'll now get all the information about the laptop, Biden's corruption, his obvious senility and incapacity for any office, and Kamala -- whom even the Dems despised a few months ago, and rejected early from the running for candidate -- will be ushered into place. But she's so obviously corrupt herself that the puppet masters of the party will make of her whatever they want.

She may not have been their first choice, by a long stretch; but she's now their most convenient tool.

It's cynical on the part of the Dems. But it smacks of their modus operandi, alright. I do expect Biden to be removed in a few months, if he is installed. He's not functional.

[commonsense]

Me thinks IC doth protest too much.

Also, I don’t think, IC, that you understand rhetorically.

Nor that the condition of is/ought ought not be what imperfection is.

If you don’t understand literary devices, then how can you be rhetorical enough to use them? If that’s so, that would mean you’re saying that all that is is imperfect, wouldn’t it? Where does that leave you?

[Immanuel Can]

Me thinks IC doth protest too much.

I'm not protesting. I'm asking.

I'm not getting any answer, but I'm asking.

Also, I don’t think, IC, that you understand rhetorically.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I do.

I think that maybe what is confusing you is the combining with a hypothetical with a rhetorical question, as in "IF...then...," with an obvious, inescapable conclusion attached. The conclusion is rhetorical IF the "if" is presumed, and not if it isn't.

[commonsense]

...you chose junk.

So you think the Biden laptop doesn't exist, and Hunter Biden isn't a corrupt drug user, and Joe Biden hasn't taken bribes, and the FBI isn't even investigating?

Funny. The Biden family knows better. And I'll bet we'll find out whose sources are "junk."

So you think you know what I think?

Absurd. You mistake skepticism for declarative conclusion.

You chose not to verify what you imply by choosing to not ask any questions of the obvious source of verification/disverification.

[commonsense]

Me thinks IC doth protest too much.

I'm not protesting. I'm asking.

I'm not getting any answer, but I'm asking.

Also, I don’t think, IC, that you understand rhetorically.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I do.

I think that maybe what is confusing you is the combining with a hypothetical with a rhetorical question, as in "IF...then...," with an obvious, inescapable conclusion attached. The conclusion is rhetorical IF the "if" is presumed, and not if it isn't.

If there’s an assumed answer to a question, it isn’t asking, it’s asserting in the guise of a question. What you are protesting is the observation that your question has an assumed (rhetorical) answer. It’s a device of rhetoric that you are using while denying that you’re using it. You are being deceptive in so-doing, whether ignorantly or intentionally.

[Immanuel Can]

...you chose junk.

So you think the Biden laptop doesn't exist, and Hunter Biden isn't a corrupt drug user, and Joe Biden hasn't taken bribes, and the FBI isn't even investigating?

Funny. The Biden family knows better. And I'll bet we'll find out whose sources are "junk."

So you think you know what I think?

Do you notice the question mark?

What is the answer?

[commonsense]

So you think the Biden laptop doesn't exist, and Hunter Biden isn't a corrupt drug user, and Joe Biden hasn't taken bribes, and the FBI isn't even investigating?

Funny. The Biden family knows better. And I'll bet we'll find out whose sources are "junk."

So you think you know what I think?

Do you notice the question mark?

What is the answer?

The rhetorically implied answers are yes, it’s true that you think you know what I think, and you saying no, it isn’t what you think despite it actually being what you think.

Your turn.

[Immanuel Can]

Me thinks IC doth protest too much.

I'm not protesting. I'm asking.

I'm not getting any answer, but I'm asking.

Also, I don’t think, IC, that you understand rhetorically.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I do.

I think that maybe what is confusing you is the combining with a hypothetical with a rhetorical question, as in "IF...then...," with an obvious, inescapable conclusion attached. The conclusion is rhetorical IF the "if" is presumed, and not if it isn't.

If there’s an assumed answer to a question, it isn’t asking, it’s asserting in the guise of a question.

I was right. You've missed the distinction between a declarative rhetorical claim and a hypothetical rhetorical claim. I'll reword.

"IF the journalists have been withholding crucial, now-verified information from the electorate,THEN is that a corrupting of "the will of the people"?

You may answer as you wish.

[Immanuel Can]

So you think you know what I think?

Do you notice the question mark?

What is the answer?

Yes.

Your turn.

Then you know I was asking you, not telling you what you think. So what do you think?

[commonsense]

I'm not protesting. I'm asking.

I'm not getting any answer, but I'm asking.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure I do.

I think that maybe what is confusing you is the combining with a hypothetical with a rhetorical question, as in "IF...then...," with an obvious, inescapable conclusion attached. The conclusion is rhetorical IF the "if" is presumed, and not if it isn't.

If there’s an assumed answer to a question, it isn’t asking, it’s asserting in the guise of a question.

I was right. You've missed the distinction between a declarative rhetorical claim and a hypothetical rhetorical claim. I'll reword.

"IF the journalists have been withholding crucial, now-verified information from the electorate,THEN is that a corrupting of "the will of the people"?

You may answer as you wish.

You have disguised your rhetorical question by hiding it within an if-then conditional.

BTW, are you using the Queen’s English, American English or some other parochialism?

[commonsense]

Do you notice the question mark?

What is the answer?

Yes.

Your turn.

Then you know I was asking you, not telling you what you think. So what do you think?

Oops! This was not my reply which was edited.

[Immanuel Can]

If there’s an assumed answer to a question, it isn’t asking, it’s asserting in the guise of a question.

I was right. You've missed the distinction between a declarative rhetorical claim and a hypothetical rhetorical claim. I'll reword.

"IF the journalists have been withholding crucial, now-verified information from the electorate,THEN is that a corrupting of "the will of the people"?

You may answer as you wish.

You have disguised your rhetorical question by hiding it within an if-then conditional.

Ah, I see...

So if I just ask the question, but the answer to it is obvious, then that's bad?

No, that's "rhetorical".

I actually really don't need the answer from you, because it's obvious to anyone...and to you as well.

If the journalists had, and withheld from the electorate, information that would have changed the voting pattern, (information that they are NOW reporting), then Americans were deprived of their participation in "the will of the people," by journalists who knew darn well what they were doing.

[commonsense]

Yes.

Your turn.

Then you know I was asking you, not telling you what you think. So what do you think?

Oops! This was not my reply which was edited.

The assumption is that you would answer yes, I think I know what you think or you would answer no, I don’t think I know what you think (even though you do).

If there’s an assumed answer, it’s telling.

Quit revealing your grammatical ignorance and go back to what credible journalism means to you.

[Immanuel Can]

If there’s an assumed answer, it’s telling.

Yes...it's "telling" of what an honest answer would be.