Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:55 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:59 pm Fair and square in politics. Are you serious?

you bein' rhetorical?

No. What does fair and square mean in politics?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:44 am Admittedly, this only went so far as to read the wikipedia page on History of Journalism, and the links to UK and US. The authors don't seem to have any particular axe to grind, so taking them at their word you could make a case that efforts have been made by some writers to simply inform their readership, but there doesn't seem to have been any period during which the entire industry was working towards that goal.

How ironic, then, that you chose a wiki.

Most people don't really know what a wiki is. Some think it's a universally trustworthy source. Others think that because it's alleged to be "open," it cannot end up biased. But what it really is, is a very corruptible source curated by non-experts with their own agenda, and sponsored by economic interests. So it's far from a good, reliable or neutral source, though most people hate to realize that, and would rather just believe wikis are neutral.

I remember hearing what happened when Philip Roth, the author, attempted to correct details on the wiki on him that were wrong. The editors kept reverting his changes. So he eventually contacted them, and they informed him that Philip Roth is not an expert on Philip Roth, so they wouldn't let him make his biographical changes. That's just how bad a wiki can be.

The character of the righteous journalist who wishes only to inform is real enough, but nothing in my scant research suggests they have ever been the majority. It is an ideal we may wish other people to aspire to, but there are a lot of normal human beings in their way.

Indeed. But the important point is that there would be a point in differentiating between the ethical journalists and the unethical ones, because at least some would be ethical, and because all would be professionally obligated to approximate the ideal as best they could. So the ideal gives us not only the grounds on which to believe some journalism, but also the grounds to be skeptical and aware of bad journalism.

Abandon that ideal, and both vaporize.

I rather think democracy is continually fighting to ensure that people are allowed to express their opinion;

"Opinion"? What's an "opinion" worth, if it is devoid of, or contrary to facts? "Opinions" are only good things if they are relevant to the facts; otherwise, they're mere delusions. The hope and value of an "opinion" is that it will turn out to be closer to, or maybe even right on the truth. Otherwise, there's no merit in the proliferation of "opinions."

The problem as I see it is that if all news outlets are compelled report the same thing, all you need is one outlet.

Non-sequitur. That doesn't follow at all.

People can make honest mistakes. Two journalists attempting to report exactly the same incident may choose different details, and leave out different ones, in the natural course of shaping their accounts: that's inevitable. Furthermore, two journalists at the same scene will not be standing on the same ground, noticing the same things, so their knowledges will be different: that's inevitable. Moreover, if one of them is wrong about something, or corrupt, then the best corrective to his error or dishonesty is the set of facts presented by the other journalist. Facts can be checked. So there will always be cause for multiple news agencies reporting the same story. That's not going to change.

But that''s not the problem we have in the Biden case. In that case, what we have is all the MSM journalists colluding NOT to report ANY of the facts, so the public cannot see what's being hidden from them at all. And we can all see how bad that is. Multiple, ethical journalists would be the curative to that sort of manipulation.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:07 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:55 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:59 pm Fair and square in politics. Are you serious?

you bein' rhetorical?

No. What does fair and square mean in politics?

in context of the lil exchange between commonsense and me, fair & square means the houseplant/whore won the elections strictly by the rules set forth in the constitution & and as enacted by state legislatures

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:21 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:40 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:00 am At this point, if you believe Plump won, wouldn’t that put you in the minority?

no more or less than believin' smokin' joe & cum-ala won (fair & square)

No, that would be the majority.

*the majority of repub voters believe the elections were rigged; a sizable number of dem voters believe the elections were rigged...do the figurative math









*and: no, I won't run 'round gatherin' stats as evidence...the pollin' is out there...go look it up for yourself...or not...makes me no nevermind either way...I ain't gonna squabble with you over sumthin' this picayune

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:40 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:05 pm

nah, just a repub

A pretty pathetic one at that. Martial law? Really???

these are politicians...why does anything they (any of 'em) do surprise you?

Not surprised, only appalled.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:03 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 4:21 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:40 pm

no more or less than believin' smokin' joe & cum-ala won (fair & square)

No, that would be the majority.

*the majority of repub voters believe the elections were rigged; a sizable number of dem voters believe the elections were rigged...do the figurative math









*and: no, I won't run 'round gatherin' stats as evidence...the pollin' is out there...go look it up for yourself...or not...makes me no nevermind either way...I ain't gonna squabble with you over sumthin' this picayune

Good, ‘cause the only ones squabbling now are in the minority. Remember, there are more Dems who believe the election results than Dems who don’t combined with Repukes who don’t.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:56 pm Good, ‘cause the only ones squabbling now are in the minority. Remember, there are more Dems who believe the election results than Dems who don’t combined with Repukes who don’t.

Let's suppose that's true. I don't actually suppose it for a minute -- what I think is that Dems want to say that the election wasn't rigged, because they want Biden to win -- but I'm certain they know full well that it was rigged. They just want to take the win.

But let's pretend, childish though it may be, that the Dems don't actually know. They're just that thick, let's say, that oblivious to all the evidence. They can't find it, or don't know it exists, or haven't seen any.

When did, "the majority thinks" ever make something true? Even if the majority of the Americans thought the election wasn't rigged, what difference would it make to whether or not it actually was? What's got to be very clear from the Biden laptop thing is that a majority of the American public can be kept from knowing what evidence actually exists, and can be misled. And we can tell that not from some Repub source, but because networks like CNN, that formerly suppressed the story, are now reporting it.

So CNN is showing CNN suppressed the story. Either they were lying then, or they're lying now. But one thing you and I know for certain: they lied.

What I think is really going to turn out to be the case is that a majority in both parties know full well the election was rigged. And the consequences of that we are not going to see until the NEXT election, when all the rules will be gone. Both sides will decide, "If you're going to win, you've got to fight dirty." And the American public will completely lose faith in the whole process.

Who will win? We will see, I suppose. But it won't be honest Democrats or honest Republicans. They'll all be the losers. And it won't be democracy or the truth that wins either.

But that's the world we're now living in, because of the MSM, and because Democrats would rather win than be honest.

the only ones squabbling now are in the minority. Remember, there are more Dems who believe the election results than Dems who don’t combined with Repukes who don’t.

yeah, I don't think so, but...meh

mannie seems to have interest in squabblin' with you on this, and related, subject(s), so I'll leave you two to it

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:42 pm mannie seems to have interest in squabblin' with you on this, and related, subject(s), so I'll leave you two to it

No squabble, Henry.

I believe the election was rigged. I'm pretty sure commonsense does too. He's smart, and can click around and see the evidence; so either he knows the evidence, or is refusing to let himself know the evidence. Either way, the truth is the truth.

But you're right the postures of not-knowing are a waste of time. Then it's just a game of make-believe. So I'll pack it in. But I think it's just as well to put the truth on the table first, which is now done.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:52 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:42 pm mannie seems to have interest in squabblin' with you on this, and related, subject(s), so I'll leave you two to it

No squabble, Henry.

I believe the election was rigged. I'm pretty sure commonsense does too. He's smart, and can click around and see the evidence; so either he knows the evidence, or is refusing to let himself know the evidence. Either way, the truth is the truth.

But you're right the postures of not-knowing are a waste of time. Then it's just a game of make-believe. So I'll pack it in. But I think it's just as well to put the truth on the table first, which is now done.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:55 pm

Hey, I got the gold star!

Four more, and I get to be a general.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:55 pm

Hey, I got the gold star!

Four more, and I get to be a general.

You would only need 3 more to make general.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:55 pm

Hey, I got the gold star!

Four more, and I get to be a general.

You would only need 3 more to make general.

Even better. How many to "supreme commander"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:47 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:24 pm
Hey, I got the gold star!

Four more, and I get to be a general.

You would only need 3 more to make general.

Even better. How many to "supreme commander"?

Allied Supreme Commander is probably 4 or 5 stars.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:51 pm Allied Supreme Commander is probably 4 or 5 stars.

Or just a few "friends" in the press, perhaps.