Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Well you see

1. What I read in the Muller Report matches very closely with what Liberal media such as CNN, NBC, MSNBC, Huffpost & CBS have been reporting.

2. What I read in the Mueller Report is does not at all match, and is in fact, completely at odds with what conservative media such as Faux News, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannitty and Rush Limbaugh have been reporting.

You don't need to be A. Einstein to work out who is lying about what's in the report and who isn't.
Click to expand...

I don't know how well I could actually articulate and defend those claims. If I made those claims and then tried to defend them I'm quickly in a philosophical morass.
 
What philosophical morass?

Mueller:If I could have exonerated the president, I would have.
President: Total exoneration!

One of these things is not like the other.

* italics meant to imply paraphrase and not a direct quote.
 
Last edited:
dmaker said:
What philosophical morass?

Mueller:If I could have exonerated the president, I would have.
President: Total exoneration!

One of these things is not like the other.

* italics meant to imply paraphrase and not a direct quote.
Click to expand...

We were not talking about statements by the president.
 
dmaker said:
What philosophical morass?

Mueller:If I could have exonerated the president, I would have.
President: Total exoneration!

One of these things is not like the other.

* italics meant to imply paraphrase and not a direct quote.
Click to expand...

Crap. Now I can't get La mort de l'auteur by Barthes of my head and fundamental questions about how much or how little an author is the interpreter of their own work and what it even means for Mueller to convey a message.

Thanks for that headache.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Crap. Now I can't get La mort de l'auteur by Barthes of my head and fundamental questions about how much or how little an author is the interpreter of their own work and what it even means for Mueller to convey a message.

Thanks for that headache.
Click to expand...

The Mueller report is not a work of literary fiction.
 
Aridas said:
It doesn't work well, given the present situation. Confirmation bias and various other bias certainly do exist, of course, but... there are a few things worth remembering. For example, when it comes to what values "liberals" universally hold, it's pretty much just "truth" and "fairness." Conservatives are more spread out in what values they hold, but things like "loyalty" are roughly equivalent to "truth," on average. Liberals are, in short, fundamentally not inclined to fit your proposal. Also, to speak for myself, in my observation, liberals are much more likely to question information from liberal sources than conservatives are to question information from "conservative" sources.
Click to expand...
It is an inherent part of liberalism to be tolerant, which leads to questioning one's own position in the face of another's; whereas, it is an inherent part of conservative to keep what one has, which leads to not questioning one's own position in an attempt to keep it.

That's obviously a broad generalization, but it does have some explanatory power, I think. It also aligns with well-confirmed personality traits of openness and being closed.
 
It's taken about 60 pages of trolling to arrive at "can we really know anything?"

It's an incredible display of the fear of considering evidence contradictory to one's pre-determined position.
 
The Shrike said:
It's taken about 60 pages of trolling to arrive at "can we really know anything?"

It's an incredible display of the fear of considering evidence contradictory to one's pre-determined position.
Click to expand...

And what preconceived position do I have? Is it the one where I said Trump should be impeached?
 
I really, really hope this level of pedantic nonsense is a mostly internet specific thing or we're going to "No you see technically it's only treason if it comes from a specific region in Southern France, otherwise it's Sparkling Patriotism" our way into a very, very bad place.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:rolleyes:

Mueller:If I could have exonerated the president, I would have.
Fox News: Total exoneration!
Click to expand...

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...-no-obstruction-lie-about-the-mueller-report/

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace pressed White House adviser Kellyanne Conway on Sunday about the lies Trump continues to tell about the conclusions of the Mueller report. Wallace played a clip of Trump telling supporters at a rally on Thursday that Mueller found “no obstruction” and that the report was “total exoneration, complete vindication.”

“Why is the president telling Americans something that is not true?” Wallace asked.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Do you have a point?

You're the one asking the stupid question how can you know who to believe and now you make a point not every newscaster on Fox is completely in Trump's pocket?

Well if Fox has an opinion for everyone, there you go, a station just for you.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I cut the cord in 2010. I do not have access to these media sources we are discussing.


ETA: you think the question how can we know who to believe is a stupid question? That seems like the question to ask multiple times a day. Also my questions were independent of the question of if a news source should be believed.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I cut the cord in 2010. I do not have access to these media sources we are discussing.


ETA: you think the question how can we know who to believe is a stupid question? That seems like the question to ask multiple times a day. Also my questions were independent of the question of if a news source should be believed.
Click to expand...

We generally trust those sources that have proven trustworthy - in the main - in the past. We should also accept news as more likely true that rests on previously established background knowledge, and question more strongly news that doesn't fit our background knowledge. But if your background knowledge is built on garbage, then garbage will flow out because the garbage flowed in.

(That is NOT to say that, for instance, on 9/11/01, we should have doubted that 2 planes flew into the WTC because no one has ever done that before. Previous trustworthiness, as well as the quality of evidence - for instance, live TV - can give confidence in even the most incredible news.) And, their sources have proven that they are not trustworthy, see Fox News claiming total exoneration for Trump, and Fox's long, long history of untrustworthiness.

All that rests also on having a properly skeptical frame of mind and not merely sucking down news with little connection to background knowledge from even trusted sources. The problem with many conservatives - and some liberals - is that they have fully stopped questioning *anything* their source communicates, witness the female Trumpista interviewed who said nothing in the Mueller report showed Trump did anything wrong.

It's not a stupid question, but it can be taken too far, especially when acknowledging that one is not, in all likelihood, going to get 100% certainty on that question. So questioning the basis on which we choose who to believe only goes so far. One can always ask "why" like a 5-year old, to little avail. Still, that doesn't make every question as meaningless as a 5-year-old's "why?"
 
TLDR version of my above post:

We properly choose news sources to believe based on a complex interplay between
1. the past trustworthiness of the source
2. how well the news reported fits our properly established background knowledge
3. the quality of the evidence behind the news report
 
BobTheCoward said:
Yea, I find what is truth an incredibly hard question to make a claim about.
Click to expand...

...and so evidently you desire someone else to make that decision for you. That certainly seems to be the implication of our previous discussion, anyway.

Intellectually Lazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom