Why do I get upset about O'Reilly, anyway?

Once you've created a test to weed out the unintelligent, maybe you could work on one for people with no common sense. I think this would be better just by looking at most politicians who would pass an intelligence test.
 
Kerberos said:
Actually you just made a excellent argument why we shouldn't have such test since your questions have a clear left wing bias.
Click to expand...

Your criticism is valid. My hypothetical question is flawed.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Friends: Bill O'Reilly = big, steaming pile of calcified Cheetos. Discuss.
Click to expand...


I disagree. As I have pointed out in other threads, he sometimes goes against administration talking points and provides a truly independent viewpoint on important matters. On the other hand, he also is capable of ranting like a tinfoil-hat-wearing kook. I find it disconcerting that he can go from one to the other so quickly.
 
Forty-Two said:
Hey, guys -- I'm not a mod or anything, but this thread is really getting petty. It's ironic, seeing as how a thread I started bemoaning the erosion of civil debate has itself degraded to this childish argument.
Click to expand...

You must have forgotten that you are standing in the Politics forum.

Now kindly wipe your shoes in the grass and come to Forum Community. ;)
 
Ladewig said:
I disagree. As I have pointed out in other threads, he sometimes goes against administration talking points and provides a truly independent viewpoint on important matters. On the other hand, he also is capable of ranting like a tinfoil-hat-wearing kook. I find it disconcerting that he can go from one to the other so quickly.
Click to expand...
Do we really live so insane a world that occasionally talking sense is cause for praise?
 
Kerberos said:
That's still 30 million people - a sizeble crowd by any standard.
Click to expand...
The larger the sample, the more accurate the wisdom. Sure, 30MM is large. 150MM is larger and thus even less prone to error.

Kerberos said:
I don't see anything in the page you linked to that says that intelligent and wellinformed crowds make worse descisions than less intelligent and less well informed crowds.
Click to expand...
Read the book.

Kerberos said:
Particularly for cognition problems, I'd think that the majority of the experts in a field is more likely to reflect the truth than the majority of the whole population.
Click to expand...
Read the book.
 
marksman said:
The larger the sample, the more accurate the wisdom. Sure, 30MM is large. 150MM is larger and thus even less prone to error.
Click to expand...

Why? that flies in the face of how statistic normally works. The difference between 1 million and 200000 trillion billion millions should be absolutly insignificant. Do you also think that big countries are automatically better lead than smaller countries?


marksman said:
Read the book.
Click to expand...
That's not an argument. If you can sumerize the argument then well and good, if you can't then don't expect people to give any weight to you claim that "there is this really good book that totally proves my point". Particuarly not when the link you give doesn't support you point.


marksman said:
Read the book.
Click to expand...
Is there an echo in here?
 
I don't watch him much anymore. It is always the same thing. The mass conspiracies of liberals and the ACLU, and then of course some sort of sex topic. Over and over and over.
 
Kerberos said:
Why? that flies in the face of how statistic normally works. The difference between 1 million and 200000 trillion billion millions should be absolutly insignificant. Do you also think that big countries are automatically better lead than smaller countries?
Click to expand...
It depends on the system that runs them. Does it take advantage of the wisdom od crowds? Or does it restict collectivel judgment, placing decision-making power in the hands of a small number of elites?

Kerberos said:
That's not an argument. If you can sumerize the argument then well and good, if you can't then don't expect people to give any weight to you claim that "there is this really good book that totally proves my point".
Click to expand...
I'm not making an argument. I made a sardonic quip about a tangential comment in an otherwise unserious thread about Bill O'Reilly. In that thread I cited by source for the information on which I was basing the sardonic quip.

I cannot summarize a 300+ page book in a few lines with anything approaching accuracy.

Kerberos said:
Particuarly not when the link you give doesn't support you point.
Click to expand...
The link was not intended to "prove my point." It was intended to lead people to a book that would support my point. The book itself is not on-line for obvious copyright issues. You'd have to buy it.

Kerberos said:
Is there an echo in here?
Click to expand...
The response was appropriate for both points so I used the same response twice. Is there some unwritten law of netiquette somewhere that made the repeated use of a response inappropriate?
 
marksman said:
It depends on the system that runs them. Does it take advantage of the wisdom od crowds? Or does it restict collectivel judgment, placing decision-making power in the hands of a small number of elites?
Click to expand...
That certainly depens on what a you mean by a smlal number.


marksman said:
I'm not making an argument. I made a sardonic quip about a tangential comment in an otherwise unserious thread about Bill O'Reilly. In that thread I cited by source for the information on which I was basing the sardonic quip.

I cannot summarize a 300+ page book in a few lines with anything approaching accuracy.
Click to expand...
Then don't expect anybody to to assing any weight to it.


marksman said:
The link was not intended to "prove my point." It was intended to lead people to a book that would support my point. The book itself is not on-line for obvious copyright issues. You'd have to buy it.
Click to expand...
The link doesn't just fails to support your point it speaks against it.


marksman said:
The response was appropriate for both points so I used the same response twice. Is there some unwritten law of netiquette somewhere that made the repeated use of a response inappropriate?
Click to expand...
No the reponse was inappropriate, posting it twice doubly so. For reasons that should be obvious pointing to a book and saying "that proves my point but I wont/can't sumerize the argument" is not considered a proper response in internet discusions. That is an unwriten law of netiquette.
 
Kerberos said:
That certainly depens on what a you mean by a smlal number.
Click to expand...
In context, clearly the number of people I think would pass the hypothetical civics examination proposed as a prerequisite for voting.

Kerberos said:
Then don't expect anybody to to assing any weight to it.
Click to expand...

I was merely recommending the book be read. No weight should be assigned to it until that is done anyway. So, no, I didn't expect any weight to be assigned to it before the person educates himself on its contents. What made you think differently?

Kerberos said:
The link doesn't just fails to support your point it speaks against it.
Click to expand...
How so?

Kerberos said:
No the reponse was inappropriate, posting it twice doubly so. For reasons that should be obvious pointing to a book and saying "that proves my point but I wont/can't sumerize the argument" is not considered a proper response in internet discusions. That is an unwriten law of netiquette.
Click to expand...
I was recommending a book, which was the basis for a joke. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but you seem to want to try to get me to appear to be doing so. And I'm not sure why.

I don't know how many times I can tell you I'm not trying to make a point before you stop trying to disprove it.

Sorry for making a joke and/or recommending an interesting book on this forum. That's all I was trying to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom