So when does Paul drop out?

[Kerberos]

Being factually correct in most of what you say is not an objective measure?

It can be, but it's not in itself a meaningful measure of who won. Ratling of 2+2=4 for all of the debate is dreadfully factually correct, but not much to the point.

I'll give you my definition. Winning a debate means the justifications for your arguments relied on logic. It means you expressed your reasoning far better than the other candidates, and that you avoided resorting to dishonest answers to direct questions. It means you backed up your arguments with factual information and not a gut feeling or appeal to "authority" and "honor" like Huckabee, vague inconsistent statements like Romney, etc., ignorant statements like Giuliani, etc.

Basically, if your fallacy count was the lowest, and your opponents could not refute your arguments successfully either because they were factually incorrect, or because there was a disconnect in their logic, I'd say you won.

Lowest fallacy count? Again not a meaningful measure. Particuarly not in issolation. And of cause I'm still not particuarly inclined to trust you impression.

That's right, you should think with your gut. Your headbone is for breaking things like concrete walls you feel angry, not for thinking.

I note that you don't even try to claim my guess was wrong, but then it would be rather difficult to bitch about my guessing if you admited it's true.

 

[Richard Masters]

It can be, but it's not in itself a meaningful measure of who won. Ratling of 2+2=4 for all of the debate is dreadfully factually correct, but not much to the point.

I can assure you that people dying in Iraq is much to the point.

Lowest fallacy count? Again not a meaningful measure. Particuarly not in issolation.

I wasn't suggesting it in isolation. Read my post again and you will see.

And of cause I'm still not particuarly inclined to trust you impression.

Why is that?

I note that you don't even try to claim my guess was wrong, but then it would be rather difficult to bitch about my guessing if you admited it's true.

I don't know what your guess was, so how can I claim your guess was wrong?

 

[rtalman]

If the alternative sources are deemed invalid; which they are, I am correct.

Please list all of the national news sources you claim to be valid.

Pick-up a Washington Post and a Baltimore Sun and see if you can find the difference in overall presented thought.

Slow down there, Tex. The Washington Post is owned by the Washington Post Company, the Baltimore Sun is owned by Tribune Publishing. Your entire premise is about media outlets being owned by the same people having no variance of opinion. Or are you contending there is someone higher up pulling the strings at both the Washington Post Company and Tribune Publishing? Who are these nefarious individuals, Jerome? Stop dancing about and name names!

Where do you think the majority of news deemed acceptable comes from?

Hint: Reuters and the AP

Now you're not even trying. Who owns the AP? (Hint: http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html#2 ) Your argument about 'media being in few hands' again fails prima facie.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Who owns the AP? (Hint: http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html#2 ) Your argument about 'media being in few hands' again fails prima facie.

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/board.html

One more click and you would see who is in control.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Slow down there, Tex. The Washington Post is owned by the Washington Post Company, the Baltimore Sun is owned by Tribune Publishing. Your entire premise is about media outlets being owned by the same people having no variance of opinion.

If they do not have the same thoughts presented; which is the premise, why do they present the same thoughts?

 

[rtalman]

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/board.html

One more click and you would see who is in control.

Elected by the all of the members...

Please answer my question: Who are the nefarious individuals wielding control behind the scenes over all of the different media companies?

 

[rtalman]

If they do not have the same thoughts presented; which is the premise, why do they present the same thoughts?

Please answer my question: Who are the nefarious individuals wielding control behind the scenes over all of the different media companies?

 

[rtalman]

If they do not have the same thoughts presented; which is the premise, why do they present the same thoughts?

Why do you, HereticHulk, and Richard Masters all present the same thoughts?

 

[HereticHulk]

Why do you, HereticHulk, and Richard Masters all present the same thoughts?

Principles and consistency.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Please answer my question: Who are the nefarious individuals wielding control behind the scenes over all of the different media companies?

Didn't you already ask this question?


I don't know, do you?

One does not need a program to know that they are watching a baseball game.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why do you, HereticHulk, and Richard Masters all present the same thoughts?

Is this an admission that the major media does present the same thoughts?

 

[rtalman]

Is this an admission that the major media does present the same thoughts?

It is an admission that many outlets can present the same thoughts, in the same way that many individuals can present the same thoughts. Just as you, HereticHulk, and Richard Masters independantly arrived at the same conclusions*, different media outlets can independantly arrive at the same conclusions.

As an aside, why do you care how many people control the media? Is the current situation not a Libertarian's wet dream? If the media is the problem that you think, then the free market should act and fix it, right?















* unless you are all receiving marching orders from Ron Paul...

 

[rtalman]

Didn't you already ask this question?

Then please answer my other question. What media do you consider legitimate, or at least what is your criteria for legitimacy?

One does not need a program to know that they are watching a baseball game.

Is this an admission that there is some 'hidden hand' manipulating independant media outlets and forcing them to all print the same opinion?

I don't know, do you?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is an admission that many outlets can present the same thoughts, in the same way that many individuals can present the same thoughts. Just as you, HereticHulk, and Richard Masters independantly arrived at the same conclusions*, different media outlets can independantly arrive at the same conclusions.

So, all major media players just happen to think alike. Got it.

As an aside, why do you care how many people control the media? Is the current situation not a Libertarian's wet dream? If the media is the problem that you think, then the free market should act and fix it, right?

Not at all, the industry is heavily regulated by government which allows for the current players to lobby the government into stifling competition through said regulation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then please answer my other question. What media do you consider legitimate, or at least what is your criteria for legitimacy?

The vast majority of media is legitimate. The sourcing is important. The most important thing to do is read all you can on a subject to discern the reality from the inherent bias in an report.

 

[rtalman]

The vast majority of media is legitimate. The sourcing is important. The most important thing to do is read all you can on a subject to discern the reality from the inherent bias in an report.

No, you don't get off that easily. You proclaimed yourself the arbitor of legitimacy, you need to lay out some criteria.

Otherwise, accept that any individual can get news from a million different sources and verify the validity of the news through their own research (thus giving all media sources the same potential of legitimacy), and realize that your entire premise about the media being in too few hands is dead.

 

[mortimer]

Is Ron Paul not one of the frontrunners because the MSM isn't covering him, or is the MSM not covering him because Ron Paul is not one of the frontrunners?

If Paul was leading in delegates prior to Super Tuesday, would he still be ignored by the MSM? Would you be chastising the MSM for not covering the 4th place (by an order of magnitude) candidate as much as the top 3?

Think about it.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, you don't get off that easily. You proclaimed yourself the arbitor of legitimacy, you need to lay out some criteria.

Did I? I thought that I was claiming that others were claiming what was legitimate.

Otherwise, accept that any individual can get news from a million different sources and verify the validity of the news through their own research (thus giving all media sources the same potential of legitimacy), and realize that your entire premise about the media being in too few hands is dead.

If it is from a source not deemed acceptable according to group thought than it matters not what is reported.

Think about it. You have the major media parroting the same news with views and others sources are deemed unacceptable by the masses for little reason beyond the fact that they are not parroting the same news and views.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is Ron Paul not one of the frontrunners because the MSM isn't covering him, or is the MSM not covering him because Ron Paul is not one of the frontrunners?

If Paul was leading in delegates prior to Super Tuesday, would he still be ignored by the MSM? Would you be chastising the MSM for not covering the 4th place (by an order of magnitude) candidate as much as the top 3?

Think about it.

He was mocked on national TV during the debates by the moderators before any votes were cast.

Think about it.

 

[TriskettheKid]

He was mocked on national TV during the debates by the moderators before any votes were cast.

Think about it.

When?

Can we get a YouTube video or something of this happening?