Syntho-sis

Looks like there's some grass and some streets....I'm gonna guess it's the grounds near the mall.

The mall? Don't you think that's a little too upscale for all those dumb white rednecks?

Are you still so dense to fail to understand that my issue with Fox News is that they're organizing and promoting anti-government protests?

 

I don't like Fox News is a news organization because they sponsor and promote events like this:

 

lUPMjC9mq5Y

 

If you'd like to continue your Fox News apologism perhaps you can actually focus on what I'm arguing.

Nah I don't like Fox all that much, I just like messing with people..

Anyways, where were we? So you are saying:

The Fox news organization is promoting the protest of our government in Washington D.C.?

On what grounds might I ask?

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/20/msnbc-lie-to-perpetuate-racial-tensions/

Are you still under the false assumption that MSNBC has never lied?

Am I missing something? Was there some mention of MSNBC organizing anti-Bush protests in that article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/business/media/19fox.html

You're referring to this, yes?

Merged post follows:

One of Fox’s main prime-time commentators, Glenn Beck, had been vocal in supporting the event and had a two-hour special on the air Saturday during the event. But Fox News executives generally argue that Mr. Beck is what they label “programming” and not news, because his show is an opinion program.

As contradicting evidence that there was some 'mass cover-up' by Fox execs. Just in case someone thought that.

In that regard, it's not a false dichotomy. I will passionately argue the point that you cannot be a news organization while creating news by staging events like anti-government protests. At that point you are not covering the news, you are creating the news. You can't do both at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Allegations_of_political_bias

Then we can agree that neither organizations actually cover the news, correct?

Merged post follows:

One of them gets tens of thousands of people to attend their anti-government protest in Washington, DC.

 

I can just keep repeating myself until you acknowledge it.

I did acknowledge it. So repeating yourself is irrelevant, and beside the point.

I thought this was interesting. From 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle' by Robert Pirsig (1974, pp.38-39.) Cited in the Book 'Why people believe weird things' by Micheal Shermer..

Pirsig's Paradox:

"So you don't believe in ghosts or science?"

"No, I do believe in ghosts."

"What?"

"The laws of physics and logic, the number system, the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real For example, it seems completely natural to assume that gravitation and the law of gravity existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity."

"Of Course."

"So, before the beginning of the Earth, before people, etc., the law of gravity existed. Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy, and not existing in anyone's mind."

"Right."

"Then what has a thing to do to be nonexistent? It has just passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute of nonexistence that the law of gravity didn't have, or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. I predict that if you think about it long enough, you will go round and round until you realize that the law of gravity did not exist before Isaac Newton. The the law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's minds. It is a ghost!"

Just substitute 'law of gravity' with w/e your concept of space-time is...

I'm fairly certain that Mr Skeptic was replying directly to your assertion that a liberal version of FOX News would create less controversy. I read his post as a simple disagreement along with an explanation; he hates liars on his side of the argument more than liars on the other side. I agree with him, too. A liar on my side taints the whole perspective and weakens my stance too. A liar on the other side of the argument can be revealed and denounced, and ultimately that's what we're doing here, pointing the finger and highlighting the deceptions.

 

No personal attack, no libelous opinion, no problem.

My apologies then. I entirely misread what he said, I thought he was making a reference to earlier posts where he'd mentioned that he agreed with me on certain aspects of this debate.

No problemo..

I hate loud, dumb liars that agree with me more than I do ones that disagree with me -- the former can damage my reputation by association, whereas the latter do the same to my opposition.

What is that supposed to mean? So now you resort to personal attack just because I don't agree with you wholeheartedly on every point? Keep your libelous opinions to yourself.

No, they may teach you in school that you can invent your own facts, spelling, opinion, or whatever, but the world doesn't care what you think. When you jump off a cliff believing you can fly, the same will happen as when you believe you will fall -- though in the latter case you might be sensible enough to have a parachute. No, what's in the eye of the beholder is how he judges things -- subjective or unclear things depend on who is judging it.

 

I believe the statement you made is one of the major reasons Fox are dangerous.

I know this, please stop belittling me and understand what I wrote. Quit assuming I'm some right-wing nutcase who watches only fox news, and hasn't the slightest understanding in regards to anything.

Arguing down to someone does not make you correct.

He probably heard it on Fox.

 

"They're trying to censor us and take us off the air! You have to fight back!!"

That's insulting to my intelligence. By the sum of statements thus far, it seems that's what is being proposed, censorship. What would the other solutions be?

Would you be entirely heartbroken if they did starting censoring the networks?

Merged post follows:

Syntho-sis, I'd ask if your opinion of MSNBC would change if you went to MoveOn.org and at the bottom you saw "Brought to you by MSNBC", but it seems you hate MSNBC enough to begin with, enough to claim they're not a news organization. Yet apparently you think FOX is a news organization, when it's actively promoting conservative advocacy, protests, and political events.

 

There's a word for that: hypocrisy.

I just don't think it's fair to set a double standard. In conjunction with each other, I do consider them news organizations.

In comparison to what "news" actually is...They each only fulfill that role partially.

That's a false dichotomy by the way, which is:

Fox is either a news organization or a propaganda machine.

Something can exists in two states at the same time.

Examples: Fox news and MSNBC. Both have traits of a news provider and both exhibit traits of a movement forwarding it's agenda.

A statement I never made. And how is it an attack when it's true? Are you denying the evidence put forth that FOX News organized anti-Dem rallies and then covered them as "news" on a "grass-roots movement"? Would you approve if they strapped a bomb on someone they suspected to be a terrorist and then dropped him off in a public square so their "reporters" could show everyone how dangerous this guy is?

No I'm not denying it, but I still do not think they should be 'censored' or some other nonsense. And an attack can still be an attack even if it's 'true' (which is subjective- IMO.)

What does liking it have to do with it? I watch and read lots of opinions I don't agree with, if only to keep my perspective honest. But how does listening to half-truths, outright lies and deceptive "news stories" help keep me informed?

IMO, I doubt there would be as much controversy if Fox news tended toward a more liberal slant (Even if they were being purposely deceptive.) It's a double standard.

And this is a danger, as I mentioned before. People who watch FOX News exclusively are being misinformed and lied to by what they are told is an objective "news organization". When so many get so much bad intel, how can they make informed decisions about anything?

Yes and they're morons if they believe everything they see on television and get their info from one source. I agree, but still, goes back to my central point which is 'They have the right to believe whatever they want.' And Fox news has the right to discuss w/e it wants. What exactly is it you propose as a solution for this problem btw?

Remove the "state-run" part and you've got FOX News, imo.

That's subjective and therefore irrelevant.

An equal *accurate* voice would be nice. The news shouldn't lie, and when it does it's not a voice, it's propaganda.

Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider propaganda, your neighbor down the street declares it truth.

Excellent. Then I'm not as worried about you as I am those who *only* watch FOX News. Just as I worry about those who only vote the way MoveOn.org or Rush Limbaugh tell them.

Just as I worry about those individuals who listen only to Kieth Olbermann.

While this is true, it's also not true. By ignoring Fox, we allow them to get these huge rallies together and protest something on false accusations and crazy allegations - many people of whom watching the network for news have no desire to counter with actual research.

 

When these rallies and protests start to become about things that we may actually have interest in, it becomes unwise to ignore Fox

Well I know censorship has already been tried, in other countries.

Merged post follows:

The second part you've typed there directly answers the first.

What did you mean?

I said 'do not watch it.'

I don't suggest people argue over things for which they have no control..

E=mc^2

Simply put.

It's a bit like me purposely running a red light and causing an accident to prove how unsafe the intersection is. What FOX does is not news, it's carefully rigged deceit.

Which goes above and beyond the statement that Fox News is just a 'perspective'. That's a downright attack.

Seriously though, what good is it to argue over this? If you don't like it, and do not consider it a news organization, you don't have to watch it.

There's plenty of other people who will happily watch it, without complaint.

That's the great thing about America, we don't have state-run media outlets shoving propaganda down our throats. Yes there is spin, but it's up to us as citizens to make the decisions on where to get our info and how to interpret it. Some people may not have the same exact preferences as you. I just don't see the purpose in this, at all. I'm 'glad' fox news is around, because as long as EVERYONE has an equal voice then our constitution still means something.

I'm just as glad that MSNBC is around, but I obviously don't get all my info from either news organizations. I try to keep it varied, I listen to alot of NPR and watch alot of CNN, but it's up to me (up to everyone) to decide what is relevant to the larger issues.

Cheers,

I wish I'd got in on this discussion earlier, now I have to read and watch the video..

Could someone provide a synopsis, perhaps? I have a fairly good understanding of atomic physics...

Perhaps you should turn this lens back on yourself and ask why you don't consider MSNBC a news organization.

My skepticism of MSNBC is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The white house did not have a political right (or otherwise) to label Fox News as a propaganda machine or whatever it is they called it.

Who cares what they think, it's not their job to take things personally.

Merged post follows:

Ideology really doesn't come into it for me. I don't want a left-right, pro-con spin to my news, I want the facts. Sort of a Jack Webb approach, or the way witnesses are encouraged to testify in court. I don't want my judgments made for me, not even when I might agree with them. Especially when I agree with them, actually, because how can I trust the perspective when it was forced upon me?

Then why attack Fox specifically? There are many other organizations who put just as much spin on the news as they do, nobody's talking about those though.

It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias?

I define news as an unbiased reporting of important or interesting events. By that definition, there probably hasn't been a true news program for decades, if ever. Bias in journalism is very hard to avoid.

 

I appreciate it when a "news organization" feeds me the news, but allows me the freedom to chew on it myself, so I can decide whether to swallow it or spit it out as *I* see fit. FOX is like having a feeding tube forced down your throat. They are practicing gastrostomy, not journalism, as if they wanted to make sure to bypass the brain and go straight to digestion. Very unhealthy, very controlling and it very much upsets my tummy.

Is it the method of delivery that upsets you, or the material being fed?

Perhaps all this skepticism of Fox is simply due to the disagreement of ideologies.

That's what I see it as. This is mass ad hominem. Simple lesson in human nature.

I think this is VERY obvious, the white house does not like how Fox "reports" the news (though I am sure they are fine when the news bias is in their favor). My belief is the White House should tolerate Fox rather than try to cut them out.

Well we as Americans, don't pay them to worry about what pundits say about Obama. It's not their job, so to speak.

For them to target a specific news organization, is wrong on so many levels. If this was ABC news could you imagine the firestorm?

1) That criteria sounds like it's open to all kinds of abuse. Let's not give Stephen Colbert anymore ideas of how to mess with Wikipedia, shall we?

 

Decoys can talk like a duck, convincingly enough to lure ducks, and it is not physically impossible to mimic ground locomotion, just unnecessary for their purpose.

 

A decoy will never completely match the description of an actual duck, only enough to function within the scope of it's primary purpose. In the same way, Fox News mimics certain traits of a News agency, but it is no more a news agency than a decoy is a duck - it only resembles a News organization within the scope of it's primary purpose, which is not to report the news.

Okay, than it's perfectly fair to apply to same criteria to MSNBC, is it not?

Which goes back to what I stated earlier.

Whether they are 'news' or not, they still have a right to say whatever they want, however they want to say it.

And why the White house, is getting all fussy over this I haven't the faintest idea.

Does that mean the only standard for a News organization is they have the word "News" in their name, and some people call them that?

 

In that case, what does it take for a hunting decoy to actually be a duck?

No, all that is required is a citation under news on Wikipedia.

Decoys do not walk, nor do they talk, like a duck.

You do realize, you claimed that most likely he had surveillance and infrared goggles, while I don't have hard statistics on dedicated "flashers" who try to get seen from inside their homes I am pretty sure this level of setup would be fairly rare.

 

Don't you think the simplest explanation - that he couldn't see out when they passed through his yard and it was unintentional - would be the most likely?

 

I think they have a razor for that.

If only Occam's razor applied to every aspect of life: see women

Cheers,

glass is opaque to infrared light.

 

 

 

 

you are making the claim, the burden of proof lies on you.

At this point every post I make on this thread is entirely satirical.

I can't believe we kept this nonsense going as long as we did.

not when it is dark out. which is when the incident occured.

It's possible with infrared goggles, which he most likely has stashed in his coffee pot.

evidence for this?

Evidence against it? Don't pin the burden of proof on me.

Well personally I don't consider MSNBC news either, that's if you apply the same criteria to all news organizations.

If I want 'news' I watch CNN or BBC.

hahahaha

Merged post follows:

It was dark out when the event occurred. Watch the video again, and tell me what you can see through the window from the inside.

Yup I can see through the window from the inside, can't you?

I think he most likely had a surveillance system setup on his property specifically for something like this.

Most likely he had an alarm device that gave him a 2 minute head-start on anyone who crossed the 'path of love' as he calls it.

Case closed

What's it saying Snytho-sis, when almost everyone here agrees that he has the right to do whatever non-harmful thing on his property that freakin' wants?

 

And notice how it WAS dark out, and they WERE trespassing on his property. Kids today see more sexual stuff on 8:00 shows than what that "heathen pervert" was doing by walking around his own kitchen.

 

You have no case whatsoever, Syntho-sis.

 

And that was a good point (to whoever brought it up) that minor, unintentional "sex offenses" are out in the same category as rapists and child molesters.

Well let's just wait and see how this case develops before we start making dogmatic assertions.

Merged post follows:

actually is the part that bugs me. The article stated a bus stop across the street from his house. My assumption was that because they were cutting through the yard, a good chance they weren't in his front yard, thereby decreasing chances he'd have been seen by the kids across the street

 

however, if he continually forgets to close his blinds and walk around naked and the kids across the street DO see, their bad for looking, his bad for walking, that's why I say fine him and do not compensate the "victims"

 

if he keeps doing it, then you can look at further punishment. If not, we should get the heck out of someone's privacy?

Well see, it would also be nice if FOX news had provided some more details, seems like they always give just enough to stir up controversy.

For the record, I never said I thought the 'victims' should be compensated.

Merged post follows:

Also the video states that it was in fact thru his front yard that they crossed. On a path, with the front windows of the house perpendicular to them.

A lawyer in the video also stated that in order for it to be a crime the police would have to prove that he did it intentionally.

Doesn't matter if he was on his private property or not, if he did do it intentionally (knew they were there), then he will be punished.

That's not what I'm saying, that's what the laws say.