|
|
Post by oracle75 on Sept 12, 2023 9:13:48 GMT
No indeed. I'll read anything that is honest and comprehensive. And reject anything that lies by omission or exaggeration. Oracle, can't you see the problem here? Something you disagree with is going to appear to be in error to you. To get balance, you need engage in a sincere attempt to understand why your opposition has the opinions they do. This will also significantly diffuse any anger you have Then you misunderstand what i mean. If i want a balanced view of an issue i want them both to include all available information. Not just the bits that support a point of view. I am also reading wirh full understanding of the historical bias of the modern press. And i automatically discount any celebrity who uses issues to get headlines. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 12, 2023 9:24:56 GMT
This approach will limit you to reading your own views No indeed. I'll read anything that is honest and comprehensive. And reject anything that lies by omission or exaggeration. I tend to read them all and then go and check the claims. But I agree that once a source is proven to be bogus or inaccurate I tend to ignore offered links. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 12, 2023 9:27:38 GMT
Oracle, can't you see the problem here? Something you disagree with is going to appear to be in error to you. To get balance, you need engage in a sincere attempt to understand why your opposition has the opinions they do. This will also significantly diffuse any anger you have Then you misunderstand what i mean. If i want a balanced view of an issue i want them both to include all available information. Not just the bits that support a point of view. I am also reading wirh full understanding of the historical bias of the modern press. And i automatically discount any celebrity who uses issues to get headlines. I'm not knocking you in particular. We all do our best and are in the same boat. However, i can see real problems with what you are saying. Oracle wrote: "If i want a balanced view of an issue i want them both to include all available information."This does not exist because a view (or narrative) is defined by the selection of what is relevant. If you have 'all the information', you have no story and no opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Sept 12, 2023 9:27:56 GMT
Re science and politics
It is one of those timeless conundrums.
The discovery of splitting the atom was indeed science but with a very political thrust. And from those experiments nearly a century ago that is still the case.
Without it we wouldnt have the modern medical treatments that save lives, nor the madness of Kim Jon-un.
Today genetic engineering has saved lives and made Frankensteinian possibilities.
The issue has been known by the Greeks as in Promethius and Icarus, where the pount is not to "know too much or you will be the victim".
And of course Galileo and Copernicus hit the same issue where it became entangled in religion and kicked off the Enlightenment.
Today sponsorship by government AND industry try to influence both the science and its use. Tobacco is the obvious example.
Science cannot support itself. It needs sponsorship to continue. The more the public donates, the less the research is dependant on finding "the right" results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 12, 2023 9:30:10 GMT
No indeed. I'll read anything that is honest and comprehensive. And reject anything that lies by omission or exaggeration. I tend to read them all and then go and check the claims. But I agree that once a source is proven to be bogus or inaccurate I tend to ignore offered links. This is a bad idea. You may have evaluated it as bogus on a false basis - using this rule, you will likely never know and are locked in forever. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Sept 12, 2023 9:32:12 GMT
Then you misunderstand what i mean. If i want a balanced view of an issue i want them both to include all available information. Not just the bits that support a point of view. I am also reading wirh full understanding of the historical bias of the modern press. And i automatically discount any celebrity who uses issues to get headlines. I'm not knocking you in particular. We all do our best and are in the same boat. However, i can see real problems with what you are saying. Oracle wrote: "If i want a balanced view of an issue i want them both to include all available information."This does not exist because a view (or narrative) is defined by the selection of what is relevant. If you have 'all the information', you have no story and no opinion. I dont want "a view". I dont want "an opinion". I want as much information as i can so that i can form my own view and opinion. If i see one narrative omitting something or labouring something as important and relevant, i reject it as biased. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 12, 2023 9:38:44 GMT
I'm not knocking you in particular. We all do our best and are in the same boat. However, i can see real problems with what you are saying. Oracle wrote: "If i want a balanced view of an issue i want them both to include all available information."This does not exist because a view (or narrative) is defined by the selection of what is relevant. If you have 'all the information', you have no story and no opinion. I dont want "a view". I dont want "an opinion". I want as much information as i can so that i can form my own view and opinion. If i see one narrative omitting something or labouring something as important and relevant, i reject it as biased. Cheeky question here. How do you decide something is relevant or not without an opinion to guide you? |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Sept 12, 2023 9:42:50 GMT
Because i can distinguish between a fact and an oponion.
A useful bit of skill that is all too rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 12, 2023 9:48:39 GMT
Because i can distinguish between a fact and an oponion. A useful bit of skill that is all too rare. Here is an example to work with - Was the January 6th riot factually an attempt to supplant / remove the authority of the us government, or is this perspective an opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Sept 12, 2023 9:56:11 GMT
I dont know.
I dont have all the facts yet.
I have, however, discounted some theories.
One being that the crowd was not armed. Looking at photos, they were indeed armed with flagpoles and sticks.
My suspicion is that, knowing US attitudes to guns, some wete also carrying arms. But i discount that in coming to any definitive conclusion.
But there are some complex issues I dont have an opinion on. Yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 12, 2023 10:06:53 GMT
I dont know. I dont have all the facts yet. I have, however, discounted some theories. One being that the crowd was not armed. Looking at photos, they were indeed armed with flagpoles and sticks. But it seems you are now concentrating on the problem of calling (categorising) them 'armed', rather than cool observing the reality. They are still technically 'armed' by that criteria in just about any likely circumstance of them gathering. How relevant are flagpoles and sticks to an attempt to overthrow the us government? Wouldn't you expect there to be (at least) guns? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 12, 2023 10:15:39 GMT
There is no official doctrine in the mind zone. How about other sections? Ukraine for example? Monte, ..but there is no 'Ukraine section' ? I have decided not to think too hard about Ukraine moderation. My personal views about what constitutes a discussion don't seem to be relevant to the Board's policy in that case. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Sept 12, 2023 10:18:52 GMT
I addressed your question.
I rely on what i saw.
There were objects used as weapons.
I rely on the courts to know the relevant details since i couldnt possibly know them.
What i do know is that the purpose of the riot was to stop the legal constitutional process of the peaceful passing of power after an election.
That is illegal whether it is one person with a gun or thousands with sticks and flagpoles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 12, 2023 10:35:57 GMT
Oracle,
While i can see that someone holding a stick might form circumstantial evidence he intends to commit a burglary, I can't see how it could reasonably or plausibly form circumstantial evidence that he intends to defeat the US government.
Do you see how the issue of relevance is very important?
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 12, 2023 10:52:38 GMT
How about other sections? Ukraine for example? Monte, ..but there is no 'Ukraine section' ? I have decided not to think too hard about Ukraine moderation. My personal views about what constitutes a discussion don't seem to be relevant to the Board's policy in that case. Relevant to the question of ''balancing figures'' though, is it not? |
|
