Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,May 01 2006,12:23][/quote]
| Quote | Oh m-m-my goodness! You figured out my master plan of linking to and then deliberately misrepresenting sources! How ever did you catch me?!! I mean, I thought that everyone here was completely illiterate and/or wouldn't be able to click on the blue line! But boy, were you too clever for me!  |
Keep trying to wave it off, Ghost. You're only making yourself look silly. You did it, period.
| Quote | | First, I should stop citing the sources for my ideas. Check..... |
Or maybe you should, you know, start citing sources that actually support them. Because so far, nada.
| Quote | | Also, I must quote every argument my source makes, even if I don't think it contributes to the debate. |
You must quote the arguments your source makes, the way they make them. It's a simple concept: It's called honesty.
Leaving the part that says:
| Quote | | It is possible that the media has a “vested interest” in covering brutality that could be manipulated into a racially motivated crime. These sensational stories can manipulate the audience and may create increased racial tension throughout the country.[...] |
...And immediately ditching the next part of the paragraph:
| Quote | [...]The riots, the violence, and the controversy most likely ensure the newspapers with a continued story to cover. Had the stories dealt with the issue of police brutality, a very serious issue, all of the incidents would have been covered with equal zest. Unfortunately as The Baltimore Sun points out in an editorial on July 30, 2000, “Whether you view them [the police] as the good guys or as a brutal occupation force may depend on where you live and the color of your skin.” Likewise, whether the media views them [the victims] as good enough to be a story or as an occupational flop may depend on where they lived and the color of their skin. The media chooses who is significant and who is forgotten based on their race and the sensationalism that their status as a victim can create.
If the Busch and Jones stories were printed with as much fervor as the ones with racist undertones, the country would probably deal with the problem, ending a juicy bit of news. Because the issue of race is such a sensitive and controversial one, it is possible for the media to exploit it. Such manipulation may increase revenue for the newspapers; increased racial tensions may be the national hidden cost of their attempt to drive up sales. Given the number of articles written on a select few versus the lack of articles on a select racially unmotivated few, the following conclusion is unavoidable. The media creates a racial panic. And the issue of police brutality cannot be adequately voiced with the cacophonous racial noise in the background. |
Is called twisting an argument by selective quoting, and it's a long way from the aforementioned concept.
| Quote | | And the legal inequities that blacks face in the court system relates to this how......? |
Still playing dumb? You selectively snipped out the reasoning they gave to explain their data, making it seem like they were agreeing with you. The legal part came much later. Denying it won't help: Anyone can go back one page and see what you took out. Or, you know, they can see above.
| Quote | | Look, you and Eric were the ones that demanded this type of evidence. So I supplied it. Now you're whining that I didn't present the argument the way you wanted, so this makes me dishonest, so therefore you can reject the conclusions of the study. |
We demanded (and still demand) evidence of liberal bias. Before I realized your selective quoting, both me and Eric pointed out how your data could be interpreted differently (unknowingly agreeing with what the authors actually argued for). I have to admit that I fell for it: In the beginning, reading your quotes only, I thought the authors were arguing for a liberal bias. You see, it was you who didn't like the conclusions of the study and rejected them, leaving only the part that would point elsewhere. "Vested interest"! I'm sure you were snickering when you decided to keep that in...
| Quote | | But that's not how science works. |
Do you even know how science works? Or scientific reference? Say that I want to support an announcement in a medical journal, that says intramedullary nailing (A) is a dangerous method for treating fractures that should be dropped.
I have difficulty to find any bibliography to support my view, until I find another announcement that shows greater risk of infection of (A) compared to, say, external fixation of the fracture (B) (to all: sorry about the technicals).
Now, the authors argue that all the known benefits that make (A) better than (B) will be valuable if we carefully choose where and when to apply this method, and that hospitals should not be eager to use it, tempted by its higher cost.
I don't like that, so I snip it out. Or perhaps, I leave a tiny bit that says something like "it is foolish to disregard the high risks associated with (A)". Then I present my announcement, with prime mention of this work in my collected data, discussion and bibliography.
Now, do you know what will happen if (when) I'm caught? I will be publicly ridiculed in the medical community, and the authors of the original work will probably sue me.
Don't worry, I don't think anyone will sue you... I think you've got the ridicule thing pretty much covered up, though.
| Quote | | I'm not interested in the author's opinions on our court system, because the authors weren't studying this issue. |
Here we go again... Just drop it, will you? You're not fooling anyone. We can all see everything that you snipped out; don't pretend that was just it.
| Quote | | And remember, these are students: I trust their counting more than their pontificating. Apparently you would rather have the navel-gazing. |
Actually, when discussing a presentation, it's the data that should get more thoroughly examined- as well as their interpretation of it. I already pointed a few things that would have been a subject of debate for their interpretation. Remember that, for both interpretation and deduction of results from the data, the students would (should) have a number of specific data to point to, theirs or from other works, that are ommited or mentioned briefly in their work's summary. You seem to take the first for granted, and think the latter does not exist.
| Quote | Uhhhh....check my last posts, Sherlock. That's exactly what I'm trying to do:
First, I'm talking about a multicultural bias, which isn't restricted to political liberals. Second, I plan on refuting "the media's just in it for the money" argument. For starters, if the "media's just in it for the money", then why do they suppress juicy racial details when their disclosure would only pique public interest? Why doctor scandalous documentaries in such a way to remove their impact? Or is it just the Amurican media that's just trying to make a buck? But then, why do so many newspapers hide the race of a suspect? It seems the excuses are flying:
[etc. etc.]
So even if you had a point, it's irrelevant now, since I am attempting to address the "racial conflict->extra sales" feedback loop. Maybe you should deal with my arguments instead of my character.
|
Why my dear Watson, it seems we might be wrong after all; let us see... hmm... Why yes, you did say that... AFTER we called you out for distorting your source. Before that: well, I guess you were too busy gloating about how you were waving our stained undies in the air with your last post, to bother doing so.
Foiled again, Moriarty.
Oh and, "arguments"? I only see a couple of more bogeys. Some guy "arguing" that the media not reporting the race of two blacks killed by an angry mob of lowlives of undetermined race is somehow evidence of liberal bias, a reporter arguing why his newspapers policy to not mention race is not PC, a link to a reporter saying what the media should stop doing to avoid bias, and finally a refusal of one channel to broadcast a political advertisement that, among other things, was racially charged... in Great Britain. That last one was a real gem, ghost.
I'd ask you how all this leads to "liberal bias" over "exploiting racial panic for profit" but I'm afraid you'll post 3 more irrelevant links for every one you'll try to explain.
| Quote | | Obviously you haven't been listening. But that's not an MP, that's a YP |
Come again? And what about that google search, ghost? I mean, it's what you do best... Especially since you don't do anything else.
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
), I think I shouldn't hold my breath.
2][/quote]
