Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why is Global Warming a . . .
Topic Started: Mar 4 2008, 04:20 PM (1,301 Views)
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 11:55 AM
And a healthy planet is meaningless if we've all starved to death.

An unhealthy planet will pretty much guarantee that we will all be starved to death, if not poisoned to death before that.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
OH MY GOD!!!! I'VE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!!

I've been WRONG!!!!!!!

You guys have finally pulled me out of the darkness and into the light. I get it now.

Show both sides of an issue is BAD. Only show the side you want people to see. That's GOOD... that way they'll all agree with it and won't ask any questions! They'll all just sit around..... ENLIGHTENED!!!!!!!!!!


Sheesh.......
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 07:53 AM

If it is really happening global warming is the most terrible and serious thing to ever happen to mankind.
All of mankind, even the righties.
Corporate profits are meaningless if the planet self destructs.

If it really is happening, what have you been reading to come to this conclusion?

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 12:05 PM
OH MY GOD!!!! I'VE SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!!

I've been WRONG!!!!!!!

You guys have finally pulled me out of the darkness and into the light. I get it now.

Glad to hear, and you're welcome. :)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Axtremus
Mar 5 2008, 11:03 AM
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 11:55 AM
And a healthy planet is meaningless if we've all starved to death.

An unhealthy planet will pretty much guarantee that we will all be starved to death, if not poisoned to death before that.

So your solution genius, is to take the world back to cave man days just in case?

Gee..... you lefties are so SMART!


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 06:05 PM
Show both sides of an issue is BAD. Only show the side you want people to see. That's GOOD... that way they'll all agree with it and won't ask any questions! They'll all just sit around..... ENLIGHTENED!!!!!!!!!!

There is a group of people who deny that the holocaust has ever happened.

Should the news about this be "balanced", give equal coverage to both "sides" etc?

The article I quoted is right: Sometimes balance is bias.

(I know, Godwin's law and all that...)

Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Klaus
Mar 5 2008, 08:14 AM

There is a group of people who deny that the holocaust has ever happened.

Should the news about this be "balanced", give equal coverage to both "sides" etc?

Actually, yes!

If it's a really good news story, it'll say "a lot of people say the holocaust happened. Here's who they are, their credentials and what they found. Here's how many people have accepted their viewpoints."

Then they absolutely should offer the same information from the opposing side. Let everyone voice their opinion and let the reader decide for themselves what their conclusions are. It's dishonest to decide for them by not reporting one side of an issue, no matter how ridiculous.

In the case of the holocaust, everyone's going to draw the same conclusion by looking at the information. But you lose journalistic integrity by not providing all the relevant, available information.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
The article I quoted is right: Sometimes balance is bias.


I don't see it that way, and I don't think it would hold up under scrutiny. I think the article is written to achieve a desired outcome. What little of it I was able to stomach was laughable, actually.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
In the case of the holocaust, everyone's going to draw the same conclusion by looking at the information. But you lose journalistic integrity by not providing all the relevant, available information.


Exactly. Suppose Klaus had been raised in and lived in a country where the news media decided the only side they'd show was that the holocaust didn't happen? He'd believe it because he'd never hear the other side.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Axtremus
Mar 5 2008, 11:03 AM
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 11:55 AM
And a healthy planet is meaningless if we've all starved to death.

An unhealthy planet will pretty much guarantee that we will all be starved to death, if not poisoned to death before that.


I have to say that I think Larry has the upper hand in this discussion, at least from a scientific standpoint.

He seems to have some (maybe not a lot) willingness to admit we don’t know everything.

The smug attitudes taken by the “healthy planet” advocates are too emotional for my taste.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 08:22 AM
Quote:
 
In the case of the holocaust, everyone's going to draw the same conclusion by looking at the information. But you lose journalistic integrity by not providing all the relevant, available information.


Exactly. Suppose Klaus had been raised in and lived in a country where the news media decided the only side they'd show was that the holocaust didn't happen? He'd believe it because he'd never hear the other side.

So now we've come full circle.

The funciton of new is no longer to report, but to create.

Time to buy a few news outlets and all the voters that come with the purchase.

Free Press Indeed! :mad2:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 06:22 PM
Quote:
 
In the case of the holocaust, everyone's going to draw the same conclusion by looking at the information. But you lose journalistic integrity by not providing all the relevant, available information.


Exactly. Suppose Klaus had been raised in and lived in a country where the news media decided the only side they'd show was that the holocaust didn't happen? He'd believe it because he'd never hear the other side.

The Flat Earth Society is an organization which claims that the earth is flat.

Should the news refer to their position whenever they report anything that implicitly assumes that the earth is not flat? Should they be "balanced" and give equal coverage to both "sides"?

For every bizarre hypothesis there is a group of people who support it.

It is quite obvious nonsense to attempt to give equal coverage to the "flat earth hypothesis" and the "round earth hypothesis".

This does not mean that news can't report such things. Of course they can have an article as Aqua describes.

But there is a big difference between having an article once in a while that reports on outsider hypotheses, and the situation that in every article on the subject both sides are given equal coverage.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Kenny, what in the hell are you talking about? The notion that the holocaust didn't happen wasn't a creation of the news media, and reporting that there are people who deny it happened isn't creating news.

What is it you don't get about this?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Mar 5 2008, 08:31 AM
But there is a big difference between having an article once in a while that reports on outsider hypotheses, and the situation that in every article on the subject both sides are given equal coverage.

So why do journalists/editors in Germany do it differently than in America.

What's different?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 12:07 PM
Axtremus
Mar 5 2008, 11:03 AM
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 11:55 AM
And a healthy planet is meaningless if we've all starved to death.

An unhealthy planet will pretty much guarantee that we will all be starved to death, if not poisoned to death before that.

So your solution genius, is to take the world back to cave man days just in case?

Gee..... you lefties are so SMART!

Well, let's take the rather "extreme" Clinton view that perhaps we should slow the economic growth to counter climate change... heck, let's be anal and just assume we go to zero economic growth.

Now, how do you go from "zero economic growth" to "take the world back to cave man days"?

You can't be that stupid to think that "taking the world back to cave man days" is the only solution to avoid an unhealthy planet right? Hasn't Taiwan_girl pointed out that there is growth opportunity coming out of being green, too?

At this time, I would recommend you taking a class, again, perhaps at your local university or community college, on the basics of macro economics.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
The Flat Earth Society is an organization which claims that the earth is flat.

Should the news refer to their position whenever they report anything that implicitly assume that the earth is not flat? Should they be "balanced" and give equal coverage to both "sides"?


You're making ridiculous comparisons, Klaus. You're trying to compare those who do not agree with your views on global warming with flat earthers, and then claiming that reporting any information scientists come up with that disputes your view is the equivalent of having to mention flat earthers every time the earth is discussed. That's intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
You can't be that stupid to think that "taking the world back to cave man days" is the only solution to avoid an unhealthy planet right? Hasn't Taiwan_girl pointed out that there is growth opportunity coming out of being green, too?

At this time, I would recommend you taking a class, again, perhaps at your local university or community college, on the basics of macro economics.


And might I point out that once again you've shown yourself to be so intellectually shallow that you're a waste of time. You're so far off the beam the thought of trying to bring you up to speed is maddening.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Copper
Mar 5 2008, 12:23 PM
Axtremus
Mar 5 2008, 11:03 AM
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 11:55 AM
And a healthy planet is meaningless if we've all starved to death.

An unhealthy planet will pretty much guarantee that we will all be starved to death, if not poisoned to death before that.


I have to say that I think Larry has the upper hand in this discussion, at least from a scientific standpoint.

He seems to have some (maybe not a lot) willingness to admit we don’t know everything.

The smug attitudes taken by the “healthy planet” advocates are too emotional for my taste.

Hey, admission to "not knowing everything" does not offset "being uninformed" or "being wrong." :shrug:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Then what *do* you offer as an excuse for your incorrect and uninformed viewpoints?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 12:37 PM
Quote:
 
You can't be that stupid to think that "taking the world back to cave man days" is the only solution to avoid an unhealthy planet right? Hasn't Taiwan_girl pointed out that there is growth opportunity coming out of being green, too?

At this time, I would recommend you taking a class, again, perhaps at your local university or community college, on the basics of macro economics.


And might I point out that once again you've shown yourself to be so intellectually shallow that you're a waste of time. You're so far off the beam the thought of trying to bring you up to speed is maddening.

How could it be a waste of time, seeing that we've just pulled you out of darkness and into the light? (reference) :lol:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Things like sarcasm are a total waste on you, aren't they?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 08:31 AM
Kenny, what in the hell are you talking about?

We are talking about 4 things.

1. Truth.
2. What is reported in the "news".
3. What people believe to be truth, which is largely shaped by what they read in their favorite comfortable news sources, be they FOX or NYT.
4. News sources have bias and agendas.

Items 2 through 4 pull us away from item 1.

Sounds like what Klaus is telling us about in Europe is a better system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 06:35 PM
Quote:
 
The Flat Earth Society is an organization which claims that the earth is flat.

Should the news refer to their position whenever they report anything that implicitly assume that the earth is not flat? Should they be "balanced" and give equal coverage to both "sides"?


You're making ridiculous comparisons, Klaus. You're trying to compare those who do not agree with your views on global warming with flat earthers, and then claiming that reporting any information scientists come up with that disputes your view is the equivalent of having to mention flat earthers every time the earth is discussed. That's intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

No, I didn't make this comparison at all.

The point of my example was to show that it is nonsense to demand that all points of view must be given equal coverage.

More generally, my point is that balance becomes bias if, as in the US news, the proportion of news coverage of both sides on global warming does not at all correspond to the proportions of both points of view in the scientific community.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
So the solution to your equation is to let someone decide what the truth is ahead of time and then only tell you about that part?

Nice.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
kenny
Mar 5 2008, 08:43 AM
Larry
Mar 5 2008, 08:31 AM
Kenny, what in the hell are you talking about?

We are talking about 4 things.

1. Truth.
2. What is reported in the "news".
3. What people believe to be truth, which is largely shaped by what they read in their favorite comfortable news sources, be they FOX or NYT.
4. News sources have bias and agendas.

Items 2 through 4 pull us away from item 1.

Sounds like what Klaus is telling us about in Europe is a better system.

Which is what I asked you earlier, "What are you reading to make you believe some things".

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply