Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

'Not The Same Biden': WH Stenographer Says Biden's 'Mental Acuity' Has Deteriorated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Who is he waving at?

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]48119[/ATTACH]
    C'mon man, he is waving at the thing.

    Comment


    • #47
      I believe Biden is on a CNN Town Hall tonight. I don't think I'm going to be able to watch. I'm looking forward to the reviews on Friday.
      "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

      "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

      Comment


      • #48
        Another one: Biden shouts that he's running for the United States Senate and then directs people to a nonexistent website. And then later he can't remember Mitt Romney's name, referring to him as "the Senator, the Mormon, who used to be a governor".

        https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...gaffe-n2577933
        Last edited by Mountain Man; 10-12-2020, 07:07 PM.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          https://townhall.com
          Not a credible source of factual information.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mr. Genetic Fallcy View Post
            Not a credible source of factual information.
            There, I gave you a more appropriate user name. No charge.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
              Not a credible source of factual information.
              I'm not sure what point you have in saying that when we can all watch the video ourselves and see that it is.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Another one: Biden shouts that he's running for the United States Senate and then directs people to a nonexistent website. And then later he can't remember Mitt Romney's name, referring to him as "the Senator, the Mormon, who used to be a governor".

                https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...gaffe-n2577933
                He then followed that up with a cherry on top for the day by confusing Robert KKK Byrd for Ted Kennedy. Oh, and this morning he couldn't figure out what state he was in.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                  Not a credible source of factual information.
                  Well then it should be simple for you to show us what they got factually wrong in the article. Let's see it.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                    Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                    Not a credible source of factual information.
                    Well then it should be simple for you to show us what they got factually wrong in the article.
                    That doesn't follow from anything I wrote.

                    You're not very good at this...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seanD View Post

                      I'm not sure what point you have in saying that when we can all watch the video ourselves and see that it is.
                      Can "we"? I can't, because the source of the information - including the video - is a known source of disinformation.

                      You can watch whatever you want, and conclude whatever you want from it - but that doesn't make the conclusion credible.
                      Last edited by Whateverman; 10-13-2020, 12:01 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Whateverman View Post
                        That doesn't follow from anything I wrote.

                        You're not very good at this...
                        So you have no valid objection. Gotcha.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Whateverman View Post

                          Can "we"? I can't, because the source of the information - including the video - is a known source of disinformation.

                          You can watch whatever you want, and conclude whatever you want from it - but that doesn't make the conclusion credible.
                          We understand. You are incapable of extending your mind beyond it chasm of silly fallacious well poisoning and thus cannot do anything but exactly that.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                            We understand. You are incapable of extending your
                            Bzzzt.

                            Post information from a credible source, and then you might have something useful to contribute to this forum.

                            Or don't, and be a surprise to no one.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Mr. Genetic Fallacy View Post

                              Can "we"? I can't, because the source of the information - including the video - is a known source of disinformation.

                              You can watch whatever you want, and conclude whatever you want from it - but that doesn't make the conclusion credible.
                              I see you're one of those who lets websites do your thinking for you, but Biased Media Factcheck is not a reliable source of information.

                              Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).

                              We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?

                              Media Bias/Fact Check rates PolitiFact as a "Least-biased" source of information. How does MB/FC reach that conclusion? The website has a "Methodology" page describing its methods:

                              The method for (rating bias) is determined by ranking bias in four different categories. In each category the source is rated on a 0-10 scale, with 0 meaning without bias and 10 being the maximum bias(worst). These four numbers are then added up and divided by 4. This 0-10 number is then placed on the line according to their Left or Right bias.

                              This system makes PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" almost look objective by comparison. An 11-point scale? To obtain objectivity with an 11-point scale would require a very finely-grained system of objective bias measures--something that probably nobody on the planet has even dreamt of achieving.

                              It comes as no surprise that Van Zandt lacks those objective measures:

                              The categories are as follows (bold emphasis added):
                              1. Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story.
                              2. Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well sourced evidence.
                              3. Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides or do they only publish one side.
                              4. Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? In other words how extreme are their views. (This can be rather subjective)


                              Likely Van Zandt regards only the fourth category as subjective. All four are subjective unless Van Zandt has kept secret additional criteria he uses to judge bias. Think about it. Take the "biased wording" category, for example. Rate the headline bias for "PolitiFact Bias" on a scale of 0-10. Do it. What objective criteria guided the decision?

                              There is nothing to go on except for one's own subjective notion of where any observed bias falls on the 0-10 scale.

                              If the scale was worth something, researchers could put the rating system in the hands of any reasonable person and obtain comparable results. Systems with robust objective markers attached to each level of the scale can achieve that. Those lacking such markers will not.

                              Based on our experience with PolitiFact, we used Van Zandt's system on PolitiFact. Please remember that our experience will not render Van Zandt's system anything other than subjective.

                              Biased Wording/Headlines: 4
                              Factual/Sourcing: 3
                              Story Choices: 4
                              Political Affiliation: 3

                              Total=14
                              Formula calls for division by 4.
                              14/4=3.5
                              3.5=Left Center Bias

                              Why is Van Zandt's rating objectively more valid than ours? Or yours?

                              https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media...t-or-dishonest

                              The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.

                              Siewert goes on to write that Just Facts is “a deceptive site because they do use facts, but not all the facts in order to mask their right Bias.” As proof of this, she cites two articles that take issue with the Stanford Law Review paper cited by Just Facts. Neither of these articles appeared in a journal, and one of them is from a publication “written and published entirely by Harvard undergraduates.” Siewert does not even attempt to prove whether the critiques have any factual or logical value.

                              Worse still, the lone excerpt that Siewert cited from these articles does not even take issue with the facts from Stanford Law Review paper that were presented by Just Facts. Thus, she must not understand the context in which Just Facts cited the paper, or she is lying about it.

                              By Siewert’s logic, if someone cites a peer-reviewed paper, and anyone argues against it, then the person who cited the paper is “deceptive” and “masking their bias” if they don’t cite the critique—regardless of whether it has any merit or relevance. This inane standard would apply to just about every scholar.

                              https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media...t-or-dishonest

                              But getting back on topic, are you suggesting that the videos posted in the Townhall article were fabricated? That Joe Biden never actually said what he is clearly seen saying in the footage? Or did you even bother to look a the source for yourself and just went off on your logical fallacy tangent?
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Another one: Biden shouts that he's running for the United States Senate and then directs people to a nonexistent website. And then later he can't remember Mitt Romney's name, referring to him as "the Senator, the Mormon, who used to be a governor".

                                https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...gaffe-n2577933
                                Let's see, we have to choose between someone who occasionally makes a flub, or can't remember a person's name, and someone with the self-control of a 3 year old. Tough call.

                                The former can have people around him to double-check him, or jog his memory. And the latter just needs a parent figure around to swat him on the butt when he misbehaves. But Melania won't let Stormy Daniels in the White House, so I'm going to have to say that we are safer with Biden.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                178 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X