Fallacy: Fox News is the most trusted

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 56 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8265
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    From my perspective the gospel and doctrine are one, but otherwise, you’ve sorted it out correctly.

    But I think my sentence is grammatically correct, though if I had inserted “because of” before “a desire” it would have been clearer.

    QPE says that Christians should not “dishonor” civil authorities, but I don’t see how criticism is dishonoring, or that Fox News does it in the name of Christianity. Besides that, Christians have a moral duty to criticize those politicians and policies which they believe are destructive, and can do so while still respecting authority.

    #8268
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    About grammar related to long sentences…

    I personally break the use cases down this way:

    *Legal has the strongest use case for long, complex grammar due to the need to very clearly articulate and differentiate ideas, information and their relationships and significance,

    *Technical writing consists of actionable items, such as apecifications, patents, proofs, science, findings, etc…

    , and

    informative and or instructional, such as training, user guides, theories of operation…

    ; the former warrants complexity and precision for the same reasons legal writing does

    , and

    the latter being more relaxed due to a requirement on the reader to demonstrate strong parsing skills being a barrier exception to value,

    *Journalism varies in that it may contain both legal and technical components, by quote, or as part of a narrative; the challenge being to make it clear and approachable by a large audience, while preserving accuracy and clarity,

    *General case writing where the intent is to communicate correctly and clearly, neither of which tend to benefit from the higher level and greater length constructs possible**,

    *Creative writing where all elements of style may be employed for artistic purposes;

    **this massive sentence, case in point!

    🙂

    I will do this for an entirely different reason, and that is sometimes the work required to express an idea in a singular sentence also tends to clarify and optimize the idea itself.

    #8273
    Andy Brown
    Participant

    “From my perspective the gospel and doctrine are one”

    That is mostly correct as they both reference a body of subject matter you hold as true. In fact, only in the last century have denominational writers made an effort to separate them.

    But I think my sentence is grammatically correct,

    That’s laughable. That sentence is not even close to being grammatically correct or contextually clear. I won’t parse out all the errors and ambiguities. Suffice it to say that if you could write one fourth as well as Patrick does, you wouldn’t have your ass dragged through the gutter as much as you do here.

    “I don’t see how criticism is dishonoring”

    Out of context, that might be accurate, but in context with respect to authority you can not argue on one hand, for example, that this forum needs moderation and then when moderation is applied and you are thrown out, come back later and state you were “railroaded” (as you have). That is blatant disrespect for the very authority you requested. Another example would be arguing with the umpire or referee. If you are a player in the game, you have to respect the call. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with it, but commenting later that the ump was blind is a clear sign of disrespect for the game that you should be honoring. Players sometimes cross that line but modern managers rarely do (there’s always a few).

    or that Fox News does it in the name of Christianity

    I’ll agree with you on that point, but not for the theological point. Faux news does it for one and only one reason, ratings. Faux’s base is composed of the absolute worst citizens of this country whom are the least educated and most easily exacerbated over many topics.

    Christians have a moral duty to criticize those politicians and policies which they believe are destructive, and can do so while still respecting authority.

    Perhaps in theory, but in practice that isn’t what’s going on in the world today (or historically) and your behavior is a clear example of how that is just typical right wing hypocrisy.

    #8275
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    Suffice it to say that if you could write one fourth as well as Patrick does, you wouldn’t have your ass dragged through the gutter as much as you do here.

    He does write well. But that’s not why he’s not “dragged through the gutter.”

    If he posts well-written essays about why abortion is an injustice and why opposing it is not “misogyny” or why marriage is exclusively for two people of opposite sexes, my bet is that they will not be well received, and he will be personally attacked. But I would be happy to be proven wrong about that.

    #8277
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    Ok I reread that mega sentence I wrote. Agreed–it was not properly structured and was confusing. I can do much better, but for me to write well means a lot of work and multiple drafts.

    #8278
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Well, what kind of idiot would bother to write that kind of garbage well?

    People would be all over it, as they should.

    #8279
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    You are a first class ass.

    Was that sentence structured properly?

    #8282
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Was it unclear?

    Investing time and effort on those kinds of arguments is like using first class production values on Soap Opera type TV.

    Nobody cares.

    So then, does that help parsing the sentences? A little Orwellian, isn’t it?

    🙂

    And whether or not I’m the ass really does depend on how you take those sentences.

    See how that works? I think it’s kind of fun.

    #8290
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    Investing time and effort on those kinds of arguments is like using first class production values on Soap Opera type TV.

    Nobody cares.

    The irony.

    And whether or not I’m the ass really does depend on how you take those sentences.

    When someone admits he was wrong that means he’s being humble and gracious, which ought to evoke a humble and gracious response.

    Anyway, the point I attempted to make was valid, but poorly expressed. I’ll do better next time.

    Nos vemos mañana.

    #8291
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Hey, I did you a total solid. Wrote out what you said, didn’t judge it, nothing. Well, did call it funny, but it was.

    Then there was some fun word play, which also supported your post indirectly. It’s not entirely necessary to demonstrate correct grammar in conversational writing, but clarity is always a goal. Was just in the mood to write a big ass, monster run on sentence. (and provided reason for it, which has some utility, but really it was just a big ass sentence)

    At which point, somehow, you show sour grapes over QPatrick and a compliment on his writing. (which is very solid) This, dripping with some kind of odd call for somebody well versed to toss in so you don’t stick out so damn much on that shit.

    Also Abortion.

    Well, fuck abortion as a topic for discussion.

    To which I responded with a trifecta, just because fuck abortion. It’s Orwellian, somewhat painful, and a bit of a play all in one.

    Now, this is kind of funny!

    First, you demonstrate humility. “I was wrong” Ok fine. No worries. Pro Tip: If you really meant it for genuine reasons, it’s not really a big deal, and it’s not something one gets an award for, unless you want an award for trying really, really, really hard to just do the basic, human thing. All your call. Let us know.

    It’s not really gracious to admit being wrong, if the wrong is basic and obvious. Really, that’s all about ego. It may take some people considerable effort, and they expect stuff for it, while it might be “nice catch, thanks” for others, who really don’t care much about it all and just move on.

    Do you need a gold star?

    Then you read that little play, take it the worst way, call me an ass.

    (which I really don’t care about that you did, because I don’t really give that kind of thing any real weight, unless I also value the person and what they think about me)

    And then, after I added something to help with the nature of that trifecta type response, I get this:

    When someone admits he was wrong that means he’s being humble and gracious, which ought to evoke a humble and gracious response.

    Oh snap!

    Can you show me where I actually did respond to your humble post above?

    Funny how that works isn’t it?

    Since I’m going to get extra shitty credit, fuck it. I’ll just be, shitty. That way it is all perfectly clear going forward, k?

    #8295
    shipwreck
    Participant

    An honest man never has to keep telling people he’s honest. The same rule applies to a network that’s fair and balanced.

    #8298
    QPatrickEdwards
    Participant

    I was thinking about responding to Jerry’s challenge, but after attempting to craft a reply, I decided not to for the following reasons:

    1. I have been driving all day, I am beat and I am in a hotel full of noisy, female teenage softball players in addition to the Special Olympics basketball players. Difficult to concentrate.

    2. I assume that most of you on this board are intelligent enough to figure out where I stand on the two issues that Jerry referred to when I label myself a socially conservative Christian Evangelical. Stating how I came to those convictions is absolutely pointless. I will obviously disagree with most on this board on the two listed issues, as you will disagree with me. Why even bring it up? We have heard it all before. Besides, the issue at hand in this thread is “Fox News,” not those issues. If I am to discuss those issues, it will be on my terms, not Jerry’s. (The crazy thing is that I probably agree with Jerry at the core morality inherent in those issues more often than not, even if I disagree with him on how to approach these issues in society. Jerry likes to take an Authoritarian “from-the-top-down” approach, whereas, I believe in a “one person at a time, from the bottom up” approach.)

    3. Although it would be interesting to have a theological discussion with Jerry, this is not the forum for that discussion, add to that the fact that it is difficult(if not impossible) to have such discussion with one who belongs to an organization that considers me to be accursed due to my Protestant beliefs.(Council of Trent–still in effect as of today)

    MK, I have gotten about 10% through the PDF on Authoritarianism.(When my wife asked me what I was reading on the Kindle, she said “What is Authoritarianism?” it was difficult to explain.) Got just past the point of taking the test, got a 98(on a scale of 20-180) probably should have got a higher score, most likely, I tend to actually be a bit more Authoritarian in reality than I think, for sure.

    Interesting subject to read about, for sure.

    #8303
    Amus
    Participant

    RE: Right Wing Authoritarianism by Bob Altemeyer;

    OMG!
    What a fascinating read while on vacation, (between ballgames).

    Who does this remind you of?


    You’ve got to feel some sympathy for authoritarian followers at this point, don’t you, because they get nailed coming and going.
    First of all, they rely on the authorities in their lives to provide their opinions. Usually they don’t care much what the evidence or the logic for a position is, so they run a considerable chance of being wrong.
    Then once they have “their” ideas, someone who comes along and says what authoritarian followers want to hear becomes trustworthy.
    High RWAs largely ignore the reasons why someone might have ulterior motives for saying what they want to hear; it’s enough for them that another person indicates they are right. Welcome to the In-group!

    But everything is not correct, for the authoritarian follower makes himself vulnerable to malevolent manipulation by chucking out critical thinking and prudence
    as the price for maintaining his beliefs. He’s an “easy mark,” custom-built to be snookered. And the very last thing an authoritarian leader wants is for his followers to start using their heads, to start thinking critically and independently about things.

    Dogmatism: The Authoritarian’s Last Ditch Defense
    But the leaders don’t have to worry, because their followers are also quite dogmatic. By dogmatism I mean relatively unchangeable, unjustified certainty. And I’m certain that is right, beyond a doubt. So that establishes how dogmatic I am.

    If you want a hint as to how dogmatic you are, simply answer the items below;

    The things I believe in are so completely true, I could never doubt them.

    My opinions and beliefs fit together perfectly to make a crystal-clear “picture” of things.

    There are no discoveries or facts that could possibly make me change my mind about the things that matter most in life.

    I am absolutely certain that my ideas about the fundamental issues in life are correct.

    These statements are from a survey I call the DOG scale, and as usual there are some items that you’ll have to strongly disagree with to look awful. Such as:

    There are so many things we have not discovered yet, nobody should be absolutely certain his beliefs are right.

    It is best to be open to all possibilities, and ready to reevaluate all your beliefs.

    Flexibility is a real virtue in thinking, since you may well be wrong.

    I am a long way from reaching final conclusions about the central issues in life.

    Guess who tend to strongly agree with the first set of items, and strongly disagree with the second set. Yep, high RWAs. Which, all kidding aside, suggests they have a dogmatic streak in them a mile wide and a hundred denials deep.

    #8304
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    Besides, the issue at hand in this thread is “Fox News,” not those issues. If I am to discuss those issues, it will be on my terms, not Jerry’s. (The crazy thing is that I probably agree with Jerry at the core morality inherent in those issues more often than not, even if I disagree with him on how to approach these issues in society.

    I wasn’t challenging you. A friend of mine on this forum told me that if I could write well like you do that I would not have “my ass dragged through the gutter so often,” and my contention was that that doesn’t happen to you because of writing skills, but because so far you have not been outspoken and specific about moral issues, and that’s perfectly fine with me.

    Jerry likes to take an Authoritarian “from-the-top-down” approach, whereas, I believe in a “one person at a time, from the bottom up” approach.)

    It’s not either/or, but I only appeal to authority in discussions with other Christians or in explaining my faith. But this is a free-for-all message board, so it’s much different here than in the “real” world.

    3. Although it would be interesting to have a theological discussion with Jerry, this is not the forum for that discussion, add to that the fact that it is difficult(if not impossible) to have such discussion with one who belongs to an organization that considers me to be accursed due to my Protestant beliefs.(Council of Trent–still in effect as of today)

    We do not see our Protestant brethern as “accursed.” All you have to do is tune into KBVM some time and you will see how Catholics treat Protestants, as there are many programs in which Protestants call in, and program hosts who were Protestants and Protestant ministers, who converted to Catholicism.

    I was one myself until I was almost 40. They didn’t threaten to burn me at the stake if I didn’t convert. There is a great respect for your intent and devotion and that which we have in common.

    #8305
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    Is Mr. Altemeyer absolutely certain about his beliefs about “RWAs”? Or do you think he thinks he might be wroing about them? He’s coming across as being very dogmatic about it.

    Millions profess a faith of beliefing in God, the Son, the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the death and resurrection of the Christ, etc. That’s dogma. They stake their eternity on these beliefs. They’re supposed to say “I believe in Jesus, but I suppose he could be a fable”?

    He’s wrong in presuming they extend dogma to those things to which dogma doesn’t apply.

    Here are two prevalant forum dogmas:

    the right of a woman to choose an abortion
    that same-sex sexual relations are normal

    Does anyone doubt either of the above? Is there anything that could change your thinking about them? Are you open to the possibility you could be wrong about either?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 56 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.