Decision 2012
Quote: rxwine"Tough Love" style treatment for drug & alcohol where you don't ENABLE people, is considered by some exactly the right thing. Not wrong at all. It most often has to be used by family members who tend to be enabling otherwise and support an addictive lifestyle. (I'm going to use the money you send to get clean, but head out to make a another buy)
So could be "ethically dissimilar".
You're missing the point. How do you know it was "tough love" when the media never asked Obama about it? OTOH, the media did ask Romney directly about the dog story, and it dominated several news cycles. Hell, there's even a separate Wikipedia entry devoted specifically to it.
I honestly don't know why this is so difficult to understand. A simple LexisNexis search will confirm everything.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou're missing the point. How do you know it was "tough love" when the media never asked Obama about it?.
Well then, in that case, we can only criticize Romney for the dog, or the media for not asking Obama, because we don't know the story about Obama's brother from Obama.
Quote: rxwineWell then, in that case, we can only criticize Romney for the dog, or the media for not asking Obama, because we don't know the story about Obama's brother from Obama.
Uh...this is what I was getting at from the start.
Quote: rxwineBut don't compare Obama to Romney, if you don't know the story.
Wow, you still don't get it. Why don't we know the story from Obama?? Because the media didn't freakin ask.
Quote: rxwineAs far as I know, they never asked Obama how many magazines he reads like Sarah Palin. Bet he doesn't read "all of them" like Sarah.
Haha...you're making my point now, yet I don't think you realize it.
Quote: Beethoven9thI've already said this 3 times before, but since you need me to say it a 4th time, here goes: If someone wants to criticize Romney's ethics regarding the dog story, then they shouldn't whine when someone else criticizes Obama's ethics for not helping his brother.
Now you're just sticking your fingers in your ears. If they're not on the same level, it's perfectly reasonable to whine about one but not the other.
Actually, considering the fact that I've made the same statement 4 times now, I think it's the other way around.Quote: 24BingoNow you're just sticking your fingers in your ears.
Who made you the sole arbiter of what is/isn't on the "same level"? Many people would disagree with your conclusion. Frankly, I think the media ought to report objectively and let the people (not 24Bingo) make that decision.Quote: 24BingoIf they're not on the same level, it's perfectly reasonable to whine about one but not the other.
To say mistreatment of a dog is a "greater wrong" than mistreatment of a person is an egregious distortion.Quote: 24BingoA point that would only make sense if they were comparable. If the greater wrong is given more airtime, that's just how it ought to be.
Quote: 24BingoExcept most of this thread has come to agree that Obama did the right thing, or at least a morally neutral thing, regarding his brother.
...except that wasn't my point. (The "fingers"/"ears" comment seems very appropriate right now.) Please go back and read the last few pages of this thread, and you'll see what I actually said.
Quote: 24BingoMistreatment of a dog is indeed a greater wrong than cold proper treatment of a person.
Well that settles it. 24Bingo gave his opinion, so it must be true! I guess we can all go home now...
Quote: Beethoven9th...except that wasn't my point. (The "fingers"/"ears" comment seems very appropriate right now.) Please go back and read the last few pages of this thread, and you'll see what I actually said.
I wasn't talking to you. You seem determined not to even acknowledge the concept of false equivalence, rather committing yourself to a horse race where one trot sounds much like another, only their aggregate motion mattering and only to reinforce one's selections. You do not have your fingers in your ears, but solder. So you might as well just keep chanting "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" and saying it's irrelevant that one is maple and one is sawdust.
Quote: 24BingoYou seem determined not to even acknowledge the concept of false equivalence, rather committing yourself to a horse race where one trot sounds much like another, only their aggregate motion mattering and only to reinforce one's selections.
You seem determined not to even acknowledge that '24Bingo' isn't the one who gets to decide what is/isn't a false equivalence. The voters are the ones who should decide, and a LexisNexis search (which I doubt you've done) clearly shows that the voters were presented with an abundance of stories about one incident, yet there were far fewer stories regarding the other. (If Romney's ethics are going to be scrutinized, then so should Obama's)
Quote: 24BingoYou do not have your fingers in your ears, but solder. So you might as well just keep chanting "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" and saying it's irrelevant that one is maple and one is sawdust.
This was the strongest reply you were able to come up with??? *headshake*
When I see the pictures of the President's brother lashed in a cage atop the presidential limo, then there will be moral equivalence.Quote: SanchoPanzaTo say mistreatment of a dog is a "greater wrong" than mistreatment of a person is an egregious distortion.
There is a difference. Romney took a duty of care on his dog, by owning it. Obama has never taken a duty of care on his -half- brother that he has never met, and many would say that he has no obligation to, as it's half brother by his his father he hardly knew. To me, there's a very different question here, and shouting moral equivalence is just a false dichotomy. I'm sure Beethoven will repeat his point, again. I understand his point. I just don't think it's valid -in this case-. It's probably likely that there is a equivalent story that was unreported about Obama.
I do agree that whether Mittens put his dog on top of the car or not is uninteresting compared to his, and Barry's economic policies (the ones are framed in terms of what they'd do, rather than what the other side might be imagined to do). Attack politics sadly works.
Quote: thecesspitTo me, there's a very different question here, and shouting moral equivalence is just a false dichotomy. I'm sure Beethoven will repeat his point, again.
You bet I am, because everybody seems to be missing my point regardless of how many times I state (and re-state) it. Understand, YOU may not think that the two stories are equivalent, but so what? Who are you???? (And to be fair, who am I?) There are many millions of people out there who felt that the Romney 'dog' story was a non-story, yet the media—at least in the US—didn't hesitate to give it substantial coverage over several news cycles, and they even confronted the candidate himself about it. Yet all this scrutiny was perfectly fine because you feel it was justified, correct? (Sorry, don't mean to pick on you, but you're the one I happen to be replying to, at the moment)
I can cite numerous other examples of this type of coverage as well. Heck, someone else happened to bring up the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin when she asked, "What do you read?" Now does anybody remember a Democratic VP candidate being asked such a stupid question???
And what about all those times when the media portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as being "smarter" than George W. Bush.....yet they almost never mentioned that Bush actually got higher grades than both Gore and Kerry. (Yeah, yeah...I know, someone here is going to chime in and say that these two stories are "ethically dissimilar" because Gore and Kerry must have had harder classes)
And what about when Catholic priests are accused of molesting young boys? The media always plays up the fact that they are Catholic, yet they never play up the fact that they are gay. (I know, I know...these are "ethically dissimilar" because those priests may have molested young girls as well)
And what about the difference in media coverage between abortion bomber Eric Rudolph and abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell? (I know, I know...you don't need to tell me...someone's going to interject and say that these two cases are "ethically dissimilar" because Rudolph killed human beings, while Gosnell "only" killed fetuses)
And the list goes on... *headshake*
Quote: Beethoven9thI can cite numerous other examples of this type of coverage as well. Heck, someone else happened to bring up the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin when she asked, "What do you read?" Now does anybody remember a Democratic VP candidate being asked such a stupid question???
I don't find that to be a stupid question. I have no evidence a Democratic VP candidate has been asked, but I bet at some point in the last 20 years it's happened.
We don't remember the answer because it probably was not quite as "memorable" as that of Palin.
Oscar
Quote: oscar33I have no evidence a Democratic VP candidate has been asked, but I bet at some point in the last 20 years it's happened.
Simple. Just do a LexisNexis search for Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman, John Edwards, and Joe Biden.
Quote: rxwineAs far as I know, they never asked Obama how many magazines he reads like Sarah Palin. Bet he doesn't read "all of them" like Sarah.
No, but he has visited all 57 states and has a muslim faith that is very important to him.
Quote: Beethoven9thYou seem determined not to even acknowledge that '24Bingo' isn't the one who gets to decide what is/isn't a false equivalence.
I find it interesting to find a comment like this in response to a comment that, despite being a post separated from any of yours, and made more sense as a response to the comment immediately prior, you assumed was addressing you. But still, the media does have to make some common-sense judgments - they can't report everything that could conceivably reflect ill on the antichrist's character.
Quote: Beethoven9thThe voters are the ones who should decide, and a LexisNexis search (which I doubt you've done) clearly shows that the voters were presented with an abundance of stories about one incident, yet there were far fewer stories regarding the other. (If Romney's ethics are going to be scrutinized, then so should Obama's)
Why should I do a search on the website you're so proud to know? You've clearly done it for me. I don't doubt that one got more coverage in the media; the only difference is that I actually care why.
Quote: Beethoven9thAnd what about all those times when the media portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as being "smarter" than George W. Bush.....yet they almost never mentioned that Bush actually got higher grades than both Gore and Kerry. (Yeah, yeah...I know, someone here is going to chime in and say that these two stories are "ethically dissimilar" because Gore and Kerry must have had harder classes)
Who cares? Morals don't enter into it; college grades are a weak indicator at best of which fifty-something is more intelligent.
Quote: Beethoven9thAnd what about when Catholic priests are accused of molesting young boys? The media always plays up the fact that they are Catholic, yet they never play up the fact that they are gay. (I know, I know...these are "ethically dissimilar" because those priests may have molested young girls as well)
No, because it's generally recognized that attraction to prepubescents doesn't follow the same "rules" in regard to gender. Those who were attracted to adults at all, it's entirely possible they're not attracted to men. (And it's really the coverup that was the issue - the pedophilia was just the aspect that the sleaze-loving public fixated on.)
Quote: Beethoven9thAnd what about the difference in media coverage between abortion bomber Eric Rudolph and abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell? (I know, I know...you don't need to tell me...someone's going to interject and say that these two cases are "ethically dissimilar" because Rudolph killed human beings, while Gosnell "only" killed fetuses)
...if I were still a pro-lifer, you'd be embarrassing me right now.
If anyone speaks O-bonics and can translate this, please PM me.Quote: 24BingoI find it interesting to find a comment like this in response to a comment that, despite being a post separated from any of yours, and made more sense as a response to the comment immediately prior, you assumed was addressing you.
So you're debating a subject on which you've admittedly done no research and don't even care about?!? Riiiiiight...that sure makes sense...Quote: 24BingoWhy should I do a search on the website you're so proud to know? You've clearly done it for me. I don't doubt that one got more coverage in the media...
Oh my god...so you really are chalking up the favorable Gore/Kerry coverage to an "ethical dissimilarity"???? *facepalm*Quote: 24Bingo...college grades are a weak indicator at best of which fifty-something is more intelligent.Quote: Beethoven9thAnd what about all those times when the media portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as being "smarter" than George W. Bush.....yet they almost never mentioned that Bush actually got higher grades than both Gore and Kerry. (Yeah, yeah...I know, someone here is going to chime in and say that these two stories are "ethically dissimilar" because Gore and Kerry must have had harder classes)
*facepalm*Quote: 24BingoNo, because it's generally recognized that attraction to prepubescents doesn't follow the same "rules" in regard to gender. Those who were attracted to adults at all, it's entirely possible they're not attracted to men.Quote: Beethoven9thAnd what about when Catholic priests are accused of molesting young boys? The media always plays up the fact that they are Catholic, yet they never play up the fact that they are gay. (I know, I know...these are "ethically dissimilar" because those priests may have molested young girls as well)
So to summarize your argument, the media is justified in pointing out that gay Catholic molesters are Catholic, yet they are not justified in pointing out that gay Catholic molesters are gay because................these things are "ethically dissimilar"??? *5 facepalms in a row*
Let me see if I understand this. So my argument is that in all of these cases there is a simple media bias (however big or small), but your argument is that there is no media bias whatsoever and that the MSM was justified in burying all of the anti-Democrat stories (such as the ones above) because each one is "ethically dissimilar" to [insert unrelated story here]??? *face in both palms, leaning forward, shaking my head*
_____________________________________________________________
I probably shouldn't ask this question since I will more than likely get another cringe-worthy response, but in the same vein, let's say that the presidents of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX held a joint news conference and said, "We are going to suspend all coverage of the Benghazi and IRS scandals because they are 'ethically dissimilar' to Watergate."
To me, that would show a little media bias. But to 24Bingo, it would all be fine and dandy because that's exactly the type of argument he's been making in this thread.
You're actually doing a pretty good job of that on your own.Quote: 24Bingo...if I were still a pro-lifer, you'd be embarrassing me right now.
(As for the rest of this post, my response boiled down to, "no, it's because of that thing I actually said," so I'll just say that.)
(Pure freakin' lead...)
If not, there is no problem.
I like the fairness doctrine myself. See no real problem with it as far as limiting freedom. But even Obama opposes it now. Which is too bad, really.
Quote: SanchoPanzaI have just realized how out of date I am. Is a lucid definition or explanation of the phrase "ethically dissimilar" available? It does not appear even in the Urban Dictionary.
24Bingo first introduced that term back on May 27th, 2013 at 11:09:36 PM.
...and now he doesn't even want to define it.* lol
* UPDATE: Looks like he went back and edited his post to include a definition.
Quote: rxwineI like the fairness doctrine myself.
As long as you get to decide what's 'fair', I'm sure you do like it.
Quote: 24BingoTo me it means... pay close attention... lacking similarity in an ethical view. I'm not sure what it means to Beethoven9th
Guess you haven't read my posts.
Quote: Beethoven9thAs long as you get to decide what's 'fair', I'm sure you do like it.
Well, in my opinion, all those liberal media stations would have to run more conservative viewpoints because of fairness. The same shit you're basically complaining about. If the practice hadn't ended, that would have likely been going on all those years.
Quote: rxwineQuote: Beethoven9thAs long as you get to decide what's 'fair', I'm sure you do like it.
Well, in my opinion, all those liberal media stations would have to run more conservative viewpoints because of fairness. The same shit you're basically complaining about. If the practice hadn't ended, that would have likely been going on all those years.
Nobody listens to liberal radio....facepalm
Quote: rxwineWell, in my opinion, all those liberal media stations would have to run more conservative viewpoints because of fairness. The same shit you're basically complaining about. If the practice hadn't ended, that would have likely been going on all those years.
You really don't get it, do you? Those liberal media stations claim that they are not "liberal" and that they are fair with no bias at all. So if they had to air any "conservative" content, they would fight it tooth and nail. That's why the Fairness Doctrine is anything but fair (unless you're the one who gets to decide what's fair and what isn't). But you still support it...
Quote: treetopbuddy
Nobody listens to liberal radio....facepalm
Ain't talking about just radio. Yes, for some reason convervatives opposed fairness due to radio. That's funny. Proves how silly that is.
Quote: Beethoven9thGuess you haven't read my posts.
Apparently it also means "being judged by your apparent present faculties rather than a three-decade-old GPA" and "being at the center of a coverup while not actually being gay," but I might be a little fuzzy.
Quote: rxwinePlenty of people have pointed out the person not getting it on the thread.
The ones who aren't "getting it" are the ones who try to change the subject.
Quote: 24BingoApparently it also means "being judged by your apparent present faculties rather than a three-decade-old GPA" and "being at the center of a coverup while not actually being gay," but I might be a little fuzzy.
That's funny. So basically, your view is that the media should only report what you feel they should. In other words, the media should report that Kerry is smarter than Bush because 24Bingo feels that's fair. But they shouldn't report about Bush's superior performance in college because 24Bingo feels that's out of line. Scary.
Stop the cherry picking. Let the people decide for themselves which stories are important, not you.
Quote: Beethoven9thThat's funny. So basically, your view is that the media should only report what you feel they should. In other words, the media should report that Kerry is smarter than Bush because 24Bingo feels that's fair. But they shouldn't report about Bush's superior performance in college because 24Bingo feels that's out of line. Scary.
Again -- it's freedom of the press. Are you for it or against it?
Quote: rxwineAgain -- it's freedom of the press. Are you for it or against it?
Are you for or against more objective news coverage?
EDIT: I guess I should first ask, do you feel that the media has a liberal bias?
Quote: Beethoven9thAre you for or against more objective news coverage?
How would we get objective coverage? People have a hard time seeing their own bias generally. You usually have to subject them to tests to show them what they didn't notice.
As I said, I think more people should get their say. I'd never vote for Ron/Rand Paul but would like to see more viewpoints get more coverage.
Quote: rxwineHow would we get objective coverage? People have a hard time seeing their own bias generally.
This statement is so ironic from a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine because it's exactly why the Fairness Doctrine would never work.
Quote: rxwineYou usually have to subject them to tests to show them what they didn't notice.
Noble goal, but that usually doesn't work either. Take this thread, for example. I gave three specific examples of media bias, yet one member tried to rationalize the bias in all three instances, while another claimed that I wasn't "getting it".
Quote:The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until FCC chairman Mark Fowler began rolling it back during Reagan's second term — despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan's policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880786,00.html#ixzz2UitBWVdb
Quote: rxwineThe fairness doctrine was already in force at one time.
Uh...I realize that. And the fact that it is gone should tell you something.
Quote: Beethoven9thUh...I realize that. And the fact that it is gone should tell you something.
Not anything good.
And it likely helped Reagan against more media bias than he already endured. Did you notice I'm not a conservative?
Of course, people in a booth who don't have to sit side by side on equal footing and can push a button to hang up on someone hate fairness.
Quote: rxwineAnd it likely helped Reagan against more media bias than he already endured. Did you notice I'm not a conservative?
First off, saying that it helped Reagan is just more liberal propaganda. But, for the sake of argument, let's just say it's true. Reagan STILL opposed it. Did you notice Reagan wasn't a liberal?
Quote: rxwineOf course, people in a booth who don't have to sit side by side on equal footing and can push a button to hang up on someone hate fairness.
It's their show, and they can do whatever hell they want. You're citing opinion shows which admit their strong bias and don't try to pretend that they are 'objective' news outlets. If ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. similarly admitted their liberal bias, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue.
Quote: Beethoven9thFirst off, saying that it helped Reagan is just more liberal propaganda.
One should prove that the fairness doctrine caused real harm with some examples.
You're the one casting propaganda.
Quote: rxwineOne should prove that the fairness doctrine caused real harm with some examples.
One should prove that the Fairness Doctrine does good.
Quote: rxwineYou're the one casting propaganda.
Huh? You claimed that the Fairness Doctrine helped Reagan. Most of his supporters feel/felt otherwise. How the hell is this propaganda?
But seriously, why are you even bringing up the Fairness Doctrine out of the blue?
The last few pages of this thread had me citing three specific examples of liberal media bias, and another member simply explained it away saying that each example was "ethically dissimilar" to something else (i.e. 'gay' is ethically dissimilar to 'Catholic'); therefore, the media was justified in giving each of the three examples little/no coverage. Say what?!?
