Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Child-kidnapping excused for ''Cultural differences''.

Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

31 Mar 2014, 8:22 pm

Ahh yes, the ole' 'discrimination is okay if it's against the "right" people' routine, regular bigotry's classy cousin. You have to be pretty certain in your beliefs for that one.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


iBlockhead
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

31 Mar 2014, 8:29 pm

Dox47 wrote:
^

You seem a little, well, biased, maybe not that different than the people you're condemning.


I'll try this again:

Did you read the article or try to find an opposing viewpoint? You appear to be more concerned with lecturing people on how to "discuss" without giving any real contribution to the thread.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

31 Mar 2014, 8:39 pm

iBlockhead wrote:
I'll try this again:

Did you read the article or try to find an opposing viewpoint? You appear to be more concerned with lecturing people on how to "discuss" without giving any real contribution to the thread.


I'm sorry, what's your point?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


iBlockhead
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

31 Mar 2014, 8:53 pm

Dox47 wrote:
iBlockhead wrote:
I'll try this again:

Did you read the article or try to find an opposing viewpoint? You appear to be more concerned with lecturing people on how to "discuss" without giving any real contribution to the thread.


I'm sorry, what's your point?


You keep saying having something inflammatory/offensive somewhere on the site doesn't invalidate it. That's correct, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

But if there were evidence showing that a judge let someone off because the perpetrator is a Muslim and cannot be found guilty because of cultural differences, wouldn't this make your argument stronger? So instead of just telling people to do more "critical thinking," wouldn't you practice what you preach and look for something to corroborate this?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

31 Mar 2014, 9:39 pm

iBlockhead wrote:
You keep saying having something inflammatory/offensive somewhere on the site doesn't invalidate it. That's correct, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

But if there were evidence showing that a judge let someone off because the perpetrator is a Muslim and cannot be found guilty because of cultural differences, wouldn't this make your argument stronger? So instead of just telling people to do more "critical thinking," wouldn't you practice what you preach and look for something to corroborate this?


You mistake me, I'm not arguing that the site is correct, it might be completely full of crap, I'm merely arguing that it's incorrect to dismiss anything it has to say based on it's political orientation and/or inflammatory prose alone. I'm not even particularly interested in whether or not the story is true, it's completely irrelevant to my point, I only got involved because I saw someone chiding another member about critical thinking while displaying none herself, and that kind of hypocrisy tends to draw my attention.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

31 Mar 2014, 11:02 pm

Dox47 wrote:
iBlockhead wrote:
You keep saying having something inflammatory/offensive somewhere on the site doesn't invalidate it. That's correct, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

But if there were evidence showing that a judge let someone off because the perpetrator is a Muslim and cannot be found guilty because of cultural differences, wouldn't this make your argument stronger? So instead of just telling people to do more "critical thinking," wouldn't you practice what you preach and look for something to corroborate this?


You mistake me, I'm not arguing that the site is correct, it might be completely full of crap, I'm merely arguing that it's incorrect to dismiss anything it has to say based on it's political orientation and/or inflammatory prose alone. I'm not even particularly interested in whether or not the story is true, it's completely irrelevant to my point, I only got involved because I saw someone chiding another member about critical thinking while displaying none herself, and that kind of hypocrisy tends to draw my attention.


There's more to critical thinking than avoiding logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Paying attention to mast heads is a part of critical thinking.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Apr 2014, 12:27 am

Stannis wrote:
There's more to critical thinking than avoiding logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Paying attention to mast heads is a part of critical thinking.


Didn't say there wasn't, what's your point?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

01 Apr 2014, 1:37 am

Dox47 wrote:
Stannis wrote:
There's more to critical thinking than avoiding logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Paying attention to mast heads is a part of critical thinking.


Didn't say there wasn't, what's your point?


There was absolutely nothing Artist did that was, from a critical thinking perspective, inappropriate. If the only source we are presented with is one which spouts racist rhetoric, and accuses all liberals of being totalitarians in its header, that throws up massive red flags as to the accuracy of its reportage, and its a waste of time to entertain that stuff before it has been corroborated.

I lose track of the amount of times someone has asked my opinion about something that they have not bothered to verify.



Last edited by Stannis on 01 Apr 2014, 1:58 am, edited 3 times in total.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Apr 2014, 1:43 am

Dox47 wrote:
Niall wrote:
My point is that, under most circumstances, I wouldn't bother asking the view of some right-wing nutjob in the first place.


So you'll just stay in a left wing bubble then?

As opposed to what, a right wing bubble? that's just so much better :roll:



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Apr 2014, 2:02 am

Stannis wrote:
There was absolutely nothing Artist did that was, from a critical thinking perspective, inappropriate. If the only source we are presented with is one which spouts racist rhetoric, and accuses all liberals of being totalitarians in its header, that throws up massive red flags as to the accuracy of its reportage, and its a waste of time to entertain that stuff before it has been corroborated.


Are you quite sure you understand what 'critical thinking' means?

For example, I'm pretty sure that 'deciding upon the accuracy of a statement based solely upon the political alignment of the speaker', isn't covered under the rubric, especially when there links embedded in the story that could very easily verify the facts sans any spin the site had put on them. In fact, I'd say that dismissing a story out of hand because you disagree with the speaker is an excellent example of uncritical thinking, something of a local sport on this board.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Last edited by Dox47 on 01 Apr 2014, 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Apr 2014, 2:05 am

cyberdad wrote:
As opposed to what, a right wing bubble? that's just so much better :roll:


As opposed to no bubble, which requires acquiring information from a variety of sources, some of whom you might find unpleasant or disagreeable. You are aware that there are more than two ways of looking at things, right?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

01 Apr 2014, 2:27 am

Dox47 wrote:
Stannis wrote:
There was absolutely nothing Artist did that was, from a critical thinking perspective, inappropriate. If the only source we are presented with is one which spouts racist rhetoric, and accuses all liberals of being totalitarians in its header, that throws up massive red flags as to the accuracy of its reportage, and its a waste of time to entertain that stuff before it has been corroborated.


Are you quite sure you understand what 'critical thinking' means?

For example, I'm pretty sure that 'deciding upon the accuracy of a statement based solely upon the political alignment of the speaker', isn't covered under the rubric, especially when there links embedded in the story that could very easily verify the facts sans any spin the site had put on them. In fact, I'd say that dismissing a story out of hand because you disagree with the speaker is an excellent example of uncritical thinking, something of a local sport on this board.


Yes.

Dismissing a story is not the same thing as 'deciding on the accuracy' of a story. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I dismissed the story because it came from a disreputable source. That does not mean that I made a judgement about whether or not it happened.



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

01 Apr 2014, 6:34 pm

dox47, i think perhaps your personal issues with me are clouding your own critical thinking abilities.

i did not "dismiss the speaker" (whatever that means) because of their political affiliation. i dismissed the story because the source was blatantly biased and chose to explicitly state that bias in their website masthead for all to see. and i'm not just talking about a little bit left or a little bit right. i think i already pointed it out but i will again, the website masthead states: "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out." i got the impression from the not-at-all-subtle masthead that i was actually being told that as a liberal i wasn't welcome to the site at all. why should i "attempt to engage" with a "news source" that is quite obviously telling me that it has no interest in "engaging" with me?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Apr 2014, 11:49 pm

Stannis wrote:
Yes.


Your posting history would suggest otherwise, but whatever.

Stannis wrote:
Dismissing a story is not the same thing as 'deciding on the accuracy' of a story. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I dismissed the story because it came from a disreputable source. That does not mean that I made a judgement about whether or not it happened.


In either case, more investigation is required than looking at the masthead of the publication, even tabloids occasionally break real stories, much to the chagrin of the people who dismissed them based purely on the source. In this case, the meat of the story did in fact happen, the problem is the "color commentary" provided by the linked website attempting to use the incident to support a repugnant worldview.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

01 Apr 2014, 11:55 pm

starvingartist wrote:
dox47, i think perhaps your personal issues with me are clouding your own critical thinking abilities.


Clearly, you've not spent much time in the PPR section, as this is how I treat all posters who make comments like yours, you'd know if I had a personal issue with you. Further, you're the one being childish in the other thread trying to annoy me in a clearly personal manner, which makes this yet another hypocritical statement from you, establishing a bit of a pattern.

starvingartist wrote:
i did not "dismiss the speaker" (whatever that means) because of their political affiliation. i dismissed the story because the source was blatantly biased and chose to explicitly state that bias in their website masthead for all to see. and i'm not just talking about a little bit left or a little bit right. i think i already pointed it out but i will again, the website masthead states: "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out."


None of which could definitively tell you that the site is wrong, hence the hypocrisy in you making such a declaration while lecturing another poster about the critical thinking skills you so clearly lack.

starvingartist wrote:
i got the impression from the not-at-all-subtle masthead that i was actually being told that as a liberal i wasn't welcome to the site at all. why should i "attempt to engage" with a "news source" that is quite obviously telling me that it has no interest in "engaging" with me?


Because you want to be intellectually honest?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

02 Apr 2014, 12:05 am

Dox47 wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
dox47, i think perhaps your personal issues with me are clouding your own critical thinking abilities.


Clearly, you've not spent much time in the PPR section, as this is how I treat all posters who make comments like yours, you'd know if I had a personal issue with you. Further, you're the one being childish in the other thread trying to annoy me in a clearly personal manner, which makes this yet another hypocritical statement from you, establishing a bit of a pattern.

starvingartist wrote:
i did not "dismiss the speaker" (whatever that means) because of their political affiliation. i dismissed the story because the source was blatantly biased and chose to explicitly state that bias in their website masthead for all to see. and i'm not just talking about a little bit left or a little bit right. i think i already pointed it out but i will again, the website masthead states: "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out."


None of which could definitively tell you that the site is wrong, hence the hypocrisy in you making such a declaration while lecturing another poster about the critical thinking skills you so clearly lack.

starvingartist wrote:
i got the impression from the not-at-all-subtle masthead that i was actually being told that as a liberal i wasn't welcome to the site at all. why should i "attempt to engage" with a "news source" that is quite obviously telling me that it has no interest in "engaging" with me?


Because you want to be intellectually honest?


you zeem to haff a problem mit ze critical tinking skills off ozzers here on zis forum as compared to yourself--bitte, tell me about your mutter, did she possibly question ze masculinity or ewen walue off yourself based on ze critical tinking? :lol: