Media Bias

[Cunt]

Who IS qualified to decide what you should be allowed to say, or if you should be silenced if you do say something?

As I've mentioned, speaking is something we do - an act. Are we not responsible for what we do? Are we not accountable for our acts?

So I'd put it this way: Who IS qualified to decide what we should be allowed to do, or if we should be sanctioned if we do do that something? I think you know the answer to that one.

Let's accept that "free speech is more important than everything else", but I'll still ask you again, what makes speaking a special case compared to any other thing we might do? Any ideas? Or is free speech simply being able to say whatever you like to or about anyone you like whenever or wherever you like without consequence?

I don't think I said it is a special case, it is THE special case.

The ability to discuss ideas, even ugly ones, is what has led us to smartphones and advanced liquers.

So who IS qualified?

I mean, I get that you think someone should put a stop to some speech, but who is qualified to police your speech?

For me, no-one is qualified to decide what I can read. From your position, if someone wrote something 'harmful', you would place someone to interfere with my learning what they wrote.

Who is qualified, Brian?

I'm not saying you don't have a point - speech IS dangerous. More so than almost anything.

But who gets to say what can and cannot be said, read or written?

[Scot Dutchy]

This is what Hermit did in the Corona Virus thread in comparing the US, Sweden, and the Netherlands to Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. It's obvious that the first group is "way above, in terms of their mortality" the second group, and I notice Spiegelhalter didn't single that type of comparison out as a completely fatuous exercise.

"Spijkers op laag water zoeken" (Searching for nails at low water). He was comparing European countries Joe. Why? They had better quality data so even with those countries comparison was a completely fatuous exercise. Now do you understand. Any comparison is silly and pointless then he gave the reason why.

[Brian Peacock]

Who IS qualified to decide what you should be allowed to say, or if you should be silenced if you do say something?

As I've mentioned, speaking is something we do - an act. Are we not responsible for what we do? Are we not accountable for our acts?

So I'd put it this way: Who IS qualified to decide what we should be allowed to do, or if we should be sanctioned if we do do that something? I think you know the answer to that one.

Let's accept that "free speech is more important than everything else", but I'll still ask you again, what makes speaking a special case compared to any other thing we might do? Any ideas? Or is free speech simply being able to say whatever you like to or about anyone you like whenever or wherever you like without consequence?

I don't think I said it is a special case, it is THE special case.

The ability to discuss ideas, even ugly ones, is what has led us to smartphones and advanced liquers.

So who IS qualified?

I mean, I get that you think someone should put a stop to some speech, but who is qualified to police your speech?

For me, no-one is qualified to decide what I can read. From your position, if someone wrote something 'harmful', you would place someone to interfere with my learning what they wrote.

Who is qualified, Brian?

I'm not saying you don't have a point - speech IS dangerous. More so than almost anything.

But who gets to say what can and cannot be said, read or written?

I'd put it like this: Who is qualified to police your driving, or your accountancy, or more generally anything you do? As I said, I think you know the answer to that one already -- because as a member of society you live it every day -- but you seem a little hesitant to actually say it out loud don't you? Are you interested in why you're reluctant to articulate your point of view here, and if so why do you think that might be?

To move things on let's think about it like this, for the sake of argument as it were...

We all accept and acknowledge there are socially enforceable limits on the things we do (our acts), some of which we agree with and some of which we don't.

We can call that a premise of the discussion you like. OK?

Of the limits on the things we do that we don't agree with: we accept and acknowledge that even though we don't agree with not being able to do X we're still limited in our ability to do X because doing X carries some form of socially enforceable consequences for us (if society becomes aware of it of course).

We can call that a qualification - it amounts to a more detailed and particular framing if the premise.

So with that as a starting point let's talk about something we do (an act) which, for the sake of argument, we don't think we should be limited in doing and for which we think there should be no socially enforceable consequences for us doing: speaking.

Let's also be clear that when we're talking about 'speaking' here it's in the context of discussing ideas and expressing our views and opinions about and around ideas. Still with me?

So...

As the protagonist in this discussion you're declaring speaking a special case ("THE special case") but you haven't outlined why/how it should not be subject to the same norms and forms of policing (socially enforceable consequences for us) as anything else we might do -- what makes THE special case special -- nor have you identified how those same norms and forms limit anyone's ability to discuss and explore ideas, even ulgy ones.

Basically: Why is speaking a special case and why, as an act (as something we do), should we not be subject to some form of socially enforceable limits/consequences when doing it?

These are serious and difficult matters but perhaps if you gave some examples, even hypothetical ones, your perspective could be made a bit clearer - maybe even to both of us. It would also make things easier, more straightforward, honest etc if you didn't automatically presume a position on my behalf ("I understand that you think ... etc ...", "I get that you think someone should ... etc ...") and argue against that presumption, but addressed the points I've made and the questions I've asked directly in a more collaborative spirit and from your own perspective.

[Hermit]

Who IS qualified to decide what you should be allowed to say, or if you should be silenced if you do say something?

As I've mentioned, speaking is something we do - an act. Are we not responsible for what we do? Are we not accountable for our acts?

So I'd put it this way: Who IS qualified to decide what we should be allowed to do, or if we should be sanctioned if we do do that something? I think you know the answer to that one.

Let's accept that "free speech is more important than everything else", but I'll still ask you again, what makes speaking a special case compared to any other thing we might do? Any ideas? Or is free speech simply being able to say whatever you like to or about anyone you like whenever or wherever you like without consequence?

I don't think I said it is a special case, it is THE special case.

The ability to discuss ideas, even ugly ones, is what has led us to smartphones and advanced liquers.

So who IS qualified?

I mean, I get that you think someone should put a stop to some speech, but who is qualified to police your speech?

For me, no-one is qualified to decide what I can read. From your position, if someone wrote something 'harmful', you would place someone to interfere with my learning what they wrote.

Who is qualified, Brian?

I'm not saying you don't have a point - speech IS dangerous. More so than almost anything.

But who gets to say what can and cannot be said, read or written?

I'd put it like this: Who is qualified to police your driving, or your accountancy, or more generally anything you do? As I said, I think you know the answer to that one already -- because as a member of society you live it every day -- but you seem a little hesitant to actually say it out loud don't you? Are you interested in why you're reluctant to articulate your point of view here, and if so why do you think that might be?

To move things on let's think about it like this, for the sake of argument as it were...

We all accept and acknowledge there are socially enforceable limits on the things we do (our acts), some of which we agree with and some of which we don't.

We can call that a premise of the discussion you like. OK?

Of the limits on the things we do that we don't agree with: we accept and acknowledge that even though we don't agree with not being able to do X we're still limited in our ability to do X because doing X carries some form of socially enforceable consequences for us (if society becomes aware of it of course).

We can call that a qualification - it amounts to a more detailed and particular framing if the premise.

So with that as a starting point let's talk about something we do (an act) which, for the sake of argument, we don't think we should be limited in doing and for which we think there should be no socially enforceable consequences for us doing: speaking.

Let's also be clear that when we're talking about 'speaking' here it's in the context of discussing ideas and expressing our views and opinions about and around ideas. Still with me?

So...

As the protagonist in this discussion you're declaring speaking a special case ("THE special case") but you haven't outlined why/how it should not be subject to the same norms and forms of policing (socially enforceable consequences for us) as anything else we might do -- what makes THE special case special -- nor have you identified how those same norms and forms limit anyone's ability to discuss and explore ideas, even ulgy ones.

Basically: Why is speaking a special case and why, as an act (as something we do), should we not be subject to some form of socially enforceable consequences for doing it?

These are serious and difficult matters but perhaps if you gave some examples, even hypothetical ones, your perspective could be made a bit clearer - maybe even to both of us. It would also make things easier, more straightforward, honest etc if you didn't automatically presume a position on my behalf ("I understand that you think ... etc ...", "I get that you think someone should ... etc ...") and argue against that presumption, but addressed the points I've made and the questions I've asked directly in a more collaborative spirit and from your own perspective.

[Cunt]

But who gets to say what can and cannot be said, read or written?

I'd put it like this: Who is qualified to police your driving, or your accountancy, or more generally anything you do? As I said, I think you know the answer to that one already -- because as a member of society you live it every day -- but you seem a little hesitant to actually say it out loud don't you? Are you interested in why you're reluctant to articulate your point of view here, and if so why do you think that might be?

I read it, you write well enough.

But you didn't say who was qualified, to decide for you.

Is it government? Would you be happy to have Trump (sorry, I don't know your local politicians) controlling that?

[Brian Peacock]

I'm not convinced you can't grasp that - try reading my first paragraph again maybe - but it's not really relevant to my post or my point. We both know that there's various systems of what I call 'socially enforceable consequences' and the label isn't as important as the fact that they exist.

[Joe]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Well, since the topic was wealth distribution in the US, this isn't very relevant.

However, if you are citing this as a refutation to Hermit's comparison of countries doing poorly at managing the virus to those doing well, the part I bolded in red suggests Dr. Spiegelhalter sees such a good/bad comparison as feasible.

The thread topic is Media Bias nothing to do with inequality in the US. Where does he say that?

You can't read the quoted portions you edited out of the post you just quoted?

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

He isn't talking about Media Bias or Covid here, just Kool-Aide and national wealth distribution in the US, and yes he could have skipped the Kool-Aide.

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University has said trying to rank different countries to decide which is the worst in Europe is a "completely fatuous exercise".

So how do you interpret that a good/bad comparison is feasible?

That's easy, I don't interpret that at all because that's the part you bolded. Again, in editing the post you just quoted, you missed the part I bolded,

But he's also referred to "the bad countries in Europe: UK, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy" and said "clearly it's important to note that group is way above, in terms of their mortality, a group like Germany, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, who have low fatality rates."

even though it's the very next sentence after what you bolded,

This is what Hermit did in the Corona Virus thread in comparing the US, Sweden, and the Netherlands to Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. It's obvious that the first group is "way above, in terms of their mortality" the second group, and I notice Spiegelhalter didn't single that type of comparison out as a completely fatuous exercise.

"Spijkers op laag water zoeken" (Searching for nails at low water). He was comparing European countries Joe. Why? They had better quality data so even with those countries comparison was a completely fatuous exercise. Now do you understand. Any comparison is silly and pointless then he gave the reason why.

Scot, I understand what you are saying, but I still don't buy it.

The US, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand aren't scientifically or information technology deficient countries whose data can be credibly dismissed as useless for comparison without proof. I have over 40 years of experience working with disparate data sources, from these countries and European countries (including the old Warsaw Pact) and I have a good idea when comparisons can and cannot be usefully made. Should I have any doubts, I can ask nice people with PHD's to help me out.

So instead of unquantified terms like "better quality data" can you provide something that shows numerically how much better?

Can you quantify how much these differences negate the magnitude of difference that Hermit's numbers illustrate?

I've raised the magnitude point before, and you haven't addressed it. If you can't do that Scot, we'll have to agree to disagree because I've got work to do. I'm not retired after all.

[Scot Dutchy]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Well, since the topic was wealth distribution in the US, this isn't very relevant.

However, if you are citing this as a refutation to Hermit's comparison of countries doing poorly at managing the virus to those doing well, the part I bolded in red suggests Dr. Spiegelhalter sees such a good/bad comparison as feasible.

The thread topic is Media Bias nothing to do with inequality in the US. Where does he say that?

You can't read the quoted portions you edited out of the post you just quoted?

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

He isn't talking about Media Bias or Covid here, just Kool-Aide and national wealth distribution in the US, and yes he could have skipped the Kool-Aide.

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University has said trying to rank different countries to decide which is the worst in Europe is a "completely fatuous exercise".

So how do you interpret that a good/bad comparison is feasible?

That's easy, I don't interpret that at all because that's the part you bolded. Again, in editing the post you just quoted, you missed the part I bolded,

But he's also referred to "the bad countries in Europe: UK, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy" and said "clearly it's important to note that group is way above, in terms of their mortality, a group like Germany, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, who have low fatality rates."

even though it's the very next sentence after what you bolded,

This is what Hermit did in the Corona Virus thread in comparing the US, Sweden, and the Netherlands to Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. It's obvious that the first group is "way above, in terms of their mortality" the second group, and I notice Spiegelhalter didn't single that type of comparison out as a completely fatuous exercise.

"Spijkers op laag water zoeken" (Searching for nails at low water). He was comparing European countries Joe. Why? They had better quality data so even with those countries comparison was a completely fatuous exercise. Now do you understand. Any comparison is silly and pointless then he gave the reason why.

Scot, I understand what you are saying, but I still don't buy it.

The US, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand aren't scientifically or information technology deficient countries whose data can be credibly dismissed as useless for comparison without proof. I have over 40 years of experience working with disparate data sources, from these countries and European countries (including the old Warsaw Pact) and I have a good idea when comparisons can and cannot be usefully made. Should I have any doubts, I can ask nice people with PHD's to help me out.

So instead of unquantified terms like "better quality data" can you provide something that shows numerically how much better?

Can you quantify how much these differences negate the magnitude of difference that Hermit's numbers illustrate?

I've raised the magnitude point before, and you haven't addressed it. If you can't do that Scot, we'll have to agree to disagree because I've got work to do. I'm not retired after all.

Once again the smoke screen goes up. You dont even read what the prof said. You just try to play these word games which quite frankly you are not very good at. You are trying to move the focus onto me while ignoring what the good prof said. I did not say anything about the quality of data or the silliness of country comparison. The prof did so why are you asking me for more evidence?

Do you know why? With phrases like

I can ask nice people with PHD's to help me out

am supposed to be impressed? If you cant read and comprehend no one can help you out. By saying I have to agree to disagree is just acknowledging the fact you have lost the argument.

[Joe]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

The thread topic is Media Bias nothing to do with inequality in the US. Where does he say that?

You can't read the quoted portions you edited out of the post you just quoted?

Thanks for the link, Joe. That particular article is not paywalled, so I could read all of it.

No surprise that Tatiana Bailey came up with the same figures I did. I won't be surprised either when Scot Dutchy comes in, again repeating his comments like "sucking at the tit", "Kool-Aide" and "you can't trust the data". The last of those is particularly funny because when he eventually posted the video supposedly supporting the "fact" he pulled out of his arse that the top 1% of Americans owned 90% of the nation's wealth, it turned out to claim that the top 1% of Americans owned 40% of the nation's wealth. You don't need to be a maths wizard to work out that 40 is a lot closer to 30 than 90, but Scotty is not one to admit that he fucked up.

He isn't talking about Media Bias or Covid here, just Kool-Aide and national wealth distribution in the US, and yes he could have skipped the Kool-Aide.

So how do you interpret that a good/bad comparison is feasible?

That's easy, I don't interpret that at all because that's the part you bolded. Again, in editing the post you just quoted, you missed the part I bolded,

But he's also referred to "the bad countries in Europe: UK, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy" and said "clearly it's important to note that group is way above, in terms of their mortality, a group like Germany, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, who have low fatality rates."

even though it's the very next sentence after what you bolded,

This is what Hermit did in the Corona Virus thread in comparing the US, Sweden, and the Netherlands to Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. It's obvious that the first group is "way above, in terms of their mortality" the second group, and I notice Spiegelhalter didn't single that type of comparison out as a completely fatuous exercise.

"Spijkers op laag water zoeken" (Searching for nails at low water). He was comparing European countries Joe. Why? They had better quality data so even with those countries comparison was a completely fatuous exercise. Now do you understand. Any comparison is silly and pointless then he gave the reason why.

Scot, I understand what you are saying, but I still don't buy it.

The US, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand aren't scientifically or information technology deficient countries whose data can be credibly dismissed as useless for comparison without proof. I have over 40 years of experience working with disparate data sources, from these countries and European countries (including the old Warsaw Pact) and I have a good idea when comparisons can and cannot be usefully made. Should I have any doubts, I can ask nice people with PHD's to help me out.

So instead of unquantified terms like "better quality data" can you provide something that shows numerically how much better?

Can you quantify how much these differences negate the magnitude of difference that Hermit's numbers illustrate?

I've raised the magnitude point before, and you haven't addressed it. If you can't do that Scot, we'll have to agree to disagree because I've got work to do. I'm not retired after all.

Once again the smoke screen goes up. You dont even read what the prof said. You just try to play these word games which quite frankly you are not very good at. You are trying to move the focus onto me while ignoring what the good prof said. I did not say anything about the quality of data or the silliness of country comparison. The prof did so why are you asking me for more evidence?

Do you know why? With phrases like

I can ask nice people with PHD's to help me out

am supposed to be impressed? If you cant read and comprehend no one can help you out. By saying I have to agree to disagree is just acknowledging the fact you have lost the argument.

Scot, the focus is on you. You're the guy claiming the data is bad and can't be used. I've made reasonable arguments based on my experience and what I've learned from people who are experts as to why it can. I don't expect you to be impressed. I expect you to argue in good faith.

If you can't do that, why should I bother with you?

[Scot Dutchy]

Scot, the focus is on you. You're the guy claiming the data is bad and can't be used. I've made reasonable arguments based on my experience and what I've learned from people who are experts as to why it can. I don't expect you to be impressed. I expect you to argue in good faith.

The prof is saying exactly the same. You have not made any arguments. You are trying to play word games by making impossible demands. Do you accept that country comparison is silly? If not why not and what evidence do you have?
Why did you say all that rubbish then if not to impress? My room mate for eight years was a doctor in mathematics. At 38 was a very young doctor when she qualified and we got on very well. Impressed?
I always argue in good faith otherwise I would not argue.

[Joe]

Scot, the focus is on you. You're the guy claiming the data is bad and can't be used. I've made reasonable arguments based on my experience and what I've learned from people who are experts as to why it can. I don't expect you to be impressed. I expect you to argue in good faith.

The prof is saying exactly the same. You have not made any arguments. You are trying to play word games by making impossible demands. Do you accept that country comparison is silly? If not why not and what evidence do you have?
Why did you say all that rubbish then if not to impress? My room mate for eight years was a doctor in mathematics. At 38 was a very young doctor when she qualified and we got on very well. Impressed?
I always argue in good faith otherwise I would not argue.

If you were arguing in good faith you would wouldn't say I've not made any arguments. You just haven't acknowledged them, and edit out where I link to them in your replies. I'd be happy to change my view of things were you to answer the questions I've asked, but since that appears to be beyond your ability, I remain unconvinced of your claim. I accept Professor Spiegelhalter's assertion about ranking countries as reasonable, but I also accept his comparison of groups of countries as sound and validating Hermit's use of the same technique.

Since my questions are impossible for you to answer, I see no reason to think that one set of developed countries being European and the other not is significant. You disagree, that's fine. Other members can read my arguments and make up their own minds as to the soundness of my reasoning. They can do the same with yours.

As for evidence that country comparison is not silly, I already gave you that. It's just another thing you've not acknowledged.

Making dubious claims? These reports doubt the reliability of the data. It is one of plenty. Just how many do you require to realise the data is crap and very politicised. He cant prove anything because he accepts the so called official figures without question when so many doubt the validity of the data. I cant help you any further. Where are the personal attacks by me? Just keep pissing up the wall Joe and keep taking the kool-aid instead of thinking.
Just how do you compare countries? That like so many of my questions will never be answered.

It's your fault, you know. Have you heard of this thing called Google? I hear even The Netherlands has it and man do you need to use it. Search the text I underlined and maybe you'll find something like COVID-19: How to make between-country comparisons to help you answer your questions. There's probably more to be found if you vary your search, but as I said, that's your problem not mine.

As for where the personal attacks are, you see the part I highlighted in red just after you asked? That's 42 more points deducted my friend.

See, that wasn't that hard. So how come it is for you?

Don't worry, I won't deduct any more points at this time.

[Cunt]

Does a 'media bias' apply to publications of a scientific nature?

Could money drive scientists to study certain things, ignore others?

Bias is easy. Identifying bias is hard. Scientists often think they have eliminated bias, or addressed it sufficiently. I bet they are right a lot of the time.

[Brian Peacock]

[Joe]

[Scot Dutchy]

Joe that load of crap was worthy of a Trump supporter. Your are just pathetic.