Originally posted by Eladarthis is precisely the point of this thread. you talked out of your ass without the full picture, without anything to back it .
It's not my job to placate you.
I stated my opinion, get over it and get over yourself.
behaviour like this is harmful when it is done in an academic setting or on a tv program that is supposed to inform. because of this, people deny evolution, climate change, vaccination benefits, because they hear about it equally when in fact someone not believing in evolution should be granted the exact same attention as someone believing harry potter is a documentary about historical events concerning the magical and muggle communities in the UK.
it is harmless when you do it, because these forums have no purpose other than recreational and we already know you are a moron.
I rarely click on links in forum threads, but this one was definitely worth my time. Not only is the article itself well written and well thought out, but even the comments are worth reading. An example:
"My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge!" is a growing (and scary) attitude in our country and media. I feel like this article does a good job of explaining that concept."
The discussion is not actually about whether you're entitled to your opinion - of course you are - but whether you have the right to equal airtime for your uninformed opinion in a public discussion, where the effect of that equal airtime is to give equal weight to what you have to say, against that of a person who has a well-researched and well-documented position on the topic under discussion.
10 Aug 14
3 edits
Originally posted by KewpieThat's right Kewpie everyone is entitled to an opinion but they're not entitled to force others to provide a forum for that opinion.
I rarely click on links in forum threads, but this one was definitely worth my time. Not only is the article itself well written and well thought out, but even the comments are worth reading. An example:
"My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge!" is a growing (and scary) attitude in our country and media. I feel like this article does a good job o ...[text shortened]... f a person who has a well-researched and well-documented position on the topic under discussion.
So Stokes who exercises some control in his classroom stipulates the conditions for using the classroom forum. i.e. if you have an opinion on something you might need to quote some basis for that opinion. No problem.
The article also refers to the ABC "Australia's national public broadcaster." Now the problems begin, you see the ABC belongs to the state and must operate under a charter giving airtime to different views. This ostensibly is to give it an appearance of neutrality. No surprises though that it is constantly under attack for it's left leaning bias and 'woe to us all, the climate is frying us' scare stories, all the pollies want to get their hands on the controls so they can use it to tell everyone what a great job they're doing and how they need to expand their power.
edit: ...and it presents an opportunity (rightfully, under the charter) for people like the anti-immunisation crowd to demand their share.
All media has bias, that's exactly as it should be. And bias here can be taken to mean all media reflects the opinions of some person, board, etc. Anything else would require a bureau of censorship which would in turn be regulated based on, you guessed it, someone's opinion.
The answer is that the state has absolutely no business being in the media business, it's just too open to abuse. Let Stokes set the conditions for his classroom, and let this thread die because it is totally pointless, it's like saying "there are no square circles."
10 Aug 14
Originally posted by Wajoma2 + 2 = 4. This is correct.
That's right Kewpie everyone is entitled to an opinion but they're not entitled to force others to provide a forum for that opinion.
So Stokes who exercises some control in his classroom stipulates the conditions for using the classroom forum. i.e. if you have an opinion on something you might need to quote some basis for that opinion. No problem.
Th ...[text shortened]... this thread die because it is totally pointless, it's like saying "there are no square circles."
2 + 2 = 5. This is false. If you have an opinion otherwise, then your opinion is not one we need to take seriously. You have a problem and need to go away and learn some arithmetic before we are required to take your opinion seriously. If someone claims to teach you arithmetic but teaches you that 2 + 2 = 5, then your resulting opinion is still false and we still do not take your opinion seriously. We may also point out to you that you have chosen an unqualified, incompetent teacher.
If a public broadcaster were to present a lesson in arithmetic it should not be required, in the interest of balance, to explain that there is a teacher somewhere who thinks 2 + 2 = 5 and that there is a member of the public out there who thinks that is the case. All that attempt at "balance" could achieve would be to confuse people and lend credibility to a ridiculous point of view lacking in competent support. Instead of educating the public, such an approach to balance would leave the public less well informed than before.
Curiously enough, research has found that people watching Fox news know LESS than people who do not watch any news at all. So indeed, the presentation of stupid points of view is not a public service but a disservice.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-less-informed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html
http://inthecapital.streetwise.co/2014/02/07/study-people-who-dont-watch-the-news-are-more-informed-than-fox-viewers/
10 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganI think you made a mistake using the 'reply and quote' function. None of what you said has anything to do with my post.
2 + 2 = 4. This is correct.
2 + 2 = 5. This is false. If you have an opinion otherwise, then your opinion is not one we need to take seriously. You have a problem and need to go away and learn some arithmetic before we are required to take your opinion seriously. If someone claims to teach you arithmetic but teaches you that 2 + 2 = 5, then your resulti ...[text shortened]... treetwise.co/2014/02/07/study-people-who-dont-watch-the-news-are-more-informed-than-fox-viewers/
Probably just letting your fingers skitter around the keyboard again.
10 Aug 14
Originally posted by KewpieI guess the OP wasn't bright enough to understand the article.
I rarely click on links in forum threads, but this one was definitely worth my time. Not only is the article itself well written and well thought out, but even the comments are worth reading. An example:
"My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge!" is a growing (and scary) attitude in our country and media. I feel like this article does a good job o ...[text shortened]... f a person who has a well-researched and well-documented position on the topic under discussion.
10 Aug 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt seems that you have no problem when you talk out your ass, but I guess that just goes to prove your hypocrisy.
this is precisely the point of this thread. you talked out of your ass without the full picture, without anything to back it .
behaviour like this is harmful when it is done in an academic setting or on a tv program that is supposed to inform. because of this, people deny evolution, climate change, vaccination benefits, because they hear about it equally ...[text shortened]... ecause these forums have no purpose other than recreational and we already know you are a moron.