This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
There are plenty of times the issues brought up are fact and not subjective. How much rainfall we got, how many people voted on a specific bill, what the specific criminal charges were that were filed about someone, etc. They could at least verify those.
Post by
MyTie
I really enjoyed
THIS
article. A lot... A whole bunch. Loved it.
Constitution might be out of date? Last
amendment
was approved in 1992, but submitted in 1789. Times change and rules written centuries ago does not work anymore, today this change occurs even faster. That is why Reformation happened and that is why I believe any government must go through complete overhaul every century to keep up with progress of technology, strategy and ideology.
Amendment process, for a reason.There are plenty of times the issues brought up are fact and not subjective. How much rainfall we got, how many people voted on a specific bill, what the specific criminal charges were that were filed about someone, etc. They could at least verify those.
Where do we draw that line? And if that organization is more liberally biased, wouldn't they be harder on the news organization that was conservatively biased, and vice versa? Besides, we don't really need the rainfall amounts checked, but the political stuff is what we are talking about in the first place.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Well the piece that sparked the lawsuit was about a chemical in certain food products that was shown to be harmful. They were pushing her to lie about what the studies were showing about this chemical, so that it didn't affect business for those industries. That's pretty factual.
The Fox news cover of Mass Effect was done by someone who hadn't actually seen the content they were upset about, so they described it in a way that was factually inaccurate (that you had direct control over specific types of sexual acts you'd be engaging in), and had to retract it later.
When you state that someone was raised in X country, and documents show that they didn't enter that country until they were 20+, that is a factual inaccuracy.
When someone says one person approved a bill, and in fact it was approved before that person was in office with the signature of someone else, that is a factual inaccuracy.
There are a lot of things that could be checked just based on documents, signatures, police records, reviewing the studies quoted, etc.
If they're only allowed to score based on provable factual accuracy, then there's not nearly as much room for bias as you're implying, I think. Also, the worst thing that happens is that people decide that it doesn't work, the networks don't use it, and everyone keeps doing what they're doing anyway.
Post by
gamerunknown
Even if it were just "killing babies" and not "murdering babies", then perhaps we should reconsider abortion.
Sure, but I'm careful to make the distinction in debates against people who are in favour of the death penalty. If I say "why should the state murder people for murdering people", they have the semantic advantage.
Every word out of Maddow's mouth is a friggin crazy travesty to reporting.
Seems like equivocation. Got a cite for it?
If they choose to ask for their accreditation, then they'd have to comply with certain standards in return.
The issue is that there are already independent third parties that do this, except they're criticised for their bias by either side. Media Matters/Fair on progressive side, Accuracy in Media or NewsBusters on conservative side. Those that think that global warming is indubitably true and whatnot will think that any reporting of controversy over graphs is evidence of conservative bias, those that think that the free market covers all needs will think any positive reporting of government programs is evidence of liberal bias.
But that's a moral judgement, and not a scientific one, hence the stalemate in the debate.
Well, I was sort of responding to:
You either believe it does, or you don't.
Which strikes me as a false dichotomy. One can believe that humans have a right to life because they want to avoid causing them pain by ending their lives. While their pain is contingent on their humanity, the underlying principle isn't worded in the same way.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't think it's a false dichotomy. You either believe that the causing of physical pain is the sole (or at least the majority) root of why it's wrong to murder someone, or you don't. You could also believe it is wrong because humans have a soul and you are damaging something sacred, because you're cutting short a human life and you have no right to, because you feel that it damages the stability of society when one person is allowed to kill another, or it can be a combination of these things or something else entirely.
If you believe that the physical pain is a determining factor in whether or not to it is right to kill someone, or judge them as "human enough" to have an independent right to life, then proving that they can't feel pain is relevant to the discussion. If you feel that it's not a determining factor in whether they are "human enough" or "human yet", then it irrelevant to the subject. And whether or not it is a determining factor is a moral judgement.
In adults, whether or not someone has a right to life has little or nothing to do with whether or not they felt pain when they died. If you murder a quadriplegic with no feeling below the neck, or if you give someone a drug that kills them painlessly, you still morally and legally are held accountable for murder.
Post by
MyTie
As, I have shown it takes awhile to take effect...
I believe it is intentionally difficult to change, to prevent pandering.Even if it were just "killing babies" and not "murdering babies", then perhaps we should reconsider abortion.
Sure, but I'm careful to make the distinction in debates against people who are in favour of the death penalty. If I say "why should the state murder people for murdering people", they have the semantic advantage. Instead, present a positive argument. Why is it ok for the goverment to decide who dies?
Every word out of Maddow's mouth is a friggin crazy travesty to reporting.
Seems like equivocation. Got a cite for it?No. I don't write down everything I hear on the way to work. A lot of it, lately, has been talking about the "war on women".snipWe know that they aren't always factual. We know that those facts can be checked. We can even say that a theoretical organization could check them. Now back to my question: How would you ensure that the organization was as zealous in checking news outlets it was biased against as the ones that it was sympathetic toward? How would you keep this fact checking organization from becoming a political tool to place undue burdens on news outlets that it disagreed with, while giving a free pass to its competitors?
Post by
Pwntiff
I really enjoyed
THIS
article. A lot... A whole bunch. Loved it.
What if there was a sentence in there?
Every so often I like to browse PolitFact to see who didn't do their homework before making broad generalizations.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
We know that they aren't always factual. We know that those facts can be checked. We can even say that a theoretical organization could check them. Now back to my question: How would you ensure that the organization was as zealous in checking news outlets it was biased against as the ones that it was sympathetic toward? How would you keep this fact checking organization from becoming a political tool to place undue burdens on news outlets that it disagreed with, while giving a free pass to its competitors?
Well, they could go for complete transparency. Have public access to all of the stories they review, what documents they based their fact checking on, etc., along with a public forum for people voice if there is information missing or stories not checked. If it was government, we could have the democrats and the republicans each assign an equal number of people to the organization, with the understanding that they won't be allowed to cover up or misrepresent facts, but they can make sure that the people who are checking facts for organizations friendly to them aren't doing it either. It could be a truly bipartisan effort dedicated to factual reporting.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
We know that they aren't always factual. We know that those facts can be checked. We can even say that a theoretical organization could check them. Now back to my question: How would you ensure that the organization was as zealous in checking news outlets it was biased against as the ones that it was sympathetic toward? How would you keep this fact checking organization from becoming a political tool to place undue burdens on news outlets that it disagreed with, while giving a free pass to its competitors?
Well, they could go for complete transparency. Have public access to all of the stories they review, what documents they based their fact checking on, etc., along with a public forum for people voice if there is information missing or stories not checked. If it was government, we could have the democrats and the republicans each assign an equal number of people to the organization, with the understanding that they won't be allowed to cover up or misrepresent facts, but they can make sure that the people who are checking facts for organizations friendly to them aren't doing it either. It could be a truly bipartisan effort dedicated to factual reporting.
1) How would you enforce the transparency? How would you require it?
2) The public forum would be a flame fest of opinions and bigotry.
3) Democrats would be hard on conservative news outlets, and Republicans would be hard on liberal news outlets. Do you actually expect the politicians to be fair and balanced when making sure that the news articles reporting on them are fair and balanced? Any organization privately owned can be bought by someone with an agenda. Any organization publically owned can be used as a tool by politicians for political purposes.
I firmly believe the only fact checking of news articles that works, and is necessary, is our own minds.Then, don't be surprised when it used just as guideline. Times change, people change and law must adjust, if it cannot do so, then it becomes obsolete.
Just because law is difficult to change, doesn't mean it isn't applicable. The constitution itself is a limit on federal government, so it should be difficult for the federal government to change it. To write it off as useless for that fact is to unleash power hungry politicians.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I do understand your concerns, but I still think that having a second layer of somewhat independent fact checking could go a long way. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it's better than having no one doing any fact checking, and believing whatever fantasy they sell us to get ratings. It just scares me that so many people vote based on lies that are told by people who are not held accountable, and make decisions based on what they assume is a reputable source of information. Most of us know that the news is biased, but how many people do you think know that they are legally allowed to flat out lie?
Post by
gamerunknown
In adults, whether or not someone has a right to life has little or nothing to do with whether or not they felt pain when they died. If you murder a quadriplegic with no feeling below the neck, or if you give someone a drug that kills them painlessly, you still morally and legally are held accountable for murder.
Yet, there are actions taken that end the lives of others that are not criminal, such as taking off their breathing tube. Inaction ending lives is vaunted or at least condoned by anarchocapitalists that otherwise consider themselves pro-life (Ron Paul, for instance). Indiviuduals that condemn abortion such as Santorum have no problem with inducing an early birth that ends the life of the child, as his wife did. In countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, euthanasia to prevent future pain is permitted.
I also think that a quadriplegic is capable of feeling pain - they're capable of having strokes and heart attacks for instance.
Post by
MyTie
I do understand your concerns, but I still think that having a second layer of somewhat independent fact checking could go a long way. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it's better than having no one doing any fact checking, and believing whatever fantasy they sell us to get ratings. It just scares me that so many people vote based on lies that are told by people who are not held accountable, and make decisions based on what they assume is a reputable source of information. Most of us know that the news is biased, but how many people do you think know that they are legally allowed to flat out lie?
Society places a double standard on it, though. Colbert and Stewart are pretty big offenders of.. well.. reality.. and very very biased, but they get away with it because it is comedy, and people like it because they find it funny.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
In adults, whether or not someone has a right to life has little or nothing to do with whether or not they felt pain when they died. If you murder a quadriplegic with no feeling below the neck, or if you give someone a drug that kills them painlessly, you still morally and legally are held accountable for murder.
Yet, there are actions taken that end the lives of others that are not criminal, such as taking off their breathing tube. Inaction ending lives is vaunted or at least condoned by anarchocapitalists that otherwise consider themselves pro-life (Ron Paul, for instance). Indiviuduals that condemn abortion such as Santorum have no problem with inducing an early birth that ends the life of the child, as his wife did. In countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, euthanasia to prevent future pain is permitted.
I also think that a quadriplegic is capable of feeling pain - they're capable of having strokes and heart attacks for instance.
It depends on the nature of their injury, for the quadriplegic, in terms of what they can feel. BTW, a stroke happens in the brain, and a heart attack can kill you even if you don't feel it, so I don't know how either of those relates to whether or not they can feel below their neck.
In cases where someone is removed from life support (at least in this country), it's always because there is no reasonable chance of recovery. It's not just because they can't feel or function right now- it's because they never will be able to again. No doctor in their right mind would take someone off life support who was nearly guaranteed to recover in 7-8 months and then lead the rest of his life, and no judge would allow it.
When you say Euthanasia is permitted, do you mean without the patient's consent? Because I'd still call that murder.
I'm not saying that there is never a reason that killing a person is not murder. I'm saying that there are a number of factors involved in deciding when it is and when it is not, and there is a lot of disagreement about what those are because those are moral judgements and not scientific.
I do understand your concerns, but I still think that having a second layer of somewhat independent fact checking could go a long way. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it's better than having no one doing any fact checking, and believing whatever fantasy they sell us to get ratings. It just scares me that so many people vote based on lies that are told by people who are not held accountable, and make decisions based on what they assume is a reputable source of information. Most of us know that the news is biased, but how many people do you think know that they are legally allowed to flat out lie?
Society places a double standard on it, though. Colbert and Stewart are pretty big offenders of.. well.. reality.. and very very biased, but they get away with it because it is comedy, and people like it because they find it funny.
But are they trying to actually be information sources? Or is it an entertainment program. They're topical, but I have seen them conduct interviews with politicians that have no semblance to any kind of real interview, and it's obvious.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Boron- If only there was a legislative branch that could make and change laws much more easily, to keep up with changing times. If only the constitution only covered very basic, core principles that rarely change due to progress...
Oh, wait. You won't get that, because you don't actually know how any of the US legislative or checks and balances systems work, and you haven't read the Constitution.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
a heart attack can kill you even if you don't feel it
Ya, but this
one website
sort of implies that they can (by excluding external causes of pain but acknowleding internal ones).
When you say Euthanasia is permitted, do you mean without the patient's consent?
Ah, voluntary euthanasia. Our religious studies teacher told us never to use the word without qualification because it has so many connotations. We were also meant to distinguish between assisted suicide and euthanasia, but I forgot the distinction.
Anyway, once the distinction for pain falls away, I think what remains is capacity to feel future pleasure. Abortion is one means of preventing it, another is contraception.
Anyway, a far better method of preventing abortion is clamping down on gateway sexual activity like
holding hands
.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Boron- If only there was a legislative branch that could make and change laws much more easily, to keep up with changing times. If only the constitution only covered very basic, core principles that rarely change due to progress...
Oh, wait. You won't get that, because you don't actually know how any of the US legislative or checks and balances systems work, and you haven't read the Constitution.
Up there is link, that shows it took around 200 years to make latest amendment.... You call that easy? Look at the
process
: it is long and inefficient. I agree, it prevents 'pandering' (to quote MyTie) and abuse, but at the same time it is way inefficient, part of it based in Congress, which is not that efficient of organisation.
Regardless of how unsuccessful I think this will be, based on both your lack of background in the subject and your lack of reading comprehension in previous debates, I'm attempting this.
The short version:
1) The constitution is a relatively short document, with very basic rights of people and limitations on the government listed. It is not designed to deal with the day to day needs of a population, with laws that are supposed to help regulate new technology, with changing social norms, etc. It is supposed to outline the basic structure of government into three branches, and outline how they can limit each others power. It defines the role of the government, so they can never try exceed that role. It also guarantees certain basic rights and freedoms of citizens- things that were seen at the time as inalienable rights that no government should ever have the right to legislate. The few times that is has been changed, it was because society as a whole has decided that there were new protections that fit that criteria- that were inalienable rights, guaranteed or expanded rights of citizenship, and put limits on the federal government (Other than the prohibition amendment, which was later repealed, but at the time it was passed alcohol was considered a great social evil by a large enough part of the population that they wanted the amendment).
The most important purpose the constitution serves is to keep the government from acquiring more power than it should, or passing laws that violate any of those core principles. If the purpose of the document is to restrain the government and protect the people from it becoming abusive, it would be completely counter-intuitive to allow the government to change it easily or quickly.
2) All of the other laws that we have- the ones that change with new technology, new social concerns, new economic concerns, etc. are passed by the federal and state government and have no effect on the constitution whatsoever. The government must not pass laws that exceed the power given to them by the government, but within those broadly defined principles, they have the ability to pass new laws relatively quickly and adapt to changes in the country.
The reason that what you're arguing makes no sense, is that you seem to think that the process of changing the constitution is the same sting as the process for passing new laws. And it's not. They're two different things.
The way you ask the questions is indicative that you don't understand what the Constitution is, and what it does, and how it's different from the legislative branch and the rest of the body of law. It doesn't make any sense to ask "How can your laws adapt to change when it takes so long to change the Constitution," because the constitution is not how we pass and enact laws.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.