Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Beck tries to frighten people five days a week, commie this socialist that. POTUS hates white people, spooky dude puppets, blah blah blah. By that definition Beck himself is a terrorist.
This is exactly my point, if the Beck's producer is going to defend his statements by using the Dictionary.com definition of what constitutes a terrorist, then yes, Glenn Beck is using fear to frighten people and by the definition that they are using, this makes Beck a terrorist.
Of course it makes 99.9999% of every human on the planet a terrorist too.
If that isn't proof of selling fear I don't know what is. What is funny is when they admit it and don't even realize they have.
Using the Glenn Beck method of reasoning, or lack there of, lets take another example of using statistics to distort and market an idea for personal consumption.
In the United States, 86%+- of our population is Christian. So, of the millions of crimes, murders, theft, rape, incest, and violent acts which take place every single day, we can then by using the Beck method of calculation, imply that Christians are 85% of all incestuous rapist, murders, thieves, child molester, etc... Since we have the highest or second highest prison population on the planet, we can there for conclude that Christians are the most violent, child molesting, raping, sick distorted religious people on the planet. After all, think of all those who rediscover Jesus in prison, it seems prison and Jesus go hand in hand.
Boy, that don't sound too good does it. It is statistically accurate and yet does it really encapsulate the truth?
. The number is confirmed by a scientific poll conducted by World Public Opinion. It is not based on statistical calculations. Please read the link.
. The number is confirmed by a scientific poll conducted by World Public Opinion. It is not based on statistical calculations. Please read the link.
Please use your own mind and think.
A poll by World Public OPINION to which the story admits that the producers of Becks show had to "defend" him. They would not have to "defend" him if his statements were factual, as they were based upon OPINION.
To defend Beck, his producer use the Dictionary.com definition.
Quote:
But Beck's producer tried to get Beck off the hook by explaining that Dictionary.com's definition of terrorist includes people who advocate or support terroris.
Using this definition that Becks producer cited as the basis for his statements, we read further that this definition also includes the following.
Quote:
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
Using "or frightens others" as the basis for a definition used to cite whatever fanciful thing you wish, I can show where nearly every human being on the planet is a terrorist.
The use of statistical data is something Beck is doing as well by reasoning that if only 10% of a given population are terrorist, then this must mean that of a 1000 people, 100 of them must be terrorist.
It is what is known as a Quantificational fallacy, or what is called proof by example where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition. "This cat is black, therefore all cats must be black".
Using this method, I can conclude as Beck concludes that Christians are a deviant groups of blood thirsty murders and savages, as is evidence by 85% of our prison population being Christian.
The point I'm showing is absurd, but it is the same fallacy that Beck uses and people gobble up every day.
A poll by World Public OPINION to which the story admits that the producers of Becks show had to "defend" him. They would not have to "defend" him if his statements were factual, as they were based upon OPINION.
To defend Beck, his producer use the Dictionary.com definition.
Using this definition that Becks producer cited as the basis for his statements, we read further that this definition also includes the following.
Using "or frightens others" as the basis for a definition used to cite whatever fanciful thing you wish, I can show where nearly every human being on the planet is a terrorist.
The use of statistical data is something Beck is doing as well by reasoning that if only 10% of a given population are terrorist, then this must mean that of a 1000 people, 100 of them must be terrorist.
It is what is known as a Quantificational fallacy, or what is called proof by example where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition. "This cat is black, therefore all cats must be black".
Using this method, I can conclude as Beck concludes that Christians are a deviant groups of blood thirsty murders and savages, as is evidence by 85% of our prison population being Christian.
The point I'm showing is absurd, but it is the same fallacy that Beck uses and people gobble up every day.
Stop using rational logic! It's not appreciated around here!
A poll by World Public OPINION to which the story admits that the producers of Becks show had to "defend" him. They would not have to "defend" him if his statements were factual, as they were based upon OPINION.
To defend Beck, his producer use the Dictionary.com definition.
Using this definition that Becks producer cited as the basis for his statements, we read further that this definition also includes the following.
Using "or frightens others" as the basis for a definition used to cite whatever fanciful thing you wish, I can show where nearly every human being on the planet is a terrorist.
The use of statistical data is something Beck is doing as well by reasoning that if only 10% of a given population are terrorist, then this must mean that of a 1000 people, 100 of them must be terrorist.
It is what is known as a Quantificational fallacy, or what is called proof by example where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition. "This cat is black, therefore all cats must be black".
Using this method, I can conclude as Beck concludes that Christians are a deviant groups of blood thirsty murders and savages, as is evidence by 85% of our prison population being Christian.
The point I'm showing is absurd, but it is the same fallacy that Beck uses and people gobble up every day.
The very same organization that put out the poll about FOX viewers being misinformed. Did you drool over that thread? I'm sure you did.
The very same organization that put out the poll about FOX viewers being misinformed. Did you drool over that thread? I'm sure you did.
"I'm sure you did" is what you have to add? Ok, maybe I did, I'll wait for you to show me which poll you are talking about because there is a near constant stream of fox news polls this, msnbc news poll that.
Show me, because for the life of me I don't even have a clue as to which poll you are talking about.
You are missing the point I'm making anyway. Lets assume Beck IS right, but by using Becks quantificational fallacy, then the same would be true for Christians being blood thirsty savages filling our prisons.
My point is that Christians aren't blood thirsty savages because using this form of argument is absurd. By the same reasoning, Beck's conclusions are absurd, as Zakaria has pointed out. It isn't because I like this guy or dislike that guy, it is because it is illogical and of unsound reasoning.
Actually he was not in the thread. You are hilarious.
I will have to check, because I do remember his long drawn out tirade about how media, especially FOX misinforms people. Like HT said, there are many of the same threads. Did you check them all?
I will have to check, because I do remember his long drawn out tirade about how media, especially FOX misinforms people. Like HT said, there are many of the same threads. Did you check them all?
I'm still waiting to see this one, but I can't afford to hold my breath that long. As far as my assertion that media often misinforms people, well there is evidence of this taking place in this very thread. How many cases of media distortion and manipulation would one have to have to show in order to make credibly make such a claim? 2, 10, 1000, what number would be satisfactory to use in order to show a trend or a tendency, or at the very least shoddy work and lack of professionalism?
I happen to think that the quality of media is directly inversely proportional to ratings. Even still, I don't pick favorites and I could care less if it is Fox or MSNBC or CNN, unlike most partisans who cling to their brand of choice like obedient lap dogs. I see the entire news media business as foul and grotesque these days and don't think any of it is worth a spit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL
