Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell & wife indicted [ed: and convicted]

[llcoolbj77]

Back to the ex-Gov… What do y’all think the wife will get?

She was not the government official, but she was clearly the agent of the dirty deeds (if you believe his story, anyway).

[Bricker]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Your claim of what septimus posted is factually incorrect.

No. His post:

@septimus

I wouldn’t expect the mainstream media to emphasize the story – dog bites man isn’t news – but did the Fair and Balanced News Network report it at all? If so, did they, as usual, “accidentally” add a “(D)” suffix to the convict’s name?

My claim about his post:

@Bricker

Your restatement of his claim is slightly more defensible. You take “as usual,” which has a more clear definition of “more than half the time,” and transform it into “habit,” which doesn’t carry such a clear connotation.

I don’t agree that “habit,” is correct, for what it’s worth. But before I begin that discussion, let’s be clear that the false factual claim made by septimus was that Fox “as usual,” substitutes a ‘D’ for an ‘R’ in such reporting. That’s what he typed, and it’s factually incorrect.

Your characterization of my post is also factually incorrect. You and Shodan appear ignorant with respect to what the word “usual” means.

No. Cite.

@Merriam Webster

: done, found, or used most of the time or in most cases : normal or regular

ETA: I see you edited your post before I posted my reply. Good on you for catching your error, but you lose any points you might have gained by doubling down on your conclusion despite your factual mistakes.

So wait… You now agree that I accurately quote septimus? That septimus was in error? Your earlier objection was to a typo in my unedited post?

[Bricker]

@BigT

Bricker, you are arguing semantics. Doing so is an indication you don’t have an actual argument. The second someone tells you what they meant by use of a word, that’s the end of it. You can tell them that another word would be more accurate, but the second you know what they meant, you deal with what they meant. Continuing to harp on semantics is an indicating you are trying to avoid the actual argument. Debate is about ideas, not words.

Debate is about persuasion.

His choice to use an inaccurate word gained much persuasive power for his post. It’s the kind of tactic that is denied to conservatives. I’m quite certain that a similar sweeping but inaccurate claim benefitting the Right would immediately be attacked and debunked, and no one would step up to declare that since debate is about words, it should be left unmolested.

The net effect of this framework is that rhetors promoting the Left are free to make these kinds of rhetorical choices, gaining persuasive power for their ideas, and those on the Right are constrained from similar tactics.

Plus, it’s highly unlikely you really believed he thought that Fox News regularly changes the party of politicians based on their opinions of them. Pretending to believe the most disfavorable interpretation of what someone says is a dishonest debating tactic.

What he actually believed seems to be an impermissible topic for discussion, as I understand Twickster’s admonition.

What do you say, Twickster? Can I discuss what I thought septimus believed? It seems unfair to permit another debater to advance this claim while ruling any attack of it off limits.

septimus is not defending the right to make errors. He spoke in a way that was understood, which means there were no errors. He is arguing against the dishonest debating tactic of pretending to misunderstand someone. He is arguing against the kid who claims he thinks okay to play catch in the house when his parents tell him not to play “ball,” which he says is a different game.

Not at all. He is defending his right to deliberately (or otherwise) insert contra-factual statements in order to create a more persuasive narrative while secure in the knowledge that the opposition is unable to successfully respond in kind.

[tomndebb]

ENOUGH!

The back and forth over “usual” has now ended. I am pretty sure that everyone has already poured their opinions into concrete and let them set, so nothing further is gained by continuing this hijack.

[ /Moderating ]

[septimus]

@septimus

OK? Now, turn-about is fair play. How many of those complaining that Fox’s substitution of “(D)” for “(R-with-a-problem)” [may occur with less than 50% probability], also believe that its use, of which at least six examples are known(), is accidental or coincidental? (-Any cites for similar reversals on reputable news sites?)

And which of the following is the more worrisome and venal liar?

(1) A random poster on a random board [chooses a slightly inferior word].
(2) A major news organization, on at least five occasions, switches party designations to serve their propaganda.

@Bricker

Your earlier objection was to a typo in my unedited post?

Still find it more fruitful to discuss typos and poor word choices than to answer the question I just raised?

(ETA: Mod: Delete this post if you consider it part of the “hijack”, but I consider media treatment of such scandals to be a worthwhile digression, compared with detours about typos and word choices.)

[tomndebb]

@septimus

Still find it more fruitful to discuss typos and poor word choices than to answer the question I just raised?

(ETA: Mod: Delete this post if you consider it part of the “hijack”, but I consider media treatment of such scandals to be a worthwhile digression, compared with detours about typos and word choices.)

I am not going to delete this, as you have already had it out here for several hours for others to read.

I am going to give you a Warning for disregarding Moderator instructions by trying to sneak in one more dig in this thread.

[ /Moderating ]

[Stately_Greek_Automaton]

@Bricker

Your restatement of his claim is slightly more defensible. You take “as usual,” which has a more clear definition of “more than half the time,” and transform it into “habit,” which doesn’t carry such a clear connotation.

I don’t agree that “habit,” is correct, for what it’s worth. But before I begin that discussion, let’s be clear that the false factual claim made by septimus was that Fox “as usual,” substitutes a ‘D’ for an ‘R’ in such reporting. That’s what he typed, and it’s factually incorrect.

Do you agree?
As a percentage, how often do you contend Fox does this? Out of 100 graphics identifying malfeasant officials, how many does Fox alter?

The link provided shows a five examples of Fox switching a Republican’s affiliation to Democratic, leaving the Republicans in a better light. Do you have any counter-examples where they left a Democratic politician in a positive light? If not, how many of these mistakes do you think are needed to indicate intent on Fox’s part to disparage Democrats?