Better?
Okay. It seems to me that most of us agree that the paraphrasing changed the message.
But you’ve gone one step further. Could you explain how employing “McCain guarantees victory” instead of “McCain predicts victory” makes McCain look better?
Okay, so you acknowledge there is no evidence it has had any effect and have failed to demonstrate why it’s actually negative, with “if someone did it to you, you wouldn’t like it” as your only argument. Can you see why this is less than persuasive?
There’s also " I thought McCain was an idiot for promising what he obviously knows is still questionable" And McCain is acting like a used car salesman. I’ve got nothing against used car salesmen . Some of my best friends are …
Yes, I do. What’s your fucking point? One does not PROVE the other.
Absolutely. His original quote was rambling, imprecise. The headline is pithy.
Yes.
Incorrect.
Not my only argument. But a decent one.
To you? Yes.
Another example of conservative media bias from the headlines quoted on page 1:
McCain campaign: Palin returned most GOP clothes.
She returned 1/3 of the clothes. I don’t think 1/3 = most, even for extremely large values of 1/3.
The fact that you object shows that you know the paraphrase is objectionable.
By the way, I have my own rules of debate. Per Rule 5, please refrain from using intemperate language. Thank you.
The fact that I object to the way you paraphrase me says nothing about how I feel about the way McCain was paraphrased by someone else. They are separate instances perpetrated by separate actors. Simply because I object to your paraphrase does not ipso facto mean I object to all instances of paraphrase.
And my rules of debate require me to adhere to logic and to call bullshit when I see it.
Who the fuck cares ?
Brazil84, stop linking to your site this way. Your personal preferences are your own business, but this is a site for debate. Pushing your blog this way does not further discussion, it’s just an effort to drum up user traffic. We don’t allow that here, so stop doing it.
NB: this post originally contained a link to the rules of debate on Brazil84’s blog.
The Flying dutchman Concedes Debate to Fish
Pithy enough?
I can understand that some people prefer pithy. Thats why some people only read headlines. Some people have difficulty in comprehending two separate subjects in the same sentence. Some people value simplicity. And some people believe in guarantees. Okay, I’ll give you that.
Calculon: You say you can guarantee me the Oscar?
Bender: I can guarantee you anything you want.
ditto
It should, if you have uniform standards. On the other hand, if you have one set of standards for McCain, and another set of standards for yourself and Obama, it essentially demonstrates the type of bias that the OP was referring to.
That’s bullshit too.
“Four score and seven years ago” from the Gettysburg Address in 1863 can be paraphrased thusly:
[ul][li]eighty-seven years ago[]about a century ago[]in the Year of our Lord Seventeen Seventy-Six[]The year the Declaration of Independence was signed[]eighty years and seven[*]When my grandfather was a child[/ul][/li]Some of those paraphrases are much more accurate than others; some of them add unwanted color. They are not all equal. It does not require “uniform standards” to recognize that some paraphrases above are more suitable than others.
Now, as it happens, I don’t like the way McCain was paraphrased. I agree with you that it changed his meaning too much. There seemed to be no need to compress the headline so much; there was no space limitation.
I just cannot agree with your bullshit illogic, that Because X, Therefore Y: because you don’t like being paraphrased yourself, you think there’s anti-McCain bias. It’s a fallacious argument.
Yes, he was paraphrased badly. I think it improved upon his statement, therefore bias toward McCain.
The second part of this statement is not necessarily true.
Holy mother-fucking cock-sucking shit, I thought this was a thread about media bias!!? Nevermind, pretend I wasn’t here.
That’s not the argument I made. The fact is that you don’t want to be paraphrased in the same way that McCain was paraphrased, viz. having somebody convert an unadorned statement into a guarantee.
But for some reason, you will (apparently) object if somebody “improves” your statements or Obama’s statements in substantially the same way.
Yes, yes, fucking yes, yes, I fucking agree with you. Paraphrasing is bad. Why do you keep harping on this pointless shit?
This is what I object to about your argument: you keep bringing it back to this asinine statement as if it proves something. Heads up: it doesn’t.