Re: [luv-talk] Victorian Liberals want to privatise ABC and SBS
This discussion would be good fodder for a case study in logically invalid arguments. E.g. Labelling: that argument is "extreme" Meaningless assertions with no evidence: the ABC is "right wing". Ad hominem: "Is there no woman at all who you care about?" http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by+Subject/4125.0~Jan+2012~Ma... Market failures exist. The market does not capture all the relevant costs and benefits. Externalities, imperfect information, information asymmetries, short termism, agency problems, oligopolies. Government failures also exist: Capture by powerful interest groups, capture by the staff of the agencies, weakening of incentives to be efficient, the rule of power hungry liars. Both are subject to the problems of fending off parastitism. The worst is what we often end up with: crony capitalism which seems to combine the worst of both worlds. The ABC is a hard problem. I personally listen almost exclusively to the ABC (Radio National in the car, Classic FM at home). I prefer intelligent "lefties" (eg Phillp Adams) and diluted classical music to full-on populism, but the ABC is going down market at a terrific pace. At present trends it will not be worth preserving within a generation. Tim
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Tim Josling <tim.josling@gmail.com> wrote:
This discussion would be good fodder for a case study in logically invalid arguments.
E.g.
Labelling: that argument is "extreme"
Meaningless assertions with no evidence: the ABC is "right wing".
It's interesting that you make a claim of assertions with no evidence while not even bothering to quote the previous discussion that you refer to. http://www.theage.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards- coalition-20090902-f8gm.html Above is the URL which was previously cited suggesting that the ABC TV has a right-wing bias.
Ad hominem: "Is there no woman at all who you care about?" http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by+Subject/4125.0~Jan+2012~M ain+Features~Life+expectancy~3110
When someone specifically states that they don't want women's and children's hospitals because they won't personally use them then it is a clear example of being heartless. The fact that women are likely to live longer isn't the issue. The issue is whether women have health issues that men don't have in large enough numbers to justify a separate hospital. Enough women give birth to satisfy those criteria. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
previous discussion that you refer to
I was not aware of the link previously supplied as I was reading through the daily collections. Sorry about that. The study supplied looks weak to me but it is not "no evidence". An ABC employee once explained to me that the ABC had to have a left wing bias, to balance the right wing bias of the commercial media, a view I have some sympathy with. I remember one election night watching the ABC, and one ABC commentater stated "I think **we**'re going to win that seat", meaning the ALP was going to win it. No-one seemed to notice this. Yes this is anecdotal but having spent a lot of time listening to the ABC I find it amazing that someone could conclude they are biased to the 'right'. Just as I would dispute the conclusion that the biases are only very slight across the board - commercial radio seems very anti-ALP to me, Fairfax clearly pro-ALP, Murdoch pro whatever suits Rupert's interests (eg he constantly criticises the coalition's NBN policy as it is in his interests to have the taxpayer fund a high bandwidth distribution medium that he can use, though usually the conservatives suit him better. He backed Whitlam in 1972). The AFR came out as the most left wing newspaper. I don't think that is accurate. To me they just try to give their readers the best approximation to the truth that they can find (like the Economist). Nothing makes you a truth seeker like investing serious money - illusions can be very costly. I stand by my view that the left/right wing dichotomy is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness. If your views can be characterised in that way then you may be a hedgehog*.
"When someone specifically states that they don't want women's and children's hospitals because they won't personally use them then it is a clear example of being heartless."
I gather you agree this is an ad hominem attack, though you claim it is justified. It might be worth reading up on some libertarians. They are not all pitiless Ayyn Rand clones who want the poor to starve in squalor. This might be a good start http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/re... . Tim Josling * Aeschylus: "The fox knows many things[about how to catch a hedgehog], the hedgehog knows only one thing[curl up into a ball when you see a fox]". So a hedgehog has a single model that gets applied to anything. Examples: Noam Chomsky [all the world's problems are due to US imperialism], many radical feminists [everything is the fault of patriarchy], many religious fundamentalists [everything is the fault of sin and your lack of belief], many political true believers of all persuasions. IMHO Government is best for some things, with appropriate safeguards, ditto for private businesses. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Tim Josling <tim.josling@gmail.com> wrote:
This discussion would be good fodder for a case study in logically invalid arguments.
E.g.
Labelling: that argument is "extreme"
Meaningless assertions with no evidence: the ABC is "right wing".
It's interesting that you make a claim of assertions with no evidence while not even bothering to quote the previous discussion that you refer to.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/study-finds-abc-bias-leans-towards- coalition-20090902-f8gm.html
Above is the URL which was previously cited suggesting that the ABC TV has a right-wing bias.
Ad hominem: "Is there no woman at all who you care about?"
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by+Subject/4125.0~Jan+2012~M
ain+Features~Life+expectancy~3110
When someone specifically states that they don't want women's and children's hospitals because they won't personally use them then it is a clear example of being heartless.
The fact that women are likely to live longer isn't the issue. The issue is whether women have health issues that men don't have in large enough numbers to justify a separate hospital. Enough women give birth to satisfy those criteria.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Tim Josling <tim.josling@gmail.com> wrote:
previous discussion that you refer to
I was not aware of the link previously supplied as I was reading through the daily collections. Sorry about that. The study supplied looks weak to me but it is not "no evidence".
The more right-wing members of this list made claims such as "ABC look like green left propaganda machine", the article in question was good for refuting that claim. If there is any evidence of some parts of the ABC appear to have any sort of right-wing bias then it refutes the claim that the ABC is totally biased towards left-wing politics.
An ABC employee once explained to me that the ABC had to have a left wing bias, to balance the right wing bias of the commercial media, a view I have some sympathy with. I remember one election night watching the ABC, and one ABC commentater stated "I think **we**'re going to win that seat", meaning the ALP was going to win it.
Who was the commentator and what was their position? Were the supposed to be offering journalistic commentary or personal opinion?
No-one seemed to notice this. Yes this is anecdotal but having spent a lot of time listening to the ABC I find it amazing that someone could conclude they are biased to the 'right'.
These things are subjective to some degree. Modern politics are a long way from the French assembly where the terms "right" and "left" in politics were first invented. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/the-boys-who-cried-fox/ The above URL (which I previously cited) shows an allegation that Fox News was biased towards moderate candidates.
I stand by my view that the left/right wing dichotomy is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness. If your views can be characterised in that way then you may be a hedgehog*.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ There are other models, the Political Compass is one.
"When someone specifically states that they don't want women's and
children's hospitals because they won't personally use them then it is a clear example of being heartless."
I gather you agree this is an ad hominem attack, though you claim it is justified.
An ad-hominem attack would be to say "because he is heartless his arguments lack merit", that's not my position at all. I believe that the government should concern itself with the welfare of all citizens. Being heartless is not a desirable trait for a politician or a philosophy. Note that pretending to care is OK for a politician as long as that pretense includes legislative activity.
It might be worth reading up on some libertarians. They are not all pitiless Ayyn Rand clones who want the poor to starve in squalor. This might be a good start http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/r ef=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369374523&sr=1-4 .
If they aren't all Randians who want the poor to live in squalor then why does the blurb for the book you cite suggest that the US government have no provision for social security? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 24/05/2013 5:13 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Tim Josling <tim.josling@gmail.com> wrote:
An ABC employee once explained to me that the ABC had to have a left wing bias, to balance the right wing bias of the commercial media, a view I have some sympathy with. I remember one election night watching the ABC, and one ABC commentater stated "I think **we**'re going to win that seat", meaning the ALP was going to win it.
Who was the commentator and what was their position? Were the supposed to be offering journalistic commentary or personal opinion?
And most importantly, how long ago was this? That is when the employee actually worked there?
No-one seemed to notice this. Yes this is anecdotal but having spent a lot of time listening to the ABC I find it amazing that someone could conclude they are biased to the 'right'.
It's damned obvious to me that the are far more right leaning and they try to make attempts to hide that fact, but it doesn't wash with me. Kind Regards A.
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Tim Josling <tim.josling@gmail.com> wrote:
previous discussion that you refer to If there is any evidence of some parts of the ABC appear to have any sort of right-wing bias then it refutes the claim that the ABC is totally biased towards left-wing politics.
I don't think anyone would argue that the ABC is always and totally biased in one direction. That is a much stronger statement even than saying that overall they are seriously biased.
An ABC employee once explained to me that the ABC had to have a left wing bias, to balance the right wing bias of the commercial media, a view I have some sympathy with. I remember one election night watching the ABC, and one ABC commentater stated "I think **we**'re going to win that seat", meaning the ALP was going to win it.
Who was the commentator and what was their position? Were the supposed to be offering journalistic commentary or personal opinion?
From memory I think it was Ken Begg. His role on the night was to be an
unbiased commentator on the progress of the election results. [This was not the sort of role where they get a working or retired politician to add some spice and inside knowledge from the scrutineers.]
There are other models, the Political Compass is one.
This is an improvement on a one-dimensional approach but still very crude. Not sure about using "left/right" for the economic dimension. I've done that before; it has me as centre on economics/slightly libertarian on the liberty dimension.
An ad-hominem attack would be to say "because he is heartless his arguments lack merit", that's not my position at all.
I am surprised to hear this.
If they aren't all Randians who want the poor to live^D^D^D^Ddie in squalor then why does the blurb for the book you cite suggest that the US government have no provision for social security?
I thought I had suggesting reading the book rather than just the blurb. To give you a flavour, the argument re welfare payments is that government welfare programs have many pernicious effects, and that community based cooperative solutions, while not perfect, are better overall. I am not suggesting reading this because you are likely to agree with all of it but because it is quite eye-opening. As were Mein Kampf, Das Capital, and Poltics (Aristotle) in different ways. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ Tim
On Fri, 24 May 2013, Tim Josling <tim.josling@gmail.com> wrote:
If they aren't all Randians who want the poor to live in squalor then why does the blurb for the book you cite suggest that the US government have no provision for social security?
Firstly please don't edit text that you quote. I've edited it back to what I originally wrote.
I thought I had suggesting reading the book rather than just the blurb.
You can suggest that I waste some money and a lot of time reading a book, but it's not going to happen.
To give you a flavour, the argument re welfare payments is that government welfare programs have many pernicious effects, and that community based cooperative solutions, while not perfect, are better overall.
Please cite some examples of "community based cooperative solutions" that have worked in practice. Really this is like a lot of other libertarian ideas like raising government revenue by cutting taxes, people just make stuff up to support things that seem good for them personally. Libertarians have a history of being wrong at everything which can be assessed objectively.
I am not suggesting reading this because you are likely to agree with all of it but because it is quite eye-opening. As were Mein Kampf, Das Capital, and Poltics (Aristotle) in different ways.
I think I can survive without reading Mein Kampf. I'd read Das Kapital if I had more spare time.
It seems that I have clearly met the criteria in the second last paragraph by not unfairly blaming the Liberal party for the stupid ideas that some of their members advocate. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Tim Josling (tim.josling@gmail.com):
"When someone specifically states that they don't want women's and children's hospitals because they won't personally use them then it is a clear example of being heartless."
I gather you agree this is an ad hominem attack, though you claim it is justified.
That is _not_ the logical fallacy known as 'ad-hominem'. You're making an error that is extremely common on the Internet. I FAQed that one a few decades ago: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/?page=crybaby#adhominem
participants (4)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker -
Tim Josling