Conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly fumed against a Florida school district's decision to pull two of his books while officials determine whether they run afoul of a state law he supported.
If his book doesn’t violate the law, and people removed it anyway as political retribution, then that is an abuse of power.
-or-
If he didn’t support the law as-written, and is now pointing to his books being banned because of the poor wording as a reason to support that position, then the position is pretty consistent.
He is a hypocritical piece of shit who wants to evade the rules he helped put into place for everyone else because he thinks he is elevated above the rest of the citizens of this country.
Yes, absolutely. Which goes back to my original point: the article provides no information upon which you can make this judgment, which is why it’s useless.
Or we can use our brains and recognize that hypocrisy is a constant feature of this type of ideology? For fuck sake dude. These people don’t deserve the benefit the doubt anymore, and the fact that you seem to believe so strongly that they do is suspicious.
One of the most common, and probably most dangerous, cognitive biases is confirmation bias. It’s the exact opposite of “using your brain” to accept a claim simply because it confirms what you already believe to be true. In fact, that might be the time it’s most important to ask yourself whether or not it’s true.
It’s sad that you find my objectivity when it comes to the facts “suspicious” but that’s your own short-coming you need to deal with. The accusation is a reflection of yourself and maybe you need to sit and think on it a bit.
This isn’t confirmation bias, this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person’s motivation given decades of behavior. Don’t be fucking stupid.
this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person’s motivation given decades of behavior.
You are admitting it’s just a “guess” but it’s safe to admit it’s true because it confirms what you already believe to be true. And you’re trying to claim it isn’t confirmation bias. lmao. Classic.
No, it’s an educated guess. Not a guess. An estimate.
Holy shit, this is hilarious. Do you understand how language works? In this case “educated” is an adjective that modifies the noun “guess.” An educated guess is a guess. Just specific type. . .basically, not “a blind guess”, but one based on being “educated” on the topic. Using the monty hall problem as an example, when they remove the door, it’s an “educated guess” to also switch your answer. But you don’t know what’s behind that door, you just are making the best bet. You’re not “estimating” it’s behind the other door, you’re guessing it is. This is a ridiculous (and failed) attempt at a pedantic argument.
I am using past behavior as a predictor for current/future behavior.
So, again, admitting that it’s not based on facts, but simply a guess.
Something that is done constantly (e.g. our credit system), and isn’t fallacious.
If you had just said “I bet it’s hypocritical” I wouldn’t have said anything. But you didn’t. You state it as if it is fact. The credit system does not state “it is fact that they will be bad with any future credit” they are saying “the risk that they will be bad with credit is high, so we are not giving it to them.”
That’s the beauty of it. Republicans write laws that always leave a backdoor for them to pull shenanigans that aren’t in the spirit of the law. And if/when they’re called out on it they hand wave and say “well it’s not clear so the law is up for interpretation”.
Now they’re crying foul because it was used against them and kung-fu clutching those pearls.
If his book doesn’t violate the law, and people removed it anyway as political retribution, then that is an abuse of power.
-or-
If he didn’t support the law as-written, and is now pointing to his books being banned because of the poor wording as a reason to support that position, then the position is pretty consistent.
-or-
He is a hypocritical piece of shit who wants to evade the rules he helped put into place for everyone else because he thinks he is elevated above the rest of the citizens of this country.
Yes, absolutely. Which goes back to my original point: the article provides no information upon which you can make this judgment, which is why it’s useless.
Y’all, this isn’t some sort of centrist gotcha. Dude just wants a citation to which part of Billy’s book violated the stupid and dumb law.
Or we can use our brains and recognize that hypocrisy is a constant feature of this type of ideology? For fuck sake dude. These people don’t deserve the benefit the doubt anymore, and the fact that you seem to believe so strongly that they do is suspicious.
One of the most common, and probably most dangerous, cognitive biases is confirmation bias. It’s the exact opposite of “using your brain” to accept a claim simply because it confirms what you already believe to be true. In fact, that might be the time it’s most important to ask yourself whether or not it’s true.
It’s sad that you find my objectivity when it comes to the facts “suspicious” but that’s your own short-coming you need to deal with. The accusation is a reflection of yourself and maybe you need to sit and think on it a bit.
This isn’t confirmation bias, this is literally just making a (very) educated guess about a person’s motivation given decades of behavior. Don’t be fucking stupid.
You are admitting it’s just a “guess” but it’s safe to admit it’s true because it confirms what you already believe to be true. And you’re trying to claim it isn’t confirmation bias. lmao. Classic.
No, it’s an educated guess. Not a guess. An estimate.
I am using past behavior as a predictor for current/future behavior. Something that is done constantly (e.g. our credit system), and isn’t fallacious.
Holy shit, this is hilarious. Do you understand how language works? In this case “educated” is an adjective that modifies the noun “guess.” An educated guess is a guess. Just specific type. . .basically, not “a blind guess”, but one based on being “educated” on the topic. Using the monty hall problem as an example, when they remove the door, it’s an “educated guess” to also switch your answer. But you don’t know what’s behind that door, you just are making the best bet. You’re not “estimating” it’s behind the other door, you’re guessing it is. This is a ridiculous (and failed) attempt at a pedantic argument.
So, again, admitting that it’s not based on facts, but simply a guess.
If you had just said “I bet it’s hypocritical” I wouldn’t have said anything. But you didn’t. You state it as if it is fact. The credit system does not state “it is fact that they will be bad with any future credit” they are saying “the risk that they will be bad with credit is high, so we are not giving it to them.”
Unlike conservatives, I prefer to be outraged by facts instead of misinformation.
That’s the beauty of it. Republicans write laws that always leave a backdoor for them to pull shenanigans that aren’t in the spirit of the law. And if/when they’re called out on it they hand wave and say “well it’s not clear so the law is up for interpretation”.
Now they’re crying foul because it was used against them and kung-fu clutching those pearls.