On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:31:41PM +0100, Baardwijk, J. van
DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO wrote:
> > 4) true/atypical: the Dutch media only rarely reports true
> > statements that have far-reaching world consequences (goodness knows
> > what they typically report on)
> >
> > Remember, you have denied that #1 and #2 are the case. So your
> > choices are #3 or #4.
>
> I doubt that any media organisation often makes reports that have such
> a big impact -- mostly, they will be reporting that someone else did
> something that has such a big impact. Example: CNN reported that GWB
> had declared war on terrorism, but it is GWB's statement, not CNN's
> report, that has a big impact.
I see that I was too terse. I'll spell out exactly what I meant by #4:
when important world events occur, it is atypical for the Dutch media to
report these (true) facts. In other words, it is typical for the Dutch
media to neglect to report important world events.
That is how I (and I believe John) interpreted your denial that it was a
typical statement for the Dutch media.
> Further, it is debatable whether or not the statement was true or
> false. Americans claim it is false and there was never any violation
> of human rights, but at the same time the rest of the world did
> suspect violations were happening. Amnesty International still does.
You'll notice that I included these cases, and called them #3 and #4.
> This leads us to the only valid choice, #6: the statement is probably
> true, the Dutch media is in the business of reporting the truth,
> and media worldwide rarely make reports with far-reaching world
> consequences.
Sounds like #5 to me, as I predicted.
> > Or choice #5, which is retreat to a world of twisted logic, which is
> > my prediction, since it seems to happen frequently.
>
> Oh well, what is one more insult in the barrage of insults and
> accusations that have been thrown my way in the last few days? :-(
Hmmm, I was not aware that denying the logic of an argument or a set of
arguments was an insult. If it seems that way to you, then I hope you
have a high tolerance for insults, you'll need it :-)
> What you call "twisted logic" is IMO usually a case of people being
> unable or unwilling to accept that my viewpoint is a valid one even
> though it is different from theirs, and/or being unable or unwilling
> to accept that a viewpoint other than their own can even exist. ("How
> can a reasonable thinking person NOT support Israel and condemn the
> Palestinians".)
I disagree. I think it is very difficult to argue with the LOGIC
that there were only 4 possibilities given the ASSUMPTIONS that were
made. You can certainly argue with the assumptions, but arguing with
the deductions from those assumptions will result only in illogical
statements.
You could argue (as Steve began to) that the statement was not
necessarily true or false, but rather something else (some statements
can never be definitely determined as true or false). But if you did
that you would still need to explain why it is not typical for the Dutch
media to report on important events that have occurred.
So you would be better off arguing about the definition of "typical" in
this context.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
