Can you be unbiased without being biased towards being unbiased?

Pages: 1 2

Topic closed

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Can you be unbiased without being biased towards being unbiased?

2006-12-27 16:37:15

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7007|SE London

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Fancy_Pollux wrote:
No, you would be biased towards fairness.
No you wouldn't. That's not what being unbiased means. If you are reporting on a topic with no slant on it whatsoever then it is unbiased, pure fact undiluted by opinion. The fact that something is unbiased does not inherently indicate any prejudice against unfair and highly opinionated reporting, nor does it show that the specific report has been produced specifically to exclude any opinion.

Ticker tape news often gives a good example of unbiased news, for example: "Plane crashed into mountain, 86 dead" (not a real example) is a perfect example of a totally unbiased statement.
No. Being unbiased is simply being biased towards being unbiased.

No it isn't. I can't see how I can make it any simpler for you.

Saying it is really just makes you look a bit silly.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-27 16:47:49)

2006-12-27 19:42:13

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|7071

You are biased towards being unbiased. I am half biased and half unbiased, but I'm not biased towards being half biased and half unbiased. It is a product of me being unbiased to which side of the bias spectrum I choose. So, I am biased towards being unbiased to the bias spectrum.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-27 19:45:12)

2006-12-27 19:54:23

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7191|UK

I still think you dont understand what bias and unbias mean...

2006-12-27 19:58:57

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|7071

Vilham wrote:
I still think you dont understand what bias and unbias mean...

I understand all too well. It is you, buster, who doesn't get it. If you are unbiased towards the bias spectrum, it means you are two-thirds biased (as I indicated in my original post). You are biased towards being unbiased towards the bias spectrum, which consists of biased and unbiased. So, you have biased twice and unbiased once. Therefore, you are two-thirds biased.

2006-12-27 20:12:05

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6986

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
samfink wrote:
I hate philosophersfor exactly this reason.ok, it can be amusing sometimes, but wheh they get to this.................
I guess you hate English professors too.

When I say stuff like that I get in trouble.............

Also, can you post ridiculous crap like this in the Junk Drawer?

2006-12-27 20:14:44

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|7071

Bubbalo wrote:
Fancy_Pollux wrote:
samfink wrote:
I hate philosophersfor exactly this reason.ok, it can be amusing sometimes, but wheh they get to this.................
I guess you hate English professors too.
When I say stuff like that I get in trouble.............

Also, can you post ridiculous crap like this in the Junk Drawer?

Pointing out someone's horrible grammar != glorifying the 9/11 terrorists.

2006-12-27 20:16:44

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|7098|Colorado

wtf are you smoking lately... get a grip.

2006-12-27 20:17:03

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6986

Yes, because that's what I was comparing it to. I just couldn't see a difference between them .

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-12-27 20:17:12)

2006-12-27 20:19:36

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7069

poop

2006-12-27 21:38:31

norge: J-10 and a coke please; +18|6895

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Well for journalism, you have to have a bias, if theres no bias where the hell is the authors opinion on the subject?

that would be called telling the news truthfully. whereas what u actually see in the media is not entirely true.

everyone has bias, but knowing your bias and understanding all points of an argument and choosing which is more logical or moral, is the best course of action.

2006-12-27 21:41:07

Scardaddy: Member; +37|6817|UK

interesting very interesting

2006-12-27 21:51:11

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7100|Canberra, AUS

There are two sides of the bias spectrum: biased and unbiased. However, you need to be biased towards a particular side of the spectrum to be considered biased or unbiased. If you are biased towards being biased, does that cancel it out and make you unbiased? Likewise, if you are biased towards being unbiased, are you still biased since you had to be biased in the first place to get to that side of the spectrum? This means that you would have to be half biased and half unbiased to be considered fully unbiased on the spectrum. But, how can you be fully unbiased if you're half biased? It's like two wrongs make a right, two rights make a wrong, and a wrong and a right make a wrong. I guess that means we're all two-thirds biased.

Wha...?

/brain failure

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-12-27 22:21:03

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7141

norge wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Well for journalism, you have to have a bias, if theres no bias where the hell is the authors opinion on the subject?
that would be called telling the news truthfully. whereas what u actually see in the media is not entirely true.

everyone has bias, but knowing your bias and understanding all points of an argument and choosing which is more logical or moral, is the best course of action.

Biased opinions on journalism also makes a good article most of the time, it's sad but true.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-12-28 04:42:12

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7007|SE London

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Vilham wrote:
I still think you dont understand what bias and unbias mean...
I understand all too well. It is you, buster, who doesn't get it. If you are unbiased towards the bias spectrum, it means you are two-thirds biased (as I indicated in my original post). You are biased towards being unbiased towards the bias spectrum, which consists of biased and unbiased. So, you have biased twice and unbiased once. Therefore, you are two-thirds biased.

No you don't seem to understand it at all.

Being unbiased is in no way the opposite to being biased. The opposite of being biased is an equally opposing bias, not a lack of bias.

Your whole bias spectrum is a load of nonsense. I hate to see this horrible misuse of the English language.

2006-12-28 05:23:16

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7191|UK

Bertster7 wrote:
Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Vilham wrote:
I still think you dont understand what bias and unbias mean...
I understand all too well. It is you, buster, who doesn't get it. If you are unbiased towards the bias spectrum, it means you are two-thirds biased (as I indicated in my original post). You are biased towards being unbiased towards the bias spectrum, which consists of biased and unbiased. So, you have biased twice and unbiased once. Therefore, you are two-thirds biased.
No you don't seem to understand it at all.

Being unbiased is in no way the opposite to being biased. The opposite of being biased is an equally opposing bias, not a lack of bias.

Your whole bias spectrum is a load of nonsense. I hate to see this horrible misuse of the English language.

I think its safe to agree Bertster that Pollux is a grade A moron. No matter howmany times we right that bias and unbias are NOT opposites he won't agree.

2006-12-28 06:24:16

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7141

Vilham wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Fancy_Pollux wrote:

I understand all too well. It is you, buster, who doesn't get it. If you are unbiased towards the bias spectrum, it means you are two-thirds biased (as I indicated in my original post). You are biased towards being unbiased towards the bias spectrum, which consists of biased and unbiased. So, you have biased twice and unbiased once. Therefore, you are two-thirds biased.
No you don't seem to understand it at all.

Being unbiased is in no way the opposite to being biased. The opposite of being biased is an equally opposing bias, not a lack of bias.

Your whole bias spectrum is a load of nonsense. I hate to see this horrible misuse of the English language.
I think its safe to agree Bertster that Pollux is a grade A moron. No matter howmany times we right that bias and unbias are NOT opposites he won't agree.

Did you know that the prefix un means not? So what your saying being not biased is not the opposite of being biased?

2006-12-28 06:31:24

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7074

Vilham wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Fancy_Pollux wrote:

I understand all too well. It is you, buster, who doesn't get it. If you are unbiased towards the bias spectrum, it means you are two-thirds biased (as I indicated in my original post). You are biased towards being unbiased towards the bias spectrum, which consists of biased and unbiased. So, you have biased twice and unbiased once. Therefore, you are two-thirds biased.
No you don't seem to understand it at all.

Being unbiased is in no way the opposite to being biased. The opposite of being biased is an equally opposing bias, not a lack of bias.

Your whole bias spectrum is a load of nonsense. I hate to see this horrible misuse of the English language.
I think its safe to agree Bertster that Pollux is a grade A moron. No matter howmany times we right that bias and unbias are NOT opposites he won't agree.

This topic is just for him to attempt to be confusing and not really make any sense about the subject. It's pointless showing him he's wrong, because he doesn't care. He just wants to make lots of sentences with the word bias in it.

2006-12-28 07:30:46

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7007|SE London

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Vilham wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

No you don't seem to understand it at all.

Being unbiased is in no way the opposite to being biased. The opposite of being biased is an equally opposing bias, not a lack of bias.

Your whole bias spectrum is a load of nonsense. I hate to see this horrible misuse of the English language.
I think its safe to agree Bertster that Pollux is a grade A moron. No matter howmany times we right that bias and unbias are NOT opposites he won't agree.
Did you know that the prefix un means not? So what your saying being not biased is not the opposite of being biased?

So what. It's not the opposite. That's like saying the opposite of 1 is 0. The opposite of bias is an opposite bias, not a lack of bias.

2006-12-28 08:31:10

Kung Jew: That one mod; +331|7170|Houston, TX

Your Thread has gone off topic. {quote}

I feel like I just read a Monty Python skit.

This debate had potential but suddenly failed.

/close

Topic closed

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Can you be unbiased without being biased towards being unbiased?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Can you be unbiased without being biased towards being unbiased?

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

samfink wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

samfink wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

norge wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Board footer