From your source/link Tim:
"Prudent decision-making requires one to compare benefits to costs. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that in 2019 36,120 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Virtually all those lives could have been saved with a mandated 5 mph speed limit. Those saved lives are the benefit. Fortunately, when we consider the costs and inconvenience of setting a 5 mph speed limit, we rightly conclude that saving those 36,120 lives isn't worth it."
metmike: Bias of source below and comment below that:
RIGHT BIASThese media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
metmike: So does this mean that the quote that I used stating that fact is less relevant? Does this mean that when this source states things, showing the far right bias, by itself discredits points from that source vs actually considering the fact that was stated?
I can't find a left source that states the same thing or something similar or even a neutral source(not that I've spend much time trying to find it).
The point is that, even though extremely biased sources from both sides will tell us only one side most of the time, our world has shifted to being extremely divisive, where we hear/read things that are often from polar opposite viewpoints vs being neutral.
In many realms, the truth lies in the middle between the 2 extremes. But this is the real world, c'mon, what are the chances that in most cases, you could take the views of both sides and split them down the middle and get the absolute unbiased truth that would be best for everybody to live by.
In the REAL world, in most divisive realms, even though compromise would enhance the process, more often than not, 1 side has better points and every once in a while, their points all make good sense while the other side is just obstructing, being political or biased.
Since I'm using a very right biased source with a rock solid point, am I being biased and trying to defend the right? Or are you being biased in thinking that I'm biased by using this example based entirely on the facts?
Let me be offset the perceived bias by stating that I watch CNN much of the time during the day. I would rate them at the farthest left on the scale when it comes to views on president Trump. They hate his guts and devote much of their programming towards obliterating him...........but they sometimes nail good points about him.
On the next page, I will show you the exact same thing from the left:
Below is an example of the extreme left bias of CNN regarding Trump.........there are many more. Below that, however is an article letting Trump have it that I found to be very relevant and worth posting because it was true about Trump. If I had written CNN off as a biased source on Trump, that I would never have benefited from seeing the points in that CNN article:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/42786/
"Avenatti was interviewed on broadcast and cable news networks 214 times from March to November 2018"
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/25/avenatti-cnn-msnbc-interviews-before-indictment/
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/michael-avenatti-prison/
Michael Avenatti Faces 36 New Counts and Up to 335 Years in prison.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/47088/
This guy below from CNN is usually very unfair with his articles on President Trump(finds dozens of silly reasons to nullify Trumps positives and magnifies his negatives with twisted interpretations) and hates his guts but I agree with most of his points this time.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/06/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-senate-acquitted/index.html
So what if II had not provided the example from the left and only used the example from the right?
Would the same point be biased to the right because I only gave an example of a source on the right making a great point?
That's what sources from both extremes do. They makes points from their extremes. Sometimes, they are exactly right and the other side is completely wrong if taking the opposite view.
And if you are somebody that is in the middle or from the other political side, you are likely to NEVER believe the extreme opposite side gets it right...........because, ironically your bias won't let you contemplate the reality that in a small minority of cases, they will have it exactly right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater
"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is an idiomatic expression for an avoidable error in which something good is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad, or in other words, rejecting the favorable along with the unfavorable.
I guess I am missing your point. I know Townhall is biased, but in the link I posted?
In the following statement, I see common sense. Am I totally blind to the bias, cuz I don't see it.
"Prudent decision-making requires one to compare benefits to costs. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that in 2019 36,120 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Virtually all those lives could have been saved with a mandated 5 mph speed limit. Those saved lives are the benefit. Fortunately, when we consider the costs and inconvenience of setting a 5 mph speed limit, we rightly conclude that saving those 36,120 lives isn't worth it."
You just stated my point Tim.
That biased sources sometimes make good sense. I even provided an awesome quote from the source that you linked.
To not appear to be right biased, I provided an example of what I consider the most extreme left source on Trump, having an article that I thought stated some great points. Trump does do and say some unexceptable things, so CNN sometimes makes good points about him too(always negative things, never good things-thus the bias)
Speaking of CNN:
This evening, Don Lemon, a major fake new Trump hater, has been playing clips from January, February and early March of President Trumps statements, without any context and having guests come on to tell us that Trump left us unprepared and is responsible for all these deaths because he said during that time frame that the US was in good shape.
Why don't they play clips of their own articles and what they were saying at that time?
Criticizing Trump for being a xenophobe when he stopped travelers from China?
By Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN
Updated 7:37 AM ET, Fri February 7, 2020
(CNN)Experts say travel restrictions the Trump administration put in place to stop the novel coronavirus from spreading could have unintended consequences that undermine that effort.
It's been days since the US restrictions went into effect, blocking foreign nationals who've visited China in the past two weeks from coming to the US.
Details about the US travel ban's impact are still emerging. But some are already urging the US to reconsider.
"All of the evidence we have indicates that travel restrictions and quarantines directed at individual countries are unlikely to keep the virus out of our borders," Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week. "These measures may exacerbate the epidemic's social and economic tolls. And can make us less safe."
The director-general of the World Health Organization also weighed in this week, calling on countries not to impose travel restrictions."
Fake news CNN wants you to think the exact opposite happened.