Thoughts on Bias

[Utah]

LOL. Of course. Havent you noticed how screwed up everything is?

In reality, the average person has a really hard time discussing core issues and principles as they relate to real world actions. Frankly, the discussions are too difficult and too complex to grasp. People have an easy time being outraged at killing and people have an easy time being pro or anti gun. However, people have a hard time looking at the softer and harder to grasp core issues.

I run across this is business all the time. People can deal with actionable items. However, they look at you like a deer in headlights when you start talking about vision, identity, branding, etc.

You can have interesting reports/shows on core issues without being slanted. I think John Stossel had excellent segments on such questions as "is greed good?" and "should vices be outlawed". I thought there were balanced and fascinating. I dont know how well they were received by the public though.

[Boris]

I think I'm biased against Michael Moore.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He raises thought provoking questions that can lead to interesting discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gun violence and corporate ethics are not new issues. They get discussed all the time. We don't need Michael Moore to make movies letting us know that these kind of problems exist. Moore's approach to examining these issues is exceptionally emotional and anti-intellectual. This approach of evaluating a problem pisses me off. Therefore I say F Michael Moore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boris nailed it. I don't despise Michael Moore for his viewpoints. Hell his viewpoints are pretty hard to ascertain because his documentaries are so incoherent. His movies are cheap, button-pushing, unintelligent grandstanding without any depth to them.

I despise him the same way I despise Sean Hannity. They both have no substance and nothing intelligent to say.

natedogg

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm biased against Michael Moore.

[/ QUOTE ]

This raises some interesting questions.

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time you had a discussion with anyone about why the US has a higher gun violence rate than other similarly situated countries? People just don't have discussions like that without a catalyst like Moore. You can say that conversation happened all the time prior to Columbine, but my memory would be very different from yours in that regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I could have an intelligent discussion about the "higher" gun violence rate in the US, I would have to know where the supporting statistics came from. Are the statistics valid? Is this per capita? Which other countries were we compared with?

Once I knew the answer to these (and possibly other) questions, I might decide that in reality, the US doesn't have a higher gun violence rate than other similarly situated countries.

[nicky g]

It is definitely per capita. There is no question the US has one of the highest rates of gun violence per capita of developed countries. This table is out of date, but it show that in 1994 the US had the highest rate of gun deaths per capita of all thr countries surveyed.

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05

Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List

Even allowing for statistical quibbles, it's undeniably way up there.

[Utah]

That is certainly disturbing, but does it tell the whole story? I believe that the U.S. has one of the lowest overall violence rates. I am not sure, so I am asking a question and not making a statement.

I remember when I was on a project in NZ that they were telling me that NZ was one of the most violent countries in the world, even though gun violence was very low.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Bowling for Columbine --- the central question asked in the movie is Why does America have higher rates of gun violence than other (similarly situated) countries? The answer Moore suggests might be total crap, and the evidence he provides for that answer might be false, but the question itself (in my opinion) is a good one and we can use Moore's biased work to help frame a discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't seen it. Refuse to see it. Won't put any money in his pocket, and also don't want to put myself through two hours of being aggravated...primarily the latter.

But my thoughts on this topic: The amount of gun violence is irrelevant. People that want to commit violent acts will use what is available to them. We have more guns than are available in some other places so that's what is used here.

What should be measured is the amount of violence acts in general. If we have more murders, then the question to ask is why are Americans more violent in general than people other places.

That's my $.02 on that one. And yes i know you weren't trying to start a thread on this particulr topic.

"Blaming murder on guns is like blaming the spoon for Rosie O'Donnell being fat" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Boris]

Yes. Indeed it does. Like, what kind of interesting questions does it raise?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
People that want to commit violent acts will use what is available to them. We have more guns than are available in some other places so that's what is used here.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's one of the premises that is discussed in the movie. Long story short is that there are other countries with just as many guns but a lot less gun violence.