61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1961 Full Edition of Encyclopedia Britanica

« on: October 27, 2018, 03:39:53 AM »

The Michelson-Morley Experiment says that the speed of light is constant no matter the frame of reference.

62

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The decline of critical thinking in the media, exemplified by That Everest Photo

« on: September 02, 2018, 02:05:34 AM »

Regardless of the earth's shape the mainstream media are evil. I don't think it's so much a lack of critical thinking as it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion. I despise MSM.

63

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Family Guy

« on: August 28, 2018, 01:58:15 PM »

Trump on an escalator 

64

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 01, 2018, 09:00:03 AM »

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

Yeah but the viewers want that.  So what does that make the audience?

It makes the audience of CNN equally as ignorant as the audience of FOX News.

Ignorant?  Of their desires, perhaps, but no.It makes them human.

Fair enough. Equally human and no less ignorant.

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 01, 2018, 07:46:14 AM »

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

Yeah but the viewers want that.  So what does that make the audience?

It makes the audience of CNN equally as ignorant as the audience of FOX News.

66

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 01, 2018, 05:48:14 AM »

In an industry full of unprincipled slimeballs.

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 28, 2018, 05:49:42 AM »

I agree with pretty much everything after your first sentence. If you watched the last election you would know that he pretty much thumbed his nose at the media and got away with it.

Which is not the same thing as "[turning] the media's own dishonest tactics against them." Trump is not a satirist or social critic in the vein of Socrates or Voltaire. He's just a shameless liar with selfish motivations. I'm stressing this point because I can't stand this whole "what's bad for the establishment is good for me!" idea that Trump undoubtedly owes much of his popularity to. It's such a childish, sophomoric view that simply isn't an accurate reflection of the world. There are some things about the media and the establishment that need to be called out forcefully and torn down, obviously. But the relevance of fact-checking and the notion of yielding (or at least modifying one's position or argument) in the face of overwhelming contradictory factual evidence are not among them.

Ok. Well I didn't mean that what Trump was doing was exactly the same thing in every respect. Mostly he got the better of them tho. One tactic he definitely stole from them was posting stuff that wasn't necessarily true about them and his political opponents. He did pull a few good ones during the campaign too. I forgot what the issue was, but one time he got them all hyped up about a press conference he was going to give on some controversial topic. When they arrived he offered a one minute speech that completely de-escalated whatever issue they were on about and then announced the conference over. That was kind of  funny.

I definitely agree that Trump is no Socrates or Voltaire. But then, you would be hard pressed to find someone that was in the current crop of MSM reporters. And I certainly don't deny many of the other criticisms you're giving. I just think many of them could also apply to much of the MSM. You must surely agree that their performance hasn't been stellar of late.

One thing they could do in the press briefing room is to remember they are working for national newspapers, not Gossip Girl.

68

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 08:22:00 PM »

I would prefer if the media were honest and the President wasn't Trump. But given the situation we have, I kind of enjoy watching him turn the media's own dishonest tactics against them. (It takes a crook to expose a crook?)

But he's not doing anything of the sort. All he does is yell "Fake news!" whenever a story that makes him look bad comes out. There's no clever strategy involved, no artful playing of his opponents, it's all just shameless denials that anyone who isn't a part of his devoted fanbase knows are simply further lies. That Trump frustrates the media and that you dislike the media don't combine to turn him into him some kind of admirable revolutionary.

I agree with pretty much everything after your first sentence. If you watched the last election you would know that he pretty much thumbed his nose at the media and got away with it.

69

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 05:20:14 PM »

I didn't think bias = lies until you defined it that way for me.

Then please, do tell me, what was your original definition of bias?

I am not a journalist, I took no time whatsoever to research that tweet. It was funny and weird so I posted it. So your position is you cannot take a position against dishonesty in the media unless you thoroughly research every single thing you say ever? If you want to disregard my arguments based on that go ahead, it's fine with me.

It's more like "You can't take a position against lies in the media when you have issues actually identifying lies in the media, except those who confirm your bias."  Yes, you thought it was funny and didn't bother questioning it's accuracy.  Yet if it was "Trump supporters offer their vaginas for him" I have this feeling you would not have shared it.

I say Dems because it's shorter. I was not aware of any negative connotation. I am definitely biased against the current practices of the media, you're definitely correct about that. IMO Frenzy of lies and half truths is accurate but for the purpose of this discussion I've agreed to rephrase it as "Biased language".

My complaint about the media was never confined to strictly news articles although it certainly does include them.

I never said it was negative.I'm mostly referring to the fact that you reference Democrats specifically.  It wasn't "Left leading media" or "Media" or "News agencies" it was "Democrats".  So right there you've strongly implied that the democratic party is controlling news agencies and any negative media on Trump is a political ploy.  Unspoken is the lack of accountability for the other side.  Almost as though you feel that any overly positive or misleading support of Trump is fine.
Like a headline reading "Trump signs Peace agreement with North Korea!" is a biased headline as the agreement signed was not a peace agreement in the traditional sense.  But it's positive.  You seem so focused on the negative that I can only conclude that you react only to negative bias news and not positvely biased.

My original definition was prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another. But perhaps it should include lying. It doesn't make lying any better it just makes the meaning of bias worse.

I might have posted that if it was about Trump supporters. I have made fun of them in the past as well. I'm not particularly fond of the average Trump supporter. (At least not the way they've been stereotyped)

Well the Dems and the media (Maybe not FOX I haven't checked) are attacking Trump right now, I think their attacks are backfiring. That's why I referenced them.

When I see FOX or some other outlet post a headline like "Peace Has Been Attained With NK - Nobel Peace Prize Imminent" I know it's horseshit and wouldn't be shy about saying so if it came up.

70

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 05:07:15 PM »

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

IMO the country should be run by competent leaders, not empty celebrities. But Trump didn't elect himself. If something doesn't change we'll likely continue to get similar results. Who's next, Oprah? Kardashian?!!!!

Point of interest: I was very excited to have Obama as president when he first got elected. I was very disappointed by the end though.

I just don't understand you. You think Trump is a schmuck but you are so quick to defend him. You don't want a celebrity to be elected president again but you put Trump on a pedestal. I can't reasonably debate you because you refuse to be consistent, even in the same post.

I can't with you, lol

Well, I think he's a schmuck not an evil villain who only ever says lies and only ever does despicable deeds. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but it's not a binary situation. There is a range between awesome and awful. Some of his polices I agree with.

I would prefer if the media were honest and the President wasn't Trump. But given the situation we have, I kind of enjoy watching him turn the media's own dishonest tactics against them. (It takes a crook to expose a crook?)

71

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 04:42:36 PM »

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

What embarrassingly faint praise. It's become so generally accepted now that the President of the United States is an utterly foul person and an enormous liar that we've sunk to simply trying to find a few exceptions to defend him. Not literally everything he does is bad! Not literally everything he says is a lie!

Ironically, this outlook is probably the reason he got elected and also probably the reason he stands a chance of getting elected again.

72

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 04:34:02 PM »

I didn't think bias = lies and half truths until you defined it that way for me.

I am not a journalist, I took no time whatsoever to research that tweet. It was funny and weird so I posted it. So your position is you cannot take a position against dishonesty in the media unless you thoroughly research every single thing you say ever? If you want to disregard my arguments based on that go ahead, it's fine with me.

I say Dems because it's shorter. I was not aware of any negative connotation. I am definitely biased against the current practices of the media, you're definitely correct about that. IMO Frenzy of lies and half truths is accurate but for the purpose of this discussion I've agreed to rephrase it as "Biased language".

My complaint about the media was never confined to strictly news articles although it certainly does include them.

73

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 02:12:33 PM »

I'm sure you don't like Jordan Peterson but here's what he had to say when he was quoted as saying something he did not in an opinion piece in the New York Times:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1011877601063759872

.

But Peterson should just calm down. It was just an opinion and they included some "biased language". What's the problem?

74

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 01:41:51 PM »

Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.

Yes, headlines are biased and manipulative.  You read the articles attached, right?  Cause if not... well... that's part of the problem.

Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.
It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!

See, "Frenzy of lies" is pretty clear speach.  "They lie alot and with fever" which is not what you just said.  Example:
Truth: Donald Trump met with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.
Biased: Donald Trump happily met with ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un.
Lie: Donald Trump openly attempted to assassinate Kim Jong Un with poisoned handshake.

I don't think this is the media but  :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but 

And here is where I have issues taking your arguments seriously.
You grabbed some person's twitter feed which has nothing more than a statement and a picture yet seem to think it's accurate.

The image itself is from "Raising the Skirt"
https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/  (NSFW!)

Here's a link to where the image is located(or one of the spots. Haven't found the unedited image yet):
http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/

That last post wasn't an argument. It had nothing to do with my previous posts. I saw it on twitter and posted it cause I thought it was funny and weird. If I had been trying to make an argument I would have known whether it was the media or not, and if it was not the media, which I explicitly stated  I thought it wasn't, how would it have helped my argument? I am happy to learn that it wasn't what I thought it was. It's still weird tho, no matter who those women were and why they were doing that.

Thank-you for your lesson on bias and lying. I do read some articles and sometimes just headlines. A lie is still a lie whether it's in the headline or the article. You can call the Sanders headline whatever you like. I consider it a lie or at very best a half truth. And I see that kind of thing all the time. I'm beginning to see the problem now. The media is probably made up of people like you that think deliberately misleading their consumers and posting that people said things they didn't is fine because it's not lying - it's just bias. If that's what bias is, it's not OK with me, nor ever will it be.

So given that we're including what I consider to be lying and half-truths as part of the definition for bias, I am happy to rephrase.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of "biased language" in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

75

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 12:26:28 AM »

I don't think this is the media but  :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but 

76

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 12:21:08 AM »

The news media makes mistakes from time to time. I think it's a stretch to say that they outright lie to push their agenda.

Trump on the other hand...

Look, he created all this fake news stuff because he doesn't like that he's being investigated and he doesn't like when people say negative things about him. Boots, I just don't understand you; you've so readily bought into the fake news narrative but claim you don't watch Fox News. Where are you getting it from then? At the moment only conservative news outlets like Fox are pushing that narrative, besides the president himself, and he is objectively the biggest liar, exaggerator, and hypocrite in American politics today.

You don't believe the narrative because the biggest liar in American politics today is pushing it, do you? Because that would be beyond gullible. And if not him or Fox then where is this coming from, specifically? I feel like if it was a conclusion you came to on your own it would have been a lot easier for you to answer Dave's challenge.

I am honestly curious about this. A man who has told thousands of lies (literally) since taking office complains that the media is lying about him because they're out to get him and you accept it as truth?

Why? On what basis?

My issue with the media has nothing to do with Trump. I disliked them before he was on the scene, for reasons I have already made clear. I don't know if I agree that FOX is worse than the others but every bit as bad IMO.

I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

IMO the country should be run by competent leaders, not empty celebrities. But Trump didn't elect himself. If something doesn't change we'll likely continue to get similar results. Who's next, Oprah? Kardashian?!!!!

Point of interest: I was very excited to have Obama as president when he first got elected. I was very disappointed by the end though.

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 12:09:51 AM »

I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

Yes.  Bias.  Super biased, don't get me wrong.  But it's not fake.  It's not a lie.  She says it's biblical to enforce the law, which is what they're doing and the law says to separate families.  It's certainly a misleading headline, but not a lie, just biased and misleading.

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

Hypocrisy is not the issue here.  We can find hypocrisy until the cows come home from most adult humans.
Secondly, many of those headlines are opinions or before and after a shift in events.

The first headlines about clinton's health.  It went from "she looks a bit woozy but is alright" to "She left a 9/11 service early due to illness" which are very different things and deserves their own stories.  It's like saying "President Regan is in top shape" March 29, 1981
and "President Regan might Die!" March 30, 1981.

The second one is in relation to The Hillary E-mail investigation.  Both times.  The first is when he does something Republicans disagree with.  They do attack him. (since he said Hillary shouldn't face charges).  The next one is when he publically said they were re-opening it due to new evidence, which turned out to be nothing.

Biased headline of an opinion article but that's opinion articles for ya.

Laci Green is a youtuber.  Not exactly CNN...
The third, I lack context.  One is about how a (former)whitehouse advisor to the president helps run a news site.  Which is accurate: A member of the government running their own news organization is state run media.  The state (a member of the state) is running a media organization.

The other lacks context.  What section?  In what?  Is it a "I wrote this article that talks about John but I suck so I wanted to send it to him to make sure I got it all right" or what?
Also, this was after John was no longer a member of the white house staff.  So I'm not sure the relevancy or the connection.  I mean, John wasn't running politico (that would have been a state run media), he was just having some journalist send him what said journalist wrote.
The third one is about two different things.
The first is a scientific study stating that "fake" security methods would be noticed as not making a vote more secure.  I'd have to find the paper to know what they used as real and fake security measures.
The second one is about hacking the election results digitally after they've been tallied by systems.

Fourth:
The first is a news story.
The second is an opinion piece.

Fifth:
First story: hacking the voting machines to make one candidate win. (it's hard cause its decentralized)
Second story: Hacking John Pedesta's and the DNC's e-mail accounts.

It sounds like they contradict eachother if you only read the headline.
Your examples are basically a bunch of out of context headlines.

I'd go on but it's late and I don't see the point of going through every single one.

Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.

Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.

It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!

78

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 26, 2018, 06:24:29 PM »

I can respond to the rest of your post later. Here is the link to what I was referring to:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/sanders-calls-separation-of-immigrant-families-biblical/2018/06/14/41c17276-700a-11e8-b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_video.html?utm_term=.e5487e04c02c

BTW I think Session's comments about it being biblical was one of the stupidest things of this whole fiasco.

79

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 26, 2018, 04:17:34 PM »

Trump is God.  He is infallable to his worshipers.  He can do no wrong for his word is good.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of lies and half truths in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.

Mainstream media doesn't go into a frenzy of lies and half truths.  Not even Fox News (usually).

I disagree.

Then it should be super easy for you to find 5 news stories on CNN that are lies or contain lies.
Note I say news stories, not opinion pieces.

Who said I was only talking about news stories and not opinion pieces? Opinion pieces are the perfect cover for the media to spread half truths and lies. Furthermore, there are other ways of pushing a false narrative without technically lying.

I'm not going to go find those news stories for you but I don't think it would be too difficult. I don't really care if you don't believe me.

Anyway, most of what I wrote about the false narrative above has been published in mainstream media. When Sanders answered a leading question by saying that it was biblical to uphold the law, the Washington Post ran the headline Sanders Says It's Biblical To Separate Families.

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 26, 2018, 04:08:05 PM »

His supporters know that the family separation policy  was in place long before Trump. They know that families were separated in the same way under Obama, there were just fewer of them. They know that the only change he made was to make a policy that all illegal border crossers would be charged  - as opposed to letting anyone accompanied by children off scot free.

...

Watch America vote in another empty celebrity next election because Americans and the media can't move past the tabloid crap and start focusing on real issues.

Having a hard time reconciling these.  Trumps supporters cant move past the tabloid crap and focus on real issues but at the same time are aware of the recent history of immigration policy?  Personally I doubt that Americans are very aware of most of their governments policies.  They believe crap like, "Obama issued the most executive orders of any president ever!" and never really investigate any further.  Thats why this immigration debate, instead of being a nuanced discussion devolves in to Trump being literally Hitler or the God-Emperor, depending on what side of the aisle he is on.

Tom is the perfect example.  He is reasonably smart, but is so unwilling to think outside his box, that he supports Trump no matter what.  As long as guys like him sound smart enough to be trusted, but are not mature enough to concede anything ever, American will continue to devolve.  Like Tyrian Lannister said, "We make peace with our enemies."  My friends down south need to do more of that.

I believe all Americans know better deep down but despite that, they are happy to accept and push any narrative that puts their side up and the opposing side down.