Bias against Trump

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Bias against Trump

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 537 of 573 < 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 >

Hrolf The Ganger 30 Jun 21 11.54am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Opinion is opinion and is always acceptable. It is not what is under discussion. It's the posting of demonstrable lies and particularly the incitement of illegal actions which is the concern. I don't trust the people making those determinations.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

30 Jun 21 11.54am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Opinion is opinion and is always acceptable. It is not what is under discussion. It's the posting of demonstrable lies and particularly the incitement of illegal actions which is the concern.

I don't trust the people making those determinations.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 30 Jun 21 12.58pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I guess that the pandemic and the way information about it is handled presents a special, and very tricky, dilemma. The need to encourage vaccination and stop the spread of the very dangerous misinformation must demand some compromises. So anything that adds oxygen to that misinformation might receive some careful attention. Well, OK, but totalitarian governments would be rightly criticised for censoring information; what other data are these companies deciding isn’t in the public interest because they don’t approve of its origination?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

30 Jun 21 12.58pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I guess that the pandemic and the way information about it is handled presents a special, and very tricky, dilemma. The need to encourage vaccination and stop the spread of the very dangerous misinformation must demand some compromises. So anything that adds oxygen to that misinformation might receive some careful attention.

Well, OK, but totalitarian governments would be rightly criticised for censoring information; what other data are these companies deciding isn’t in the public interest because they don’t approve of its origination?

Alert a moderator to this post

Lombardinho London 30 Jun 21 5.00pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Yes there are. Those who examine claims made and compare them to the known facts. They expose many lies and the dubious conclusions which are made by taking a few facts, ignoring others and adding unlikely hypotheses. Only those gullible enough to be prepared to believe the conspiracy theorists have been taught to regard the fact-checkers as the liars. Spreading distrust in the trustworthy is their modus operandi. Fact-checkers are just like your old fashioned newspapers. They contain truth, half-truths and downright lies. I'm going to attempt an illustration, Wisbech, if I may, whilst keeping roughly on topic. With regard to Nov 2020 US election substitute voting ballots for apples. For argument's sake let's say Joe Biden claimed 30 apples. After the recount there were still 30 apples. So far, so good? After several months, the audit analysed the apples and concluded 4 of the apples were made of plastic. 3 of the apples were made of glass. And 5 of the apples were actually oranges with painted green coats to look like apples. So 30 apples should have only been counted as 18 apples. Some of the information fact checkers offer only has a shelf-life of a few months. And like the legitimacy of the Biden administration, the sell-by date is fast approaching. You've allowed yourself to be utterly programmed by these things, hence every other post you make contains the words conspiracy and theorist. These people are simply ones who haven't allowed themselves to be programmed in this way. Fact checkers are tools of deception.
Alert a moderator to this post

Lombardinho

London 30 Jun 21 5.00pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Yes there are. Those who examine claims made and compare them to the known facts. They expose many lies and the dubious conclusions which are made by taking a few facts, ignoring others and adding unlikely hypotheses.

Only those gullible enough to be prepared to believe the conspiracy theorists have been taught to regard the fact-checkers as the liars. Spreading distrust in the trustworthy is their modus operandi.

Fact-checkers are just like your old fashioned newspapers.
They contain truth, half-truths and downright lies.
I'm going to attempt an illustration, Wisbech, if I may, whilst keeping roughly on topic.
With regard to Nov 2020 US election substitute voting ballots for apples.
For argument's sake let's say Joe Biden claimed 30 apples.
After the recount there were still 30 apples.
So far, so good?
After several months, the audit analysed the apples and concluded
4 of the apples were made of plastic.
3 of the apples were made of glass.
And 5 of the apples were actually oranges with painted green coats to look like apples.
So 30 apples should have only been counted as 18 apples.
Some of the information fact checkers offer only has a shelf-life of a few months.
And like the legitimacy of the Biden administration, the sell-by date is fast approaching.
You've allowed yourself to be utterly programmed by these things, hence every other post you make contains the words conspiracy and theorist.
These people are simply ones who haven't allowed themselves to be programmed in this way.
Fact checkers are tools of deception.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 9.27pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I don't trust the people making those determinations. You don't trust anybody who doesn't agree with your politics. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 9.27pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I don't trust the people making those determinations.

You don't trust anybody who doesn't agree with your politics.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 9.34pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Well, OK, but totalitarian governments would be rightly criticised for censoring information; what other data are these companies deciding isn’t in the public interest because they don’t approve of its origination? These are private businesses setting their own rules, not governments censoring the whole media. Other outlets exist which run on an "anything goes" basis, so I don't think the comparison stands up. In any case I don't think the "origination" is the issue here. It's the content itself. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 9.34pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

These are private businesses setting their own rules, not governments censoring the whole media. Other outlets exist which run on an "anything goes" basis, so I don't think the comparison stands up.

In any case I don't think the "origination" is the issue here. It's the content itself.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 9.46pm
Originally posted by Lombardinho Fact-checkers are just like your old fashioned newspapers. They contain truth, half-truths and downright lies. I'm going to attempt an illustration, Wisbech, if I may, whilst keeping roughly on topic. With regard to Nov 2020 US election substitute voting ballots for apples. For argument's sake let's say Joe Biden claimed 30 apples. After the recount there were still 30 apples. So far, so good? After several months, the audit analysed the apples and concluded 4 of the apples were made of plastic. 3 of the apples were made of glass. And 5 of the apples were actually oranges with painted green coats to look like apples. So 30 apples should have only been counted as 18 apples. Some of the information fact checkers offer only has a shelf-life of a few months. And like the legitimacy of the Biden administration, the sell-by date is fast approaching. You've allowed yourself to be utterly programmed by these things, hence every other post you make contains the words conspiracy and theorist. These people are simply ones who haven't allowed themselves to be programmed in this way. Fact checkers are tools of deception. I think that's just a load of old bs! You are offering a typical reasoning of an indoctrinated and gullible believer in conspiracy theories who has been spoon-fed the arguments as to why things like fact-checkers must be themselves fake. Just like the msm must publish fake news. There are many fact-checkers. They deal in facts. Not opinions. They lay those facts out in full view and then ask the reader to reach their own conclusion, having given them theirs. They are a vital source of information in an age when almost anything can be published without either editorial oversight or legal consequences. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 9.46pm

Originally posted by Lombardinho

I think that's just a load of old bs! You are offering a typical reasoning of an indoctrinated and gullible believer in conspiracy theories who has been spoon-fed the arguments as to why things like fact-checkers must be themselves fake. Just like the msm must publish fake news.

There are many fact-checkers. They deal in facts. Not opinions. They lay those facts out in full view and then ask the reader to reach their own conclusion, having given them theirs.

They are a vital source of information in an age when almost anything can be published without either editorial oversight or legal consequences.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 30 Jun 21 9.51pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I think that's just a load of old bs! You are offering a typical reasoning of an indoctrinated and gullible believer in conspiracy theories who has been spoon-fed the arguments as to why things like fact-checkers must be themselves fake. Just like the msm must publish fake news. There are many fact-checkers. They deal in facts. Not opinions. They lay those facts out in full view and then ask the reader to reach their own conclusion, having given them theirs. They are a vital source of information in an age when almost anything can be published without either editorial oversight or legal consequences. What if the fact checkers are biased? Would the facts be given with the truth ,if its there on a tangent to their bias.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 30 Jun 21 9.51pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

There are many fact-checkers. They deal in facts. Not opinions. They lay those facts out in full view and then ask the reader to reach their own conclusion, having given them theirs.

They are a vital source of information in an age when almost anything can be published without either editorial oversight or legal consequences.

What if the fact checkers are biased?
Would the facts be given with the truth ,if its there on a tangent to their bias.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 30 Jun 21 9.52pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle These are private businesses setting their own rules, not governments censoring the whole media. Other outlets exist which run on an "anything goes" basis, so I don't think the comparison stands up. In any case I don't think the "origination" is the issue here. It's the content itself. Google accounts for 92% of internet searches. When Trump suggested Covid came from a Chinese lab it was censored. When Biden’s government started to look at the situation it became legitimate news.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

30 Jun 21 9.52pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

These are private businesses setting their own rules, not governments censoring the whole media. Other outlets exist which run on an "anything goes" basis, so I don't think the comparison stands up.

In any case I don't think the "origination" is the issue here. It's the content itself.

Google accounts for 92% of internet searches.
When Trump suggested Covid came from a Chinese lab it was censored. When Biden’s government started to look at the situation it became legitimate news.

Alert a moderator to this post

kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 30 Jun 21 10.42pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Google accounts for 92% of internet searches. When Trump suggested Covid came from a Chinese lab it was censored. When Biden’s government started to look at the situation it became legitimate news. They will be trying to tell us next that the world is round Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978
Alert a moderator to this post

kevlee

born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 30 Jun 21 10.42pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Google accounts for 92% of internet searches.
When Trump suggested Covid came from a Chinese lab it was censored. When Biden’s government started to look at the situation it became legitimate news.

They will be trying to tell us next that the world is round

Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 10.53pm
Originally posted by cryrst What if the fact checkers are biased? Would the facts be given with the truth ,if its there on a tangent to their bias. Facts don't have a bias. People do. It's up to each of us to look at the case being made and decide for ourselves what conclusion to draw. There are enough fact-checkers examining events for all the pertinent facts which are known at that time to reach a conclusion. If new facts emerge, then conclusions get revised. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 10.53pm

Originally posted by cryrst

What if the fact checkers are biased?
Would the facts be given with the truth ,if its there on a tangent to their bias.

Facts don't have a bias. People do.

It's up to each of us to look at the case being made and decide for ourselves what conclusion to draw.

There are enough fact-checkers examining events for all the pertinent facts which are known at that time to reach a conclusion. If new facts emerge, then conclusions get revised.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 30 Jun 21 10.57pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle You don't trust anybody who doesn't agree with your politics. I don't trust anyone who manipulates people via distorted and one sided information and shuts down opposition. If they have right on their side, why would they need to?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

30 Jun 21 10.57pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You don't trust anybody who doesn't agree with your politics.

I don't trust anyone who manipulates people via distorted and one sided information and shuts down opposition.

If they have right on their side, why would they need to?

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 11.00pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Google accounts for 92% of internet searches. When Trump suggested Covid came from a Chinese lab it was censored. When Biden’s government started to look at the situation it became legitimate news. Why do you think that was? I suggest it is due to the motivations which lie behind the actions. Trump was politicising the pandemic and seeking to divert attention away from the criticism of his own response. There was an over-riding need for the world as a whole to fight the pandemic together and not get into a blame game at that point. Now we are getting on top of it is the right time to dig deeper and see if those stories have any legitimacy, so the appropriate lessons can be learned. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 30 Jun 21 11.00pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Google accounts for 92% of internet searches.
When Trump suggested Covid came from a Chinese lab it was censored. When Biden’s government started to look at the situation it became legitimate news.

Why do you think that was?

I suggest it is due to the motivations which lie behind the actions. Trump was politicising the pandemic and seeking to divert attention away from the criticism of his own response. There was an over-riding need for the world as a whole to fight the pandemic together and not get into a blame game at that point.

Now we are getting on top of it is the right time to dig deeper and see if those stories have any legitimacy, so the appropriate lessons can be learned.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 537 of 573 < 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Bias against Trump

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors