Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.

[Lao Lao]

In other news, I'm back in my happy place. Connemara, Co Galway. Absolutely love this place. Photo doesn't do it justice. Came down yesterday after work. Had the best nights sleep I've had in about 5 months, since I was here last. Pitch darkness combined with total silence makes for a great sleep. You can feel the pace of life slow down as you drive west

[Guest]

Bitcoin talk in the indo now,abandon ship

http://m.independent.ie/business/technology/bitcoins-exploding-value-whats-it-all-about-should-i-invest-and-is-it-just-a-bubble-36042729.html

[cardshark202]

This is why you can't have a conversation with some people, your side of the debate is to call people racist.
Point out one of my posts where I say anything racist. I've said before that I don't support Trump but I pointed out the double standards when it comes to the Clintons.
I am frankly surprised by some of the "intelligent" people on here who are so far down the mainstream media propaganda rabbit hole that they can't form an unbiased view of anything anymore and rely on SkyNews to form their opinions.

Dude, you're neck-deep in conspiracy theories and altogether crazy ideas. The other week you were going on about Obama's 'nose-job'. That is some mental shit altogether. A few months ago you were going on about the conspiracy theory. Also shown to be complete bollocks.

I would be absolutely shocked if one word of your posts over the last year+ had an ounce of truth in them. I mean really dude it's like you live in an alternative reality.

I would suggest that every single one of your posts has eventually turned/will turn out to be completely factually incorrect.

Also, Sky News is a conservative media news outlet, far more likely to peddle in the bs you are lapping up and spreading around than anything else.

[Opr]

I've had a weird hankering to play some online poker the last 3/4 months, no idea why though. I have resisted so far.

Other than FD, does anybody still play on line on a regular basis. Where is best now? Does rake back still exist?

If you are looking to play MTT's then 888poker is probably the best at the moment. Decent software and they have manageable tournament sizes which are relatively soft with decent guarantees. I could be wrong but I think rake back is a thing of the past for most sites unless you are playing on one of the grey area American friendly/Asia sites.

Opr

[gorrrr72]

Dude, you're neck-deep in conspiracy theories and altogether crazy ideas. The other week you were going on about Obama's 'nose-job'. That is some mental shit altogether. A few months ago you were going on about the conspiracy theory. Also shown to be complete bollocks.

I would be absolutely shocked if one word of your posts over the last year+ had an ounce of truth in them. I mean really dude it's like you live in an alternative reality.

I would suggest that every single one of your posts has eventually turned/will turn out to be completely factually incorrect.

Also, Sky News is a conservative media news outlet, far more likely to peddle in the bs you are lapping up and spreading around than anything else.

What are you talking about, what did I say about Obama's nose job? And what conspiracy theory are you talking about?

[cardshark202]

What are you talking about, what did I say about Obama's nose job? And what conspiracy theory are you talking about?

Amazing technology in it's infancy. The 25 year old footage of Obama pre-nose job and different sounding voice is a bit weird.

You don't even know you're doing it...scary...

Obama never got a nose job btw. The only sources pushing lie that are lunatic fringe right-wing conspiracy groups.

[jack90210]

Can't repost that rather large poster again. But I think you might be a bit of a racist gorrr. Like, just a little bit? I personally have two kids who are so blond it's unbelievable, but hate the stupid idea that they matter more than kids of darker shades. You weren't explicitly racist, but really all your post-Trump posts are about that really aren't they?

Why is it ok to call people who disagree with your view racist these days?

[Mellor]

Why is it ok to call people who disagree with your view racist these days?

When was it not ok to call people racist?


I kid, I kid. Racism has to be one of the most misused words in English these days.

[gorrrr72]

You don't even know you're doing it...scary...

Obama never got a nose job btw. The only sources pushing lie that are lunatic fringe right-wing conspiracy groups.

Wow, you found a flippant remark that plenty of people make about celebrities, how does that translate into me being "neck deep in conspiracy theories and crazy ideas".

[Strewelpeter]

Saturday test match is over bar the shouting with the Windies following on but what shouting
Hundreds of punters in fancy dress chasing a beach ball around the ground and the cheap seats noisier than than a shedload of Spanish students.

TMS

[Raoul Duke III]

Saturday test match is over bar the shouting with the Windies following on but what shouting
Hundreds of punters in fancy dress chasing a beach ball around the ground and the cheap seats noisier than than a shedload of Spanish students.

TMS

Looks like good craic tbf

Ireland would have more than this WI side. Sad to watch when your remember past glories.

[Kayroo]

This is why you can't have a conversation with some people, your side of the debate is to call people racist.
Point out one of my posts where I say anything racist. I've said before that I don't support Trump but I pointed out the double standards when it comes to the Clintons.
I am frankly surprised by some of the "intelligent" people on here who are so far down the mainstream media propaganda rabbit hole that they can't form an unbiased view of anything anymore and rely on SkyNews to form their opinions.

By mainstream media I assume you mean the professional media?

Mainstream media is such an odd term. Being outside the mainstream isn't inherently good. In fact being outside the scope of professional media is more likely an inherent bad.

The difficulty I have always had with your posting is the utterly specious equivalences you draw. Clinton had some bad points. Nevertheless she would have been an infinitely more effective and infinitely less disastrous president than her opponent. Nevertheless, your need to use false balance and tu quoque reasoning just shows how weak your argument is.

I also love how you think your rabbit hole makes you superior to the one you accuse others of occupying. People know who Clinton is. Their choice to support her regardless or to excuse her faults while not excusing those of Trump are rational choices made by people weighing up options. Your inability to understand that is less rational.

[ArmaniJeans]

Tu Quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

An example would be
Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"
.......

[Kayroo]

Forgot to footnote

[AndyFatBastard]

Tu Quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, also /tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

An example would be
Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"
.......

Giz a bite a your sandwich

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[ComradeCollie]

I think ye are all being a bit too nice and academic here. If you are pro-Trump you think white people matter more than non-white people. He's a horrific racist, and everyone who supports him is at least a suspect racist.

GTFO

[gorrrr72]

By mainstream media I assume you mean the professional media?

Mainstream media is such an odd term. Being outside the mainstream isn't inherently good. In fact being outside the scope of professional media is more likely an inherent bad.

The difficulty I have always had with your posting is the utterly specious equivalences you draw. Clinton had some bad points. Nevertheless she would have been an infinitely more effective and infinitely less disastrous president than her opponent. Nevertheless, your need to use false balance and tu quoque reasoning just shows how weak your argument is.

I also love how you think your rabbit hole makes you superior to the one you accuse others of occupying. People know who Clinton is. Their choice to support her regardless or to excuse her faults while not excusing those of Trump are rational choices made by people weighing up options. Your inability to understand that is less rational.

1. If you can't point to any equivalences then you're argument is bogus.
2. I do understand why people prefer Clinton to Trump. I also understand why people support Trump. Is this irrational?
3. I never said that I supported Trump, I just pointed out the absolute fact that most media had a bias towards her during the election.
4. I'm not "outside" the mainstream media. We all have opinions based on something, we are not all sitting in a dark room with no worldly input. I choose to listen to as many opinions and debates and form my opinions from there. A lot of people listen to one side and give no credit to anyone with dissenting opinions and when they are losing the argument they resort to calling them racist with absolutely no evidence of that.

[gorrrr72]

I think ye are all being a bit too nice and academic here. If you are pro-Trump you think white people matter more than non-white people. He's a horrific racist, and everyone who supports him is at least a suspect racist.

So, again. I never said I was pro-Trump. Does this mean that I am not a racist now in your opinion?

If so my Indian brother in law and my niece and nephew, my cousin's 5 black children, and various friends from, Turkey, Nigeria, Iran & Iraq will be delighted to hear that.

[SatNav]

im locked off tomorrow and now going to bed , since when did a 12 hour sleep become more important than staying up drinking more ,posting retarded shite . i have become a boring person.

[shano1888]

Anybody who does not recognise that they are a little bit racist is in denial.

[Opr]

Anybody who does not recognise that they are a little bit racist is in denial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzh7RtIJKZk

Opr

[SatNav]

Anybody who does not recognise that they are a little bit racist is in denial.

ill second that and especially if you have kids , fact. my job involves dealing with all sorts /races i am nice and treat everyone the same , however in certain situations i ask myself , would you like them on your door or playing with your kids , and the answer is no because yes I am racist in certain situations

there are so many different types of people on the planet that you actually cant like them all because of gender , colour , groups etc so yes u are gonna be racist in some way
I have had all of the above screaming in my face btw at some point more so than your average irish typical person

[ComradeCollie]

Anybody who does not recognise that they are a little bit racist is in denial.

Yeah was thinking that myself. Like on a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being Hitleresque an 0 being not racist at all, I reckon I'm at best about a 3.

[Guest]

Anybody who does not recognise that they are a little bit racist is in denial.

https://youtu.be/RovF1zsDoeM

[Raoul Duke III]

I think ye are all being a bit too nice and academic here. If you are pro-Trump you think white people matter more than non-white people. He's a horrific racist, and everyone who supports him is at least a suspect racist.

That's a reach tbf. Plenty of people voted for Trump as 'the Republican candidate'. They wouldn't have given 2 fucks as to his positions on race. That doesn't make them racists.

[Guest]

I assume everyone who thinks it's a good idea to take down all confederate statues think that Sinn Fein guy who wants to ditch all the English street names in Cork City is onto a good thing
big problem these days is that on both sides of debates only the most shrill click generators get published ,so on one side you have Katie Hopkins,Kevin Myers etc and on the other side you have people savaging Dunkirk because it didnt spend an hour exploring the <0.001% of Evacuees who were Indian,dismiss any book written by a white male and who secretly long not for equality but for their turn to be the oppressor.the huge % of normal people don't get heard

[Guest]

That's a reach tbf. Plenty of people voted for Trump as 'the Republican candidate'. They wouldn't have given 2 fucks as to his positions on race. That doesn't make them racists.

Plenty people voted for him as the non Clinton candidate too, people over here dont seem to grasp how big a % of the population over here despise them,and they aren't all swivellers.

[Raoul Duke III]

I assume everyone who thinks it's a good idea to take down all confederate statues think that Sinn Fein guy who wants to ditch all the English street names in Cork City is onto a good thing
big problem these days is that on both sides of debates only the most shrill click generators get published ,so on one side you have Katie Hopkins,Kevin Myers etc and on the other side you have people savaging Dunkirk because it didnt spend an hour exploring the <0.001% of Evacuees who were Indian,dismiss any book written by a white male and who secretly long not for equality but for their turn to be the oppressor.the huge % of normal people don't get heard

Everyone gets heard, that's the problem with the internet. Unfortunately most people have nothing either intelligent or interesting to say.

[Solksjaer!]

Everyone gets heard, that's the problem with the internet. Unfortunately most people have nothing either intelligent or interesting to say.

On that note . Hello everyone

[Kayroo]

1. If you can't point to any equivalences then you're argument is bogus.

Thankfully your posts are full of equivalences and poor reasoning.

Such as this one where you equate the behaviour of a demagogue and accuse it of being from the "Obama and Clinton playbook". That post is a great example of equating Trump, with his litany of false claims and authoritarian rhetoric/scaremongering, with genuine political rhetoric. The demagogue tries to sound like the reasoned politician. That doesn't mean the reasoned politician sounds like the demagogue. It's an utterly false equivalence.

Here is another example of your terrible terrible equivalences where you engage in a bout of whataboutism and you claim that if Hillary won then an issue wouldn't have been reported on despite the fact that the media looks at Hillary through a microscope.

So, my argument is not bogus. Your technique in arguments however, is very much so.

3. I never said that I supported Trump, I just pointed out the absolute fact that most media had a bias towards her during the election.

There are two candidates: one of them is incredibly well qualified, has a history of public service, has worked for women's and family rights her whole life, has worked diligently on health care for people across America and who has served at the highest levels of government for years. She has a number of weaknesses also. An ongoing FBI investigation chief among them which, by any rational measure, was overblown. Albeit it goes to her judgment and decision making as well as her trustworthiness and, in a normal presidential campaign, would have rightly harmed her with the voters.

The other candidate a birther (polite name for a racist) with no governmental experience. He launched his campaign on the back of an announcement in which he claimed Mexican immigrants were a people predominantly made up of rapists, murderers, drug dealers and gang members (and, he assumes, some good people). He turns out to be a sexual predator of sorts (not his partner, him personally). He espouses extreme right wing positions, encourages (or at least fails to discourage) violence at his rallies, vividly describes rape and murder to terrify his audiences, stokes fear of terrorism and Muslims, insults war veterans, insults the disabled, insults gold star families. Accuses a sitting US Senator's father of conspiring in the murder of a former US President.

Now. If the media prefers candidate 1 to candidate 2 that's not bias.

It's not bias to prefer the better candidate because they are better. It would
be bias to prefer the worse or equal candidate because of a political predisposition. So it's a palpable nonsense to describe the media's coverage of Clinton as biased. If they were it was the stupidest bias of all time. The media STILL gave huge air time to any negative story about candidate 1. If anything the over-correction to avoid an appearance of bias was unfair.


I've ignored 2 and 4 because 2 is about your internal thoughts and so not really debatable and 4 leads us somewhere pointless also.

[Strewelpeter]

Anybody who does not recognise that they are a little bit racist is in denial.

This.

Any prejudicial word thought or deed about for instance Travellers would do the trick to qualify.

The point is it comes naturally to us, its a proper job to overcome it.

[Kayroo]

I assume everyone who thinks it's a good idea to take down all confederate statues think that Sinn Fein guy who wants to ditch all the English street names in Cork City is onto a good thing

These aren't the same thing.

The English street names were given when we were part of the United Kingdom. The names were given as part of an ordinary process of naming streets at the time.

The vast majority of the confederate statues were built either during reconstruction or during the Civil Rights movement. They were built, intentionally, as reminders of white power in the south. They were built specifically as symbols of repressive power.

Secondly, the South lost. The statues are in commemoration of rebels who took up arms against the United States of America and rebels who did so, in no small part, in defence of the institution of slavery.

Much as you might detest the English, the two situations are not even remotely comparable. That's not to say that I think we shouldn't rename streets. If the people want that and our democratically elected representatives give it their imprimatur then so be it. But it's not inconsistent to think that the confederate statues in the US should be removed and the street names in Cork should remain.

[Strewelpeter]

That's a reach tbf. Plenty of people voted for Trump as 'the Republican candidate'. They wouldn't have given 2 fucks as to his positions on race. That doesn't make them racists.

Its also fair to try and attribute percentages.

It seems to me that unaware casual racism is the default setting for a significant majority of GOP voters but I couldn't try to even guess a percentage that are 'true believers'.
On Brexit I'm convinced that the core support that is just blindly driven by hatred of the other is at least 20% and could be over 30

[ComradeCollie]

That's not to say that I think we shouldn't rename streets. If the people want that and our democratically elected representatives give it their imprimatur then so be it.

Jebus. I'd like some of our Fitzwilliam streets to be renamed. Fitzwilliam street upr, Fitzwilliam St lower, Fitzwilliam Square, Fitzwilliam Place, Fitzwilliam lane. And then there's the Fitzwilliam Hotel which is on St Stephens Green. Don't get me started on Leeson. Herbert would be another one, and Pembroke,

[Solksjaer!]

Jebus. I'd like some of our Fitzwilliam streets to be renamed. Fitzwilliam street upr, Fitzwilliam St lower, Fitzwilliam Square, Fitzwilliam Place, Fitzwilliam lane. And then there's the Fitzwilliam Hotel which is on St Stephens Green. Don't get me started on Leeson. Herbert would be another one, and Pembroke,

But 1st we blow up the Pillar right ?
Sorry I meant the Spire ..lets blow up the Spire

[ComradeCollie]

But 1st we blow up the Pillar right ?
Sorry I meant the Spire ..lets blow up the Spire

Be a lot easier to hire a truck, and drive into it. That making explosives just seems so 1980's.

[gorrrr72]

Thankfully your posts are full of equivalences and poor reasoning.

Such as this one where you equate the behaviour of a demagogue and accuse it of being from the "Obama and Clinton playbook". That post is a great example of equating Trump, with his litany of false claims and authoritarian rhetoric/scaremongering, with genuine political rhetoric. The demagogue tries to sound like the reasoned politician. That doesn't mean the reasoned politician sounds like the demagogue. It's an utterly false equivalence.

Here is another example of your terrible terrible equivalences where you engage in a bout of whataboutism and you claim that if Hillary won then an issue wouldn't have been reported on despite the fact that the media looks at Hillary through a microscope.

So, my argument is not bogus. Your technique in arguments however, is very much so.




There are two candidates: one of them is incredibly well qualified, has a history of public service, has worked for women's and family rights her whole life, has worked diligently on health care for people across America and who has served at the highest levels of government for years. She has a number of weaknesses also. An ongoing FBI investigation chief among them which, by any rational measure, was overblown. Albeit it goes to her judgment and decision making as well as her trustworthiness and, in a normal presidential campaign, would have rightly harmed her with the voters.

The other candidate a birther (polite name for a racist) with no governmental experience. He launched his campaign on the back of an announcement in which he claimed Mexican immigrants were a people predominantly made up of rapists, murderers, drug dealers and gang members (and, he assumes, some good people). He turns out to be a sexual predator of sorts (not his partner, him personally). He espouses extreme right wing positions, encourages (or at least fails to discourage) violence at his rallies, vividly describes rape and murder to terrify his audiences, stokes fear of terrorism and Muslims, insults war veterans, insults the disabled, insults gold star families. Accuses a sitting US Senator's father of conspiring in the murder of a former US President.

Now. If the media prefers candidate 1 to candidate 2 that's not bias.

It's not bias to prefer the better candidate because they are better. It would
be bias to prefer the worse or equal candidate because of a political predisposition. So it's a palpable nonsense to describe the media's coverage of Clinton as biased. If they were it was the stupidest bias of all time. The media STILL gave huge air time to any negative story about candidate 1. If anything the over-correction to avoid an appearance of bias was unfair.


I've ignored 2 and 4 because 2 is about your internal thoughts and so not really debatable and 4 leads us somewhere pointless also.

Both of the posts you quoted are bad examples. The first one was a joke but at the same time I would be able to list examples where she was accused of at least some of those on the list.
The second quote is either true or being investigated and could be shown to be true.
You are contradicting yourself when you say that the media look at Hillary through a microscope and then admit that they essentially chose her as their candidate.
She was proven to be lying and flip flopping on issues over the years yet you never see that reported on CNN or CNBC. When Trump is caught lying or flip flopping then they tear him limb from limb.
The media are supposed to be non-partisan. I think it's a dangerous for major media outlets to operate in that fashion without fairness and objectivity.

[mugsy]

harry arter well played. if people call that cheating now can get fucked called using a brain cell.

[Lao Lao]

harry arter well played. if people call that cheating now can get fucked called using a brain cell.

Have you been drinking sir?

[cardshark202]

Both of the posts you quoted are bad examples. The first one was a joke but at the same time I would be able to list examples where she was accused of at least some of those on the list.
The second quote is either true or being investigated and could be shown to be true.
You are contradicting yourself when you say that the media look at Hillary through a microscope and then admit that they essentially chose her as their candidate.
She was proven to be lying and flip flopping on issues over the years yet you never see that reported on CNN or CNBC. When Trump is caught lying or flip flopping then they tear him limb from limb.
The media are supposed to be non-partisan. I think it's a dangerous for major media outlets to operate in that fashion without fairness and objectivity.

No, we don't want media to be non-partisan. I think being objective is far more important. Non-partisan suggests neutral which suggests giving both sides equal weighting. In many cases, one side is far worse/contains many more falsehoods than the other. What we really need is objectivity there. Unfortunately, most large media outlets do lack in that area.

It's not dangerous to see most major media outlets call Trump out as a liar and a fraud. I would say they have been way too soft on him. The guy is a horrific person, completely unfit for office and can't go more than a sentence without lying.

[Kayroo]

Both of the posts you quoted are bad examples. The first one was a joke but at the same time I would be able to list examples where she was accused of at least some of those on the list.
The second quote is either true or being investigated and could be shown to be true.

No, they're both quite good examples actually. In both cases you are equating the two candidates.

The first is when someone described Trump as a demagogue and then pointed to the definition in support of that contention. Your response was to equate those actions to Obama and Hillary. That's a false equivalence.

The second is where you conflate allegations of conspiring with foreign governments (accusations that haven't exactly died down) with a hypothetical lack of investigation. You actually think a woman who went through a four year congressional investigation into Benghazi, who testified to the committee twice, the second time for 11 hours, wouldn't have been investigated by a Republican House and Senate? That's another false equivalence.

You are contradicting yourself when you say that the media look at Hillary through a microscope and then admit that they essentially chose her as their candidate.
She was proven to be lying and flip flopping on issues over the years yet you never see that reported on CNN or CNBC. When Trump is caught lying or flip flopping then they tear him limb from limb.
The media are supposed to be non-partisan. I think it's a dangerous for major media outlets to operate in that fashion without fairness and objectivity.

Are you reading what I wrote or what you wish I had written?

First off, it's either wilful ignorance or a flat out lie for you to say that when Clinton lied or "flip-flopped" that it wasn't on CNN or MSNBC (I assume you meant MSNBC rather than CNBC given the former is a news network and the latter a business and financial network). Literally googling Clinton, Lie and CNN gets you all the evidence you need to refute that bare-faced nonsense.

Secondly, I didn't say they picked her as their candidate. In fact I note that they over-corrected in an attempt to show "fairness and objectivity". This is because the media, generally, does try and stay objective. But there is a falsehood in objectivity. It's fake balance.

If Donald Trump said that all Mexicans were rapists and Hillary Clinton said they weren't, the objective reporting isn't to say "candidates disagree on criminality of Mexicans". The objective report is to say "Hillary Clinton refutes Donald Trump's racist remarks about Mexicans".

Where the right sees bias is in the word racist. They would prefer the report to say "Hillary Clinton refutes Donald Trump's remarks about Mexicans" as it doesn't include what they perceive as a value judgment. But it is an editorial judgment they are entirely justified in making. There's a difference between bias and editorial judgment.

Your entire reply to me is a false equivalence. You see Trump getting bad press and you assume it is unfair because someone else wouldn't have received it. This ignores the swathes of bad press that Clinton received every time she ran for office as well as the most salient fact of all: Trump won. One of the prizes for winning is a higher level of scrutiny.

[ArmaniJeans]

I assume kayroo can't ever be the barrister in court against any of us because of the prior conversations here? That makes me happy.

[gorrrr72]

No, they're both quite good examples actually. In both cases you are equating the two candidates.

The first is when someone described Trump as a demagogue and then pointed to the definition in support of that contention. Your response was to equate those actions to Obama and Hillary. That's a false equivalence.

It's not a false equivalence if it's true, and like I said it was a joke anyway and some of the accusations on that list might prove to be true. Can I prove them? No. I can point to allegations but to call me out on a joke is a cheap shot, but fine whatever.

The second is where you conflate allegations of conspiring with foreign governments (accusations that haven't exactly died down) with a hypothetical lack of investigation. You actually think a woman who went through a four year congressional investigation into Benghazi, who testified to the committee twice, the second time for 11 hours, wouldn't have been investigated by a Republican House and Senate? That's another false equivalence.

And you are talking about someone who destroyed emails and hardware that were under subpoena and there were still no charges brought. They're not accusations they're facts.

I didn't say there was a hypothetical lack of investigation, I said that I think the pay to play stuff and the Clinton foundation was being investigated and we will know in time where that goes.


Are you reading what I wrote or what you wish I had written?

First off, it's either wilful ignorance or a flat out lie for you to say that when Clinton lied or "flip-flopped" that it wasn't on CNN or MSNBC (I assume you meant MSNBC rather than CNBC given the former is a news network and the latter a business and financial network). Literally googling Clinton, Lie and CNN gets you all the evidence you need to refute that bare-faced nonsense.

Secondly, I didn't say they picked her as their candidate. In fact I note that they over-corrected in an attempt to show "fairness and objectivity". This is because the media, generally, does try and stay objective. But there is a falsehood in objectivity. It's fake balance.

If Donald Trump said that all Mexicans were rapists and Hillary Clinton said they weren't, the objective reporting isn't to say "candidates disagree on criminality of Mexicans". The objective report is to say "Hillary Clinton refutes Donald Trump's racist remarks about Mexicans".

It's funny that you pick an untrue example to prove your point. That shows that you are happy to listen and repeat rhetoric that is not true.

Where the right sees bias is in the word racist. They would prefer the report to say "Hillary Clinton refutes Donald Trump's remarks about Mexicans" as it doesn't include what they perceive as a value judgment. But it is an editorial judgment they are entirely justified in making. There's a difference between bias and editorial judgment.

Your entire reply to me is a false equivalence. You see Trump getting bad press and you assume it is unfair because someone else wouldn't have received it. This ignores the swathes of bad press that Clinton received every time she ran for office as well as the most salient fact of all: Trump won. One of the prizes for winning is a higher level of scrutiny.

No, a lot of Trump's bad press is deserved but a lot of it was over the top or not true, Clinton's bad press was minimal and her shortfalls were downplayed, that's where I see the unfairness.
Fair enough on the scrutiny for the winner, most of my comments were during the election though.

[gorrrr72]

No, we don't want media to be non-partisan. I think being objective is far more important. Non-partisan suggests neutral which suggests giving both sides equal weighting. In many cases, one side is far worse/contains many more falsehoods than the other. What we really need is objectivity there. Unfortunately, most large media outlets do lack in that area.

It's not dangerous to see most major media outlets call Trump out as a liar and a fraud. I would say they have been way too soft on him. The guy is a horrific person, completely unfit for office and can't go more than a sentence without lying.

Ok, we differ on the opinions of what we think the media should be, I prefer the truth, you prefer them to form opinions based on who they favour. That's propaganda in my view, and propaganda is dangerous.
I have no problem with anyone being called out on lies, but call everyone's lies out and give the lies the same airtime.
Yeah, he is horrific, I am still up in the air about who I would have preferred to win. From a business point of view Hillary would have been better for me but it's still fun to see a reality TV star as president. How fucked up is that?

[cardshark202]

Ok, we differ on the opinions of what we think the media should be, I prefer the truth, you prefer them to form opinions based on who they favour. That's propaganda in my view, and propaganda is dangerous.
I have no problem with anyone being called out on lies, but call everyone's lies out and give the lies the same airtime.
Yeah, he is horrific, I am still up in the air about who I would have preferred to win. From a business point of view Hillary would have been better for me but it's still fun to see a reality TV star as president. How fucked up is that?

Are you ok? At no point did I type anything to even moderately insinuate that I wanted the media to form opinions based on who they favour. So this is all in your own head here.

I said I want a media that is truly objective(i.e calls out falsehoods and one where its reports are factually accurate), not one that is either highly partisan or one that suffers from a neutrality bias. I've yet to find any large media outlet that is perfectly objective though.

However, Trump is objectively detestable and many media outlets giving him a hard time does not make them biased. The fact Hilary and her faults didn't get nearly as much airtime was down to Trump and his actions more than anything else. If you can't see that well then I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere.

[gorrrr72]

Are you ok? At no point did I type anything to even moderately insinuate that I wanted the media to form opinions based on who they favour. So this is all in your own head here.

I said I want a media that is truly objective(i.e calls out falsehoods and one where its reports are factually accurate), not one that is either highly partisan or one that suffers from a neutrality bias. I've yet to find any large media outlet that is perfectly objective though.

However, Trump is objectively detestable and many media outlets giving him a hard time does not make them biased. The fact Hilary and her faults didn't get nearly as much airtime was down to Trump and his actions more than anything else. If you can't see that well then I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere.

You said in your last post that you didn't want a non-partisan media, and in this post you said you didn't want a partisan one, which is it? You're sending me mixed messages here.

You clarified the rest which I mostly agree with, call a liar out when they are found out, I'm fine with that. I do believe that the Clinton power weighted the press cofefe more in her favour though. You should watch some of the old Chris Hitchens stuff on the Clintons. I wish he had of been alive to weigh in on this election cycle, I know he would have destroyed Trump but he would have destroyed Clinton too.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Flushdraw]

The eldest kid is so happy she lost her first tooth. Like ecstatic. Seemingly everyone at school was bragging about losing theirs, and she felt she was missing out on this big life event. Ah kids, they're sometimes the most amazing things. A dental event causing such joy.

Pretty sure it's the tooth fairy money that she really wants 😁

[oleras]

Mcgregor has said the first to take a step back sat night will suffer the first "loss" of the fight.

I cant see mcgregor dancing around mayweather ducking and diving, i see him going straight for the kill, literally running at him as soon as the bell goes.

Thats why "A Punch to be Thrown in the First 10 Seconds @ 4/9" on PP seems mega value.

Whether he lands it on not is not important.

[Opr]

What time is the fight due to take place on Saturday our time? I presume it is some ridiculous o'clock?

Opr

[Ed]

What time is the fight due to take place on Saturday our time? I presume it is some ridiculous o'clock?

Opr

5 or 6 am I'd imagine

[darwinatemyhamster]

Between 4 and 5am I believe.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Solksjaer!]

What time is the fight due to take place on Saturday our time? I presume it is some ridiculous o'clock?

Opr

Starts about 4 , by over by 4.03.

[Solksjaer!]

I'd say I'm not even a little bit racist. There's a big difference between recognising someone's race and viewing that as different and then supporting the decision to discriminate against them.

Maybe this is yesterday's topic though.

In my experience, travellers make me racist. Although I like the Fury brothers (But not Davy Arthur)

[Raoul Duke III]

Let's go for the non-partisan approach on Trump and instead focus on the most important thing. Performance.

Based on the performance of his Administraion to date, what marks out of 10 would you give him as President? This isn't about Hilary or the media but actual job performance.

I'll start the ball rolling with 2. His administration has been a shambles from Day One and has completely failed to deliver. Next!

[Raoul Duke III]

I'd say I'm not even a little bit racist. There's a big difference between recognising someone's race and viewing that as different and then supporting the decision to discriminate against them.

Maybe this is yesterday's topic though.

Can I be racist towards other white people? Not all that fond of Parisians or Austrians.

[Hitchhiker's Guide To...]

...

[Kayroo]

It's not a false equivalence if it's true

I won't go through everything you said because the first sentence shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you failed to engage with the rest of what I said constructively I'll do you the same courtesy.

A false equivalence isn't an equivalence between a truth and a falsehood. It's a comparison between two truths where they are treated as being equal despite the fact that they only shares some passing commonalities. Otherwise it's a comparison with a falsehood.

A good example is the demagogue one I referred to. Trump and Clinton have both spoken about immigration and have both spoken about terrorism. The mechanism used by Trump to do that, the manner and fashion of his rhetoric, are clearly on an entirely different level to Clinton. Trump's use of the "other" as a political tactic and the scaremongering he invites are classic tools of the demagogue. You then equate that to things Clinton has said and done when they are, by any reasonable measure, simply not the same.

That is a false equivalence.