Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree33Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 7th, 2017, 07:16 PM   #21
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 27,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
What's it matter if "everyone is talking about it", most are commenting on what an asshole Trump is for pulling a stunt like that.
Sabcat is online now  
Old May 7th, 2017, 07:26 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 22,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
You're back to meaningless cartoons.
Use your big-boy words.
Thanks from GhostRider
Hollywood is offline  
Old May 7th, 2017, 07:38 PM   #23
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 27,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
You're back to meaningless cartoons.
Use your big-boy words.
Sabcat is online now  
Old May 7th, 2017, 07:55 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 22,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Damn RETARDED kids!
Thanks from GhostRider
Hollywood is offline  
Old May 7th, 2017, 08:30 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Question (and it's a good one): Who monitors the fact checkers?

Answer: Other fact checkers.

The key is to read more than ONE or two. If there's a consensus...Eureka!
And if the fact checkers are closely associated with the major networks while checking the facts of those networks, then can they really be unbiased? It's like the food companies hiring scientific researchers to check the safety of their food. Amazing! This food is all safe! We've hired more than one or two scientists to tell us so!
Thanks from Sabcat
Bookworm is online now  
Old May 7th, 2017, 08:34 PM   #26
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
And if the fact checkers are closely associated with the major networks while checking the facts of those networks, then can they really be unbiased? It's like the food companies hiring scientific researchers to check the safety of their food. Amazing! This food is all safe! We've hired more than one or two scientists to tell us so!
So would Fox News fact checkers just decide to ignore false information on CNN?

I think it says something interesting when the right wants to attack fact checking in general...
Thanks from RNG, Clara007 and GhostRider
foundit66 is offline  
Old May 7th, 2017, 09:54 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
So would Fox News fact checkers just decide to ignore false information on CNN?

I think it says something interesting when the right wants to attack fact checking in general...
Would you automatically believe the Fox News fact checkers if they found falsehoods on CNN? I certainly hope you would, since I see you are against attacking fact checking.
Thanks from Sabcat
Bookworm is online now  
Old May 7th, 2017, 10:24 PM   #28
Spud
 
foundit66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California
Posts: 5,934
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
And if the fact checkers are closely associated with the major networks while checking the facts of those networks, then can they really be unbiased? It's like the food companies hiring scientific researchers to check the safety of their food. Amazing! This food is all safe! We've hired more than one or two scientists to tell us so!
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
So would Fox News fact checkers just decide to ignore false information on CNN?
I think it says something interesting when the right wants to attack fact checking in general...
Here, I have pointed out the flaw in your thinking.
Rather than address that, you attempt to move the goalposts with a non-sequitur.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
Would you automatically believe the Fox News fact checkers if they found falsehoods on CNN? I certainly hope you would, since I see you are against attacking fact checking.
Your two statements are completely unrelated.
Being against attacking fact checking is not the same thing as recognizing fact checking groups may sometimes be flawed.
That doesn't negate the fact that competing fact checking organizations can help improve the system. Research would help demonstrate which one is more accurate when a conflict arises.

But your original flaw remains the same regardless of you adding a new flaw. The very concept of attacking fact checking in general based on a presumption that a group's fact checking themselves would be biased is innately flawed. It completely fails to comprehend that there are MANY fact checking organizations.
Thanks from RNG
foundit66 is offline  
Old May 8th, 2017, 03:06 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
It completely fails to comprehend that there are MANY fact checking organizations.
Just as there are MANY mainstream media outlets. If, together, they are all making the same leftward shift in their philosophies, then minor conflicts among them would not be pointed out. And the farther they shift left, the more they would be seeing themselves as all being in agreement even when the "facts" they choose to present are differing in major ways from the "right" or even the "center" of the political spectrum.
Thanks from Sabcat
Bookworm is online now  
Old May 8th, 2017, 05:44 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 16,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
Just as there are MANY mainstream media outlets. If, together, they are all making the same leftward shift in their philosophies, then minor conflicts among them would not be pointed out. And the farther they shift left, the more they would be seeing themselves as all being in agreement even when the "facts" they choose to present are differing in major ways from the "right" or even the "center" of the political spectrum.
Facts are facts.

Facts are not "left", "center" or "right"

Facts do not "differ". People may spin something so they APPEAR to differ. If two sources report on the same event and the reports differ then at least one of those sources (and maybe both) are either lying, omitting or spinning about something. What we need to be able to do is determine which it is. To think that source A "always lies" and source B is "always truthful" and then decide which you are going to believe without investigating on your own that is almost 50% of what the arguments on DTT are about.
Thanks from foundit66, Clara007 and GhostRider
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
air, campaign, credible, lies, networks, refuse, trumps



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trumps first campaign ad nothing but lies GhostRider Americas 1 September 29th, 2016 10:55 AM
All Trumps birther lies. GhostRider Americas 58 September 24th, 2016 02:38 PM
Trumps Profit off Campaign RNG Americas 3 August 27th, 2016 04:04 AM
Trumps, exaggerations, twisted truths and outright lies. GhostRider Americas 0 June 23rd, 2016 07:40 PM
MTV Networks/Viacom, Endorse ‘NO on Prop 8’ Campaign Cubbie Gay and Lesbian Rights 7 November 2nd, 2008 03:35 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.