Fake News

[pineapplemike]

Could a drone or robot take a picture like this?

i take your point about humanity but bro, a robot doesn't even have to take a picture, it can just create one from nothing

This AI Creates Photo-Realistic Faces of People Who Don’t Exist

shits gonna get real scary in a few years, no more uncanny valley

[jediuser598]

Could a drone or robot take a picture like this?

i take your point about humanity but bro, a robot doesn't even have to take a picture, it can just create one from nothing

This AI Creates Photo-Realistic Faces of People Who Don’t Exist

shits gonna get real scary in a few years, no more uncanny valley

We're going to be hearing stories about people that aren't even real? Shit. Robots even make fake news better than humans, lol.

[pineapplemike]

My point is, being a good journalist is hard.

Try to go a while speaking only 100% truth and that's the job. It's hard to not speak in generalities, yet the bar for a good journalist is to speak 100% truth and still get at the story. It.is.not.easy. It's even harder if you have to do it for free.

It is a problem we need to address because journalism is essential to a healthy Republic, so what's the solution?

lol yeah journalism really is a thankless job unless you excel at it. I imagine in the future the grunt work of it will be handled by computers, in fact I think portions of articles already are

What is exceling at it? Writing pays well. If someone likes your content they will pay for it. Truth or not.

hm, depends on what we mean by "thanking" the journalist, money is one way i suppose. glenn greenwald told his 100% truth for years and was "thanked" by edward snowden when he personally sought greenwald out to give him the story of 2013. that's a good way

[Speaker to Animals]

lol yeah journalism really is a thankless job unless you excel at it. I imagine in the future the grunt work of it will be handled by computers, in fact I think portions of articles already are

What is exceling at it? Writing pays well. If someone likes your content they will pay for it. Truth or not.

hm, depends on what we mean by "thanking" the journalist, money is one way i suppose. glenn greenwald told his 100% truth for years and was "thanked" by edward snowden when he personally sought greenwald out to give him the story of 2013

You miss a subtle point here that strikes at the heart of what "journalism" actually is (propaganda). Snowdan didn't seek Greenwald out as a reward. Greenwald's writings radicalized Snowden (up to you to decide whether the outcome was good or bad) and turned him into an agent for Greenwald's agenda. Snowden was influenced by Greenwald and felt compelled to spill the beans.

Now.. I happen to agree that the NSA needed to be exposed. But that doesn't negate the fact that Greenwald is not really trying to inform people about the whole truth. He is trying to convince people to think in a certain way, and for some key readers to act in a certain way, which paid off when Greenwald's writings flipped Snowden and resulted in Snowden exposing the NSA's crimes.

[jediuser598]

The law of noncontradiction is the corollary to identity.

If A=A
Then the proposition that !A=A should be false.

!A=A is contradiction. If that is true, then A=A has to be false.


Go take a philosophy class at a university and get back to me. I feel like you don't understand what I am telling you.

In the case of the global warming thing, liberals commonly take any evidence to support their hypothesis. Thus A can be true or not false, it doesn't matter. If the temperatures are getting warming, it's because we caused it. If they are getting colder, it's really because of global warming.

This type of shit is replete throughout pretty much the entire liberal platform. They use any evidence to support their position. It doesn't matter. This results in a rejection of the principle of noncontradiction.

I know it is, but I'm trying to get you to stick to the law of identity.

law of identity!=law of noncontradiction

law of identity=law of identity

I can think of no convincing argument against

A=A

Stay on target.

How could anyone possibly refute "A=A".

Have you ever asked these liberals if "A=A" to see what they say?

This liberal says "A=A" in every case.

[Speaker to Animals]

The law of noncontradiction is the corollary to identity.

If A=A
Then the proposition that !A=A should be false.

!A=A is contradiction. If that is true, then A=A has to be false.


Go take a philosophy class at a university and get back to me. I feel like you don't understand what I am telling you.

In the case of the global warming thing, liberals commonly take any evidence to support their hypothesis. Thus A can be true or not false, it doesn't matter. If the temperatures are getting warming, it's because we caused it. If they are getting colder, it's really because of global warming.

This type of shit is replete throughout pretty much the entire liberal platform. They use any evidence to support their position. It doesn't matter. This results in a rejection of the principle of noncontradiction.

I know it is, but I'm trying to get you to stick to the law of identity.

law of identity!=law of noncontradiction

law of identity=law of identity

I can think of no convincing argument against

A=A

Stay on target.

How could anyone possibly refute "A=A".

Have you ever asked these liberals if "A=A" to see what they say?

This liberal says "A=A" in every case.

You still don't understand this subject very well.

The law of noncontradiction is a corollary to identity. They are like flip sides of the same concept.

I think you need to study philosophy and logic first.

I very much doubt you say A=A in every case. Being a liberal, you are bound to construe all evidence to support your ideology, which is intrinsically a rejection of the principle of noncontradiction. This tactic is so fundamental to being a liberal, I really think it silly to debate it. I have shown numerous examples of how this works.

[jediuser598]

You still don't understand this subject very well.

The law of noncontradiction is a corollary to identity. They are like flip sides of the same concept.

I think you need to study philosophy and logic first.

I very much doubt you say A=A in every case. Being a liberal, you are bound to construe all evidence to support your ideology, which is intrinsically a rejection of the principle of noncontradiction. This tactic is so fundamental to being a liberal, I really think it silly to debate it. I have shown numerous examples of how this works.

Show me where I've ever made an argument against the law of identity.

I can't even conceive of one. How can one not believe A=A?

I think even those that believe that they believe that they don't believe in it, believe in it.

How is it possible to not believe in it? Is it possible?

[Speaker to Animals]

You still don't understand this subject very well.

The law of noncontradiction is a corollary to identity. They are like flip sides of the same concept.

I think you need to study philosophy and logic first.

I very much doubt you say A=A in every case. Being a liberal, you are bound to construe all evidence to support your ideology, which is intrinsically a rejection of the principle of noncontradiction. This tactic is so fundamental to being a liberal, I really think it silly to debate it. I have shown numerous examples of how this works.

Show me where I've ever made an argument against the law of identity.

I can't even conceive of one. How can one not believe A=A?

I think even those that believe that they believe that they don't believe in it, believe in it.

How is it possible to not believe in it? Is it possible?

Do you believe an incredibly cold week was the result of global warming?

[clubgop]

lol yeah journalism really is a thankless job unless you excel at it. I imagine in the future the grunt work of it will be handled by computers, in fact I think portions of articles already are

What is exceling at it? Writing pays well. If someone likes your content they will pay for it. Truth or not.

hm, depends on what we mean by "thanking" the journalist, money is one way i suppose. glenn greenwald told his 100% truth for years and was "thanked" by edward snowden when he personally sought greenwald out to give him the story of 2013. that's a good way

Money is the only way. Thanks dont get you to the next story.

[jediuser598]

You still don't understand this subject very well.

The law of noncontradiction is a corollary to identity. They are like flip sides of the same concept.

I think you need to study philosophy and logic first.

I very much doubt you say A=A in every case. Being a liberal, you are bound to construe all evidence to support your ideology, which is intrinsically a rejection of the principle of noncontradiction. This tactic is so fundamental to being a liberal, I really think it silly to debate it. I have shown numerous examples of how this works.

Show me where I've ever made an argument against the law of identity.

I can't even conceive of one. How can one not believe A=A?

I think even those that believe that they believe that they don't believe in it, believe in it.

How is it possible to not believe in it? Is it possible?

Do you believe an incredibly cold week was the result of global warming?

If I'm being 100% honest, I don't know that the earth is warming up or cooling down. I'm not a scientist nor an expert, the media could be driving a narrative to further certain goals, but Republican legislators and industrial interest groups could be pushing another narrative to keep on using fossil fuels.

Do we know that cigarettes cause cancer?

Absent being an expert on the subject, I rely on media reports, and we all know that the media is suspect. I've never run the tests to prove that Greenhouse gasses heat anything up. I've never collected the data personally from Venus. Do you believe the greenhouse effect is a real thing? I've not run the tests myself.

Can I know these things with 100% certainty? No.

But where do you get/how do you evaluate your information?

If I run into scientist after scientist who says the same thing, then I'm like well, 90%. They used to believe that the earth was cooling so there is some consensus to suspect there. Most of science is an argument from an authority and new, better ideas that better fit the evidence doesn't usually prevail until the advocates of the old ideas die, because the advocates of the old ideas often base their careers around the results and the advocates of the new ideas challenge their standing in the academic community.

There is definitely the human problem in science. The best evidence doesn't always win.

It's hard to beat scientific consensus, even with better evidence.