Fake News

[jediuser598]

DSL speaks to animals in massive generalities, what else is new? just roll with the punches. yeah dude, all liberals deny truth. word

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?

[Speaker to Animals]

I miss Hwen. At least his trisomy brought color and fun to this forum. Jedi's pseudo intellectual queries make the DMV seem entertaining...

Pseudo-intellectual because you can't keep up.

He just stated: "None of you actually believe A=A in all cases" which he believes with 100% certainty. That means his grasp on the truth is flawed at a very basic level, thus his criticism of the media is from a person who doesn't even know what 100% certainty even means.

I just gave you two examples where most liberals do not believe A=A.

Given time I can find one you believe, though I suspect you believe one of the two contradictions I already listed.

[jediuser598]

I miss Hwen. At least his trisomy brought color and fun to this forum. Jedi's pseudo intellectual queries make the DMV seem entertaining...

Pseudo-intellectual because you can't keep up.

He just stated: "None of you actually believe A=A in all cases" which he believes with 100% certainty. That means his grasp on the truth is flawed at a very basic level, thus his criticism of the media is from a person who doesn't even know what 100% certainty even means.

I just gave you two examples where most liberals do not believe A=A.

Given time I can find one you believe, though I suspect you believe one of the two contradictions I already listed.

How could I possibly believe that A!=A.

It's simply the law of identity.

Even post-modernists have a hard time disbelieving that A=A.

I'm interested now, how could you possibly prove that I don't believe in the law of identity? I don't see how the law of identity can be refutable, even by post-modernists. That logical engine don't start.

[pineapplemike]

DSL speaks to animals in massive generalities, what else is new? just roll with the punches. yeah dude, all liberals deny truth. word

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

[clubgop]

Journalism has been problematic in this country for over a hundred years, hell possible from its inception really. Sure there were varying degrees of transgressions and purposeful misrepresentation of the content etc. but now it certainly appears like its worse than ever before. Yellow Journalism anyone? Bias...well that's always existed. Misinformation is going to happen, but disinformation well one could argue that is a special form of subversion that borders on treasonous.

It may only be the business element of the breaking of journalism, but when in the very early 1900s advertisement starting becoming a significant part of the newspapers actual pages and a large portion of their revenue then is created another subversion to the authenticity of the writers reporting (obviously). You can trace the above historically and systematically. It wasn't always permeated by big advertising firms. This is propaganda 101. The problem is like with any institution or organization etc. it takes a long time to build up a reputation but hardly no time to lose it. This is just how human beings think and behave. Justly or unjustly.

Good journalism is hard and costs a lot of money.

Now everyone wants all the stories for free.

Most journalists are very aware of exactly what you're saying, I've talked to them.

Try this, try it for two days. Only say what you know to be 100% true. 100%. No exceptions. Tell me when you start and if you post anything here we'll test whether or not you pass or fail and when you do this and when that is the standard, then you'll know how fucking hard being a journalist is.

Journalism is the fourth estate and it is essential for the health of our Republic, but it is not easy.

It is not essential, we all have cell phones and recording devices on us almost all the time anymore. We see what we want and everyone rushes to fill our screens with that content. People want that content so the market will find a way to get them that content. It's not water, it's not oxygen. Its socks.

[Speaker to Animals]

Pseudo-intellectual because you can't keep up.

He just stated: "None of you actually believe A=A in all cases" which he believes with 100% certainty. That means his grasp on the truth is flawed at a very basic level, thus his criticism of the media is from a person who doesn't even know what 100% certainty even means.

I just gave you two examples where most liberals do not believe A=A.

Given time I can find one you believe, though I suspect you believe one of the two contradictions I already listed.

How could I possibly believe that A!=A.

It's simply the law of identity.

Even post-modernists have a hard time disbelieving that A=A.

I'm interested now, how could you possibly prove that I don't believe in the law of identity? I don't see how the law of identity can be refutable, even by post-modernists. That logical engine don't start.

It happens because you do no believe in objective truth. Thus all of this discussing to you is nothing more than competing narratives. Whatever you say is meant to influence and persuade, not get at the truth of anything. Thus when evidence is presented, you will almost always construe that evidence in your favor. It doesn't matter if the outcome of some investigation is true or false. You will always say it supports your position. That is a direct rejection of the principle of noncontradiction.

Example:

> "The scientific consensus (lol at that by the way) says the Earth is getting warmer due to human induced climate change"

>> But the actual climate data in the past few years shows the opposite trend.

> Yes, that's happening because of climate change.


It doesn't matter what the actual evidence says. If the temperatures are warmer, you say it's because of human induced climate change. If the temperatures are getting colder, you still say it is because of human induced climate change.

Liberals do this shit all the freaking time. Don't be silly and deny it. We make sport of it almost every day on this forum. It happens because you guys do not believe in truth but, rather, try to push your "narrative" to achieve your political ends.

[jediuser598]

DSL speaks to animals in massive generalities, what else is new? just roll with the punches. yeah dude, all liberals deny truth. word

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

Drones fly around areas and take composition perfect photos of protests and just get the facts of the situation instead of any "feel."

I could see that, hell I could see Bezos's Amazon Washington Post doing that.

Wouldn't it take a human to get a real picture though? Then again why not just take thousands of pictures and then have a human editor just go through until they find one that looks good and you'll have all the data available with that, you could probably even get facial recognition to identify that person. There's your cutline then, you have their who, what, when, where, how, and perhaps not why though.

Could a drone or robot take a picture like this?



Probably, given enough shots.

See what National Geographic is doing now though? They have started crowd-sourcing at least some of their photos:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/phot ... community/

I wonder if they pay these people.

[clubgop]

DSL speaks to animals in massive generalities, what else is new? just roll with the punches. yeah dude, all liberals deny truth. word

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.

[jediuser598]

I just gave you two examples where most liberals do not believe A=A.

Given time I can find one you believe, though I suspect you believe one of the two contradictions I already listed.

How could I possibly believe that A!=A.

It's simply the law of identity.

Even post-modernists have a hard time disbelieving that A=A.

I'm interested now, how could you possibly prove that I don't believe in the law of identity? I don't see how the law of identity can be refutable, even by post-modernists. That logical engine don't start.

It happens because you do no believe in objective truth. Thus all of this discussing to you is nothing more than competing narratives. Whatever you say is meant to influence and persuade, not get at the truth of anything. Thus when evidence is presented, you will almost always construe that evidence in your favor. It doesn't matter if the outcome of some investigation is true or false. You will always say it supports your position. That is a direct rejection of the principle of noncontradiction.

Example:

> "The scientific consensus (lol at that by the way) says the Earth is getting warmer due to human induced climate change"

>> But the actual climate data in the past few years shows the opposite trend.

> Yes, that's happening because of climate change.


It doesn't matter what the actual evidence says. If the temperatures are warmer, you say it's because of human induced climate change. If the temperatures are getting colder, you still say it is because of human induced climate change.

Liberals do this shit all the freaking time. Don't be silly and deny it. We make sport of it almost every day on this forum. It happens because you guys do not believe in truth but, rather, try to push your "narrative" to achieve your political ends.

We're not talking about the law of non-contradiction, we're talking about the law of identity.

What possible argument could be made against the law of identity?

A=A

How could anyone dispute that?

[Speaker to Animals]

How could I possibly believe that A!=A.

It's simply the law of identity.

Even post-modernists have a hard time disbelieving that A=A.

I'm interested now, how could you possibly prove that I don't believe in the law of identity? I don't see how the law of identity can be refutable, even by post-modernists. That logical engine don't start.

It happens because you do no believe in objective truth. Thus all of this discussing to you is nothing more than competing narratives. Whatever you say is meant to influence and persuade, not get at the truth of anything. Thus when evidence is presented, you will almost always construe that evidence in your favor. It doesn't matter if the outcome of some investigation is true or false. You will always say it supports your position. That is a direct rejection of the principle of noncontradiction.

Example:

> "The scientific consensus (lol at that by the way) says the Earth is getting warmer due to human induced climate change"

>> But the actual climate data in the past few years shows the opposite trend.

> Yes, that's happening because of climate change.


It doesn't matter what the actual evidence says. If the temperatures are warmer, you say it's because of human induced climate change. If the temperatures are getting colder, you still say it is because of human induced climate change.

Liberals do this shit all the freaking time. Don't be silly and deny it. We make sport of it almost every day on this forum. It happens because you guys do not believe in truth but, rather, try to push your "narrative" to achieve your political ends.

We're not talking about the law of non-contradiction, we're talking about the law of identity.

What possible argument could be made against the law of identity?

A=A

How could anyone dispute that?

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.