Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13  [ show all ]
RT vs. Last Week Tonight * 3
    #25913141 -

This thread is for Falcon91Wovern03 and myself to have a agreed-upon neutral third party resolve a factual dispute that we have.  We have agreed upon strict rules under which we will operate.  As such, I have closed this thread to everyone except Falcon, myself, and Ballsalsa.

I ask that moderators and admins please respect these limitations by not posting in this thread.  I cannot lock you guys out, but I do ask that you will allow this experiment to continue unhindered.

Round 1 saw Falcon submit a story from Season 5, Episode 11 of Last Week Tonight, originally aired on May 13, 2017.  This story was found to not be fake news. 
After the above decision, some rule disputes arose which have been resolved.  As part of that process, the judge has ruled that Enlil is to be Petitioner for Round 2. 

Round 2 begins with a story from RT

The revised rules are below:

For each round, there is a Petitioner and Respondent.  The Petitioner selects a story from Respondent's chosen source from the last 5 years.  Enlil's chosen source is Last Week Tonight.  Falcon91Wolvrn03's chosen source is RT America.

Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.

Each round will consist of 5 turns as follows:

1. Petitioner presents evidence and argument demonstrating the falsity of any and all information presented in his chosen story.  There is no limit to the number of outside sources that may be used, and the turn can be as many posts as is necessary. 

2. Respondent presents any rebuttal evidence and argument necessary to rebut Petitioner's turn 1.

3. Petitioner presents any additional evidence and argument he desires to strengthen his position.

4. Respondent presents any evidence and argument to rebut Petitioner.

5. Petitioner presents a final argument which must rely solely on evidence already presented in turns 1-4 of the same round.

After Petitioner's final argument, the judge will render a decision of whether or not the chosen story is fake news.

Additional Rules

1. Neither party may interrupt another party's turn by posting. The judge may interrupt to ask a question at any time.

2. The judge may only consider argument and evidence presented within the round by the Petitioner and Respondent.

3. The Round begins with the first turn by Petitioner and ends with the decision by the judge.

4. Each party must announce if he wants to make additional posts before the next round begins, or it will be assumed that he has finished his turn after a post.

5. If a story has been deemed fake news, the Petitioner and Respondent switch roles, and the new Petitioner must choose another story.

6. If a story has been deemed not to be fake news, Petitioner must choose another story and begin another round.  If Petitioner cannot find another story to attack, Petitioner may concede a loss of the competition as a whole.

7. If a dispute arises as to the boundaries of a particular story (ie., episodes that may contain more than one story), the dispute must be settled by the judge.  If a party chooses to initiate the dispute process, it must be done PRIOR to that party starting his first turn of a round.  In other words, if the Petitioner wishes the judge to decide, he must identify the issue to be decided instead of taking his first turn.  Similarly, a Respondent would identify the issue to be decided immediately after Petitioner's first turn has completed.  Once an issue is raised before the judge, all turns are suspended while the judge decides the issue.  The process of deciding that issue is at the sole discretion of the judge.

8. During a round, posting in this thread will be limited to participants.  After each round is completed, the thread will be unlocked for discussion.







Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25914288 -

John Oliver said:
In the absence of solutions, Maduro has reached for the next best thing... blaming someone else....  Ok so, here's the thing there - America has undoubtedly done some awful things in Central and South America. We backed coup attempts, juntas and atrocities in Chile, Argentina and Guatemala.  But refreshingly, what's happening in Venezuela is actually not our fault.  Accusing America of creating Venezuela's crisis is about as fair as accusing OJ Simpson of murdering Princess Diana.


But the US does have blame in Venezuela's crisis.  We've had entire threads about US intervention in Venezuela, but I'll keep this to only one point to make that clear.

Trump passed sanctions in August 2017 that targeted Venezuela's oil and banking industries, critical components of Venezuela's economy.

Trump Imposes 'Strong, New Sanctions' on Venezuela
Quote:
The United States on Friday forbade any dealings in new Venezuela debt or equity in Washington's latest move to pressure the repressive government of President Nicolas Maduro.

An executive order, signed by President Donald Trump, bars U.S. transaction with Maduro's government and the PDVSA state oil company.


According to US News & World Report
Quote:
The Rubio/Trump strategy seems to be to try to worsen the economic situation and increase suffering to the point where either the military, or the insurrectionary elements of the opposition, rise up and overthrow the government.

These sanctions cut off Venezuela from billions of dollars of potential loans, as well as from revenue even from its own oil company in the U.S., Citgo. They have worsened shortages of medicine and food, in an economy that is already suffering from inflation of about 3,000 percent annually and a depression that has cost about 38 percent of GDP.



If you don't trust US News & World Report, Trump's own press secretary admitted
Quote:
These measures are carefully calibrated to deny the Maduro dictatorship a critical source of financing to maintain its illegitimate rule.


Yes, Maduro is also at fault for the crisis.  But for John Oliver to state the US is not to blame is a lie.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25914336 -

Sorry to interrupt, but I just want to be clear about format.  To my knowledge, this is what you two have agreed upon.

Quote:
The first posts would be made by the person with the burden of proof.  For stories you claim to be fake, that would be you.  When we switch to an RT story, that would be me.  In this first step, which could take multiple posts, you would present everything that you believe to be relevant and probative to the issue of whether or not the story is fake.  You can link/quote outside sources to your heart's content.  When you have completed your argument, you simply let me know.  I will not interrupt in any way.

Step two would be rebuttal.  In this instance, that would be where I post a rebuttal to the evidence and argument you've provided.  I will follow the same rules you did. You will not interrupt until I have finished, and the judge has posted his opinion.  I will let you and the judge know when I'm done.

After that, the judge would decide based solely on what is in that thread.  He/she would not consider personal knowledge, bias, or anything outside of the evidence and argument we've presented.



Am I correct?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25914341 -

Falcon suggested two rounds each,  then the decision.  I believe that is the format.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25914356 -

so,
argument
rebuttal
argument
rebuttal
decision

then repeat for the next topic if people still want to at that point

is that correct?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25914359 -

I believe so.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25914360 -

Yes, I agreed to that.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25914370 -

excellent.
sorry for the derailment.
carry on.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25915145 -

Falcon provides three links to outside sources. The first of these links is an article about sanctions being imposed in mid 2017.  The second is an opinion piece.  The third is a press release from the white house stating the intention and motives behind the sanctions.  I will address these first before moving on to my affirmative evidence.

The first source quotes the third source, so I'll take them together.  Both of these sources acknowledge the existing food shortages at the time of the sanctions:

Quote:
The Maduro dictatorship continues to deprive the Venezuelan people of food and medicine . . .


This is found in both of those sources, evidencing the fact that food shortages did indeed predate those sanctions.  Of course, this means that those sanctions did not cause those food shortages. 

The second source is an opinion piece by Mark Weisbrot.  Mr. Weisbrot has a long and sordid history with regard to Venezuelan politics and economy.  In 2013, Weisbrot claimed, against the prevailing opinion at the time, that the Venezuelan economy was not about to implode. 

Quote:
Hyperinflation is also a very remote possibility.


Of course, hyperinflation is exactly what happened in Venezuela.  So much so, that PanAm Post wrote a scathing article criticizing Mr. Weisbrot and his failed prediction.  Now, we can't read that article because Mr. Weisbrot's employer decided to sue to have it taken down, but we can still read the apology for that article. 

Quote:
As Venezuela descends further into a dictatorship of starvation with each passing day, Mark Weisbrot remains surprisingly silent on his support for the Venezuelan regime and their economic policies. No Mark. This is not the economy of Greece or Spain. It is far worse. The apocalypse that you assured us would never come, is here.


That's from April of 2017.  Months before Trump's sanctions.  By that time, at least one person characterized the situation in Venezuela as "a dictatorship of starvation" and an "apocalypse."

Having given Mr. Weisbrot as much attention as he deserves, I'll move on to the affirmative evidence.

By September of 2013, Venezuela already had rampant food shortages.  One year later, The Economist called Venezuela "Probably the world's worst-managed economy," stating that its issues were the result of "colossal economic mismanagement".  In 2015, the inflation was 270%. By the end of 2016, Venezuela was already in economic collapse.

Quote:
Inflation will hit nearly 500 percent this year and a mind-boggling 1,600 percent next year."


All of this BEFORE the sanctions.

So, this brings us to the question that your honor really has to decide.  You're not here to decide whether the U.S. sanctions exacerbated an existing situation.  You're here to decide whether the Last Week Tonight piece on Venezuela is a "fake news story."  That is, after all, what Falcon and I have agreed to do.  We are to alternate pointing out fake news stories from each other's sources until one of us fails to find one.

In that vein, is the story a fake news story?  Falcon says it is, and he bases that argument on a statement made in the piece.  Specifically, that statement is:

Quote:
what's happening in Venezuela is actually not our fault.  Accusing America of creating Venezuela's crisis is about as fair as accusing OJ Simpson of murdering Princess Diana.


Falcon calls this a "lie."  Strong word.  Let's look at this quote and see if it rises to the level of a lie. 

The first part has some ambiguities in the use of the words "our fault."  Those words can mean several things.  Does it mean completely our fault?  Primarily our fault?  Partially our fault?  And who's fault?  Last Week Tonight Staff?  The world?  America?

The ambiguities can be cleared up by the second sentence.  "Accusing America of creating Venezuela's crisis is about as fair as accusing OJ Simpson of murdering Princess Diana."  This second sentence tells us what the first sentence means when it says the crisis is not "our fault."  He means that America didn't CREATE the crisis. 

So, did America create the crisis?  Did America cause hyperinflation and food shortages starting in 2013?  That's for your honor to decide, of course, but it seems that your honor will have to move firmly away from the established facts to make such a finding.

At this time, I'll relinquish the podium to my colleague Falcon91Wolvrn03.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25916431 -

Enlil said:
John Oliver said:
Ok so, here's the thing there - America has undoubtedly done some awful things in Central and South America. We backed coup attempts, juntas and atrocities in Chile, Argentina and Guatemala.  But refreshingly, what's happening in Venezuela is actually not our fault.  Accusing America of creating Venezuela's crisis is about as fair as accusing OJ Simpson of murdering Princess Diana.


Falcon calls this a "lie."  Strong word.  Let's look at this quote and see if it rises to the level of a lie. 

The first part has some ambiguities in the use of the words "our fault."  Those words can mean several things.  Does it mean completely our fault?  Primarily our fault?  Partially our fault?


Yes, the word "fault" could be ambiguous.  Unless you watch the video from about 13:58 to 14:28 (or watch more of the video), and listen to the way John Oliver says the above.



What's your takeaway of "fault" after watching?  It sounds to me like he's saying we have no fault in the crisis.  "America has undoubtedly done some awful things in Central and South America... but REFRESHINGLY, what's happening in Venezuela is actually NOT our fault".

What's "happening in Venezuela" is US sanctions created a crisis worse than what they had before, with the express intent "to deny the Maduro dictatorship a critical source of financing to maintain its illegitimate rule."

John Oliver completely ignores this.


Enlil said:
So, did America create the crisis?  Did America cause hyperinflation and food shortages starting in 2013?  That's for your honor to decide, of course, but it seems that your honor will have to move firmly away from the established facts to make such a finding.


You don't have to decide.  Though I could make a case that we played a role in what happened before the sanctions of 2017, let's just assume that wasn't our fault.

John Oliver made his show after the sanctions of 2017, and he COMPLETELY ignored that we tried to make things so bad in Venezuela that Maduro would be forced out.

Saying we're not at fault for what's "happening in Venezuela" and saying it's not fair to accuse America is a lie.


Since I'm giving Enlil the last word, I'll ask that you reread this post before making your final decision.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25917062 -

Before we started this little competition, Falcon and I had a discussion about what constitutes a "fake news story."  I posed a question which he answered:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil said:
So, in order to qualify as a "fake news story," it need only have some false information and/or omissions of relevant facts?  I just want to make sure we have consistent rules in this thing.


This could go on forever if it included omission of relevant facts.  I recommend we go with false information.

- Link

Now, it appears that Falcon is inviting your honor to find the piece a fake news story based on omission of relevant facts:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
John Oliver made his show after the sanctions of 2017, and he COMPLETELY ignored that we tried to make things so bad in Venezuela that Maduro would be forced out.


That, your honor, is NOT relevant to this discussion.  Falcon specifically limited the definition of "fake news story" to include only stories with "false information."  The only reason he brings up omissions in the story now is because he knows that his argument is weak as to false information.

Further, while Falcon claims that he "could make a case that we played a role in what happened before the sanctions of 2017," he most certainly DIDN'T make that case.  Why not?  Is there a better time/place than right here and now to make that case? 

Simply put, Falcon had the burden of proving that the Last Week Tonight piece contained false information.  He offered two sentences which he claims are false.  He's offered virtually nothing in the way of evidence to show that they are false, and in fact, his own sources confirm that the crisis in Venezuela predates U.S. Sanctions.  My sources show that this crisis started four years before those sanctions. 

And then he argues that the sanctions made the crisis worse.  First, does that even matter here?  Given the actual statement made by John Oliver, would that even make his statement false?  And if it would, how do we know it made the crisis worse?

Falcon tells us that sanctions made the crisis worse, and gives us zero evidence of that.  We know that in 2016, they were already predicting 1600% inflation for 2017.  How much worse can it get?

Venezuela's economy is like a dying man on the street.  America's sanctions are, at most, a stomp on the hand.  Does that make it our fault that he's dying?

In the end, you're not here to decide the culpability of America.  You're here to decide whether the following statement is a fair representation of the facts as they were in May of 2018:

Quote:
what's happening in Venezuela is actually not our fault.  Accusing America of creating Venezuela's crisis is about as fair as accusing OJ Simpson of murdering Princess Diana.


Taking into consideration only the facts presented in this thread, there's only one possible verdict here, and that is to find that the Last Week Tonight piece is not a fake news story.

Thank you.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25917116 -

This court would like to thank both of the gentlemen for their arguments.  At this time court will recess for 24 hours in order to ponder the evidence of the case and come to a decision.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25919064 -

The question we have come together to decide is whether or not a satirical, news-based comedy series is "fake news".
The question seems almost absurd on it's face, yet here we are.  The following is the specific language in question:
Quote:
John Oliver said:
In the absence of solutions, Maduro has reached for the next best thing... blaming someone else....  Ok so, here's the thing there - America has undoubtedly done some awful things in Central and South America. We backed coup attempts, juntas and atrocities in Chile, Argentina and Guatemala.  But refreshingly, what's happening in Venezuela is actually not our fault.  Accusing America of creating Venezuela's crisis is about as fair as accusing OJ Simpson of murdering Princess Diana.


It is the belief of this court, that there are some circumstances under which this would qualify as fake news.  Were we considering lies of omission, there would be no question.  However, the narrow scope of this investigation and the strict definition of what constitutes a lie that has been agreed upon by all parties involved have rendered the outcome less clear.  One question that has arisen during the course of these proceedings is how to interpret the word "created".  The plaintiff would have us accept that exacerbating an existing issue is a form of creation in that it "creates" an even more harrowing set of conditions which are fundamentally different from initial conditions that led to the issue in the first place.  Imagine you've come upon a man hanging from a cliff.  He's put himself in that position, you had nothing to do with it, having seen him, you decide to step on his fingers and watch him fall into the abyss.  Did you create the falling into the abyss crisis?  Some would say no.  After all, the man put himself in such a precarious position without your help.  Others would say yes.  After all, the man had a chance to extricate himself before you directly influenced to outcome with the intent of deciding it.  The defendant would have us believe that only direct actions that can be traced causally to the situation at hand and predate the crisis can be said to have created it.  This, of course, begs the question of how far back into the mists of time to peer when determining the genesis of a crisis.  It may well be possible to make the case that U.S. policy decisions at some time in the past did, in fact, create the current economic and political issues at hand in Venezuela according to this strict definition of the word "create".  However, that case has not been made during the course of these proceedings.  It is the opinion of this court that the piece by Last Week Tonight, was disingenuous and potentially misleading.  It omitted contextual information with the intent to lead the viewers to a specific conclusion, namely, that the U.S. is not at fault for the current woes in Venezuela.  However, given the agreed upon definition of "fake news" and the use of the word "create" in the phrase under scrutiny, it is the duty of this court to find the defendant not guilty of being fake news at this time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25919081 -

Thank you for your considered opinion. I particularly like the way you decided to make your paragraph a huge monolith to make it harder to read.  Reminds me of reading an actual opinion.


I have opened this thread to all posters.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25919117 -

Should have made a signature bet.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #25919174 -

Given this decision, I believe Falcon still needs to present a fake news story from Last Week Tonight.  In the alternative, he can concede that it is a more reliable source than RT.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #25919218 -

Good form on all sides....this format should come back from time to time.

Thunderdome.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: SirTripAlot] * 1
    #25919226 -

I agree, and I am more than willing to set access restrictions for any members who would like to have private debates.  It's refreshing to do this without the vitriolic rhetoric that often accompanies debates in this forum.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25919243 -

I really meant to put more time into it and getting my jargon right, but i got into it with the old lady last night and had to write it up before work this morning.  The thing is full of typos.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25919253 -

I figured whoever got the last word would win.  I accept the judge's decision, but I'd still like to address Enlil's last post for the record.

Enlil said:
Before we started this little competition, Falcon and I had a discussion about what constitutes a "fake news story."  I posed a question which he answered:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil said:
So, in order to qualify as a "fake news story," it need only have some false information and/or omissions of relevant facts?  I just want to make sure we have consistent rules in this thing.


This could go on forever if it included omission of relevant facts.  I recommend we go with false information.

- Link

Now, it appears that Falcon is inviting your honor to find the piece a fake news story based on omission of relevant facts:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
John Oliver made his show after the sanctions of 2017, and he COMPLETELY ignored that we tried to make things so bad in Venezuela that Maduro would be forced out.


That, your honor, is NOT relevant to this discussion.  Falcon specifically limited the definition of "fake news story" to include only stories with "false information."  The only reason he brings up omissions in the story now is because he knows that his argument is weak as to false information.


John Oliver has every right not to talk about the US sanctions if he doesn't want to.  But for Enlil to claim "The only reason he brings up omissions in the story now is because he knows that his argument is weak as to false information" is false, becuase John Oliver said " what's happening in Venezuela is actually not our fault."  Had John Oliver said "What's happening in Venezuela, if you ONLY take into account what I've talked to you about, is not our fault", THEN he would have been truthful.


Enlil and I also had another important agreement:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil said:
We have to set the threshold of proof that we're willing to accept.  If you want to set the burden at "more likely than not," that's one thing.  If you want to set it at "mere scintilla of proof," that's another.  I don't care where the threshold is, as long as we're held to the same standard.


Let's go with 'more likely than not'.


Is it more likely than not that sanctions targeting Venezuela's oil and banking industries, which were implemented specifically to force Maduro out, were our fault?

Enlil said:
Further, while Falcon claims that he "could make a case that we played a role in what happened before the sanctions of 2017," he most certainly DIDN'T make that case.  Why not?  Is there a better time/place than right here and now to make that case?


The reason I didn't make that case because I thought my other point was sufficient to win.


Regardless, the reason this whole thread even started had nothing to do with discrediting John Oliver.  It was to point out that NO ONE has been able to find a SINGLE lie from rt.com from the last 5 years, and that STILL holds true.  I'm sure there's a few out there, but the fact that no one has found any gives them a great deal of credit.

Hence my point that rt.com appears to be a very reliable source of information still appears true.  Unless Enlil would like to present any fake news for another discussion?  :smirk:


Edit:  Enlil posted this as I wrote my reply:
Enlil said:
Given this decision, I believe Falcon still needs to present a fake news story from Last Week Tonight.  In the alternative, he can concede that it is a more reliable source than RT.


No one has provided a single fake news story from rt.com.  How does that make John Oliver MORE reliable?


How about this?  I'll bring up another John Oliver lie, and you bring up an rt.com lie.  We can discuss these in parallel.  You can't claim rt.com is unreliable if you can't find any unreliable news.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25919274 -

As you will recall, I started this by posting a 9/11 story from RT.  If I'm not mistaken, you conceded that this was fake news and then took your turn using the Venezuela piece from Last Week Tonight.  That means it's still your turn.

If you didn't concede, I will be happy to argue the 9/11 story as fake news if you dispute that it is.  Otherwise, it's your turn to provide a fake news story from LWT.

Also, to address one thing you said:

Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil said:
We have to set the threshold of proof that we're willing to accept.  If you want to set the burden at "more likely than not," that's one thing.  If you want to set it at "mere scintilla of proof," that's another.  I don't care where the threshold is, as long as we're held to the same standard.


Let's go with 'more likely than not'.


Is it more likely than not that sanctions targeting Venezuela's oil and banking industries, which were implemented specifically to force Maduro out, were our fault?



This is a misapplication of the "more likely than not" standard.  The question isn't whether sanctions were our fault.  The question is whether the story is more likely than not "fake news."

In any case, this dispute is over vis a vis that piece.  If you want to present another LWT segment that is fake news, I'm more than happy to do this again.  In the alternative, if you wish me to prove my chosen RT story to be fake news, I'll do that.  It's up to you.

Also, if you're concerned about who has the last word, we can fix that problem by simply making a rule that the petitioner gets a final argument wherein he is not allowed to bring in any new evidence not previously introduced in the thread.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25919295 -

Here’s RT saying Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl



This is laughable. The amount of radiation released during Chernobyl was far greater as well as the dozens of deaths from acute radiation poisoning. Nobody died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25919307 -

The next lie from John Oliver comes around 3:40 - 4:00 of the video:

"Tonight, we thought we'd check in on what's been happening there, to try and understand how Venezuela got into this mess, and how, despite making it even worse, their current President, Nicolas Maduro, seen here absolutely going to town on a 'nana, is almost certainly going to win despite having the support of only around a fifth of the population."

The lie here is that Nicolas Maduro only had "the support of only around a fifth of the population".  If you look at the article John Oliver posted a piece from, it actually says:  "Maduro nevertheless still has a core support of about one fifth of Venezuelans".  Core support doesn't include voters who support Maduro, but who aren't terribly passionate about him.

Maduro received 67.8% of the vote, with a 46.1% voter turnout.  Saying he had the support of only around a fifth of the population was a lie.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25919318 -

Enlil said:
As you will recall, I started this by posting a 9/11 story from RT.  If I'm not mistaken, you conceded that this was fake news and then took your turn using the Venezuela piece from Last Week Tonight.  That means it's still your turn.


Yes, I conceded that and said rt.com has gotten a lot better since they became mainstream.  I want to limit this to any RT story in the last five years (unless you're willing to concede they've been very good during the last 5 years).  I'll do the same for your source.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25919338 -

koods said:
Here’s RT saying Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl



This is laughable. The amount of radiation released during Chernobyl was far greater as well as the dozens of deaths from acute radiation poisoning. Nobody died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima.


We've discussed this before, and this article says you're wrong:  https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/27/move-over-chernobyl-fukushima-is-now-officially-the-worst-nuclear-power-disaster-in-history/

PS - your video is well over 5 years old.  Whether true or not, are you willing to concede that RT has been accurate during the last 5 years?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #25919340 -

Enlil said:
Also, if you're concerned about who has the last word, we can fix that problem by simply making a rule that the petitioner gets a final argument wherein he is not allowed to bring in any new evidence not previously introduced in the thread.


I think that's fair.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25919364 -

Moving forward, I'll limit to the last 5 years, sure.  You're still stuck with the 9/11 fake news story already conceded, though.  It's still your turn, and if/when you find and prove a fake news story from LWT (from any time.  We won't apply the 5 year limit to your first one, because mine was older), I'll do the same for RT.  Fair?


As to the Venezuela episode, it's already been found not to be a fake news story.  You'll have to find a different story.  We both have to respect the findings of our mutually agreed-upon judge.  You had a full and fair opportunity to argue as many false statements as you wanted from that piece, and you chose to argue only one.

I promise you that I have lost many, many times in front of judges that I thought were 100% wrong, and I've taken my lumps professionally.  If/when Balls rules against me, I'll leave it at that without grumbling.  I'm only asking you to do the same in this case.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25919386 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
koods said:
Here’s RT saying Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl



This is laughable. The amount of radiation released during Chernobyl was far greater as well as the dozens of deaths from acute radiation poisoning. Nobody died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima.


We've discussed this before, and this article says you're wrong:  https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/27/move-over-chernobyl-fukushima-is-now-officially-the-worst-nuclear-power-disaster-in-history/

PS - your video is well over 5 years old.  Whether true or not, are you willing to concede that RT has been accurate during the last 5 years?


Yes. You lost that debate.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25919391 -

I want to make it abundantly clear that my ruling in this case should not be construed as an endorsement of the veracity of The Last Week Tonight piece in question. In fact I reserve all judgment as to the actual truth value of the segment.  I found only that the evidence in the case did not rise to the standard necessary to deem it "fake news" per the definition agreed upon before these proceedings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25919422 -

Enlil said:
Moving forward, I'll limit to the last 5 years, sure.  You're still stuck with the 9/11 fake news story already conceded, though.  It's still your turn, and if/when you find and prove a fake news story from LWT (from any time.  We won't apply the 5 year limit to your first one, because mine was older), I'll do the same for RT.  Fair?


Fine.  The point of this game for me is to show that RT has been a more reliable source for the last 5 years than mainstream news, if you want a point for something older, that's fine.

Enlil said:
As to the Venezuela episode, it's already been found not to be a fake news story.  You'll have to find a different story.  We both have to respect the findings of our mutually agreed-upon judge.  You had a full and fair opportunity to argue as many false statements as you wanted from that piece, and you chose to argue only one.


Only two sentences from that video have been ruled as true, NOT the entire video.  I chose to use only one argument to prove those two sentences false, and I'll accept the judge's decision on that, but the rest of that video is still full of lies, as I'm sure you're aware if you watched The Ecstatic's video.

If you want to make NEW a rule that we only get one argument per episode, that's fine, then I'll just list ALL the lies at once instead of just one at a time.  But I didn't want to make this discussion too busy.  If we did it that way, then Balls would only have to find one of those lies false for me to win a point.

Balls, your thoughts?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25919427 -

koods said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
koods said:
Here’s RT saying Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl



This is laughable. The amount of radiation released during Chernobyl was far greater as well as the dozens of deaths from acute radiation poisoning. Nobody died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima.


We've discussed this before, and this article says you're wrong:  https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/27/move-over-chernobyl-fukushima-is-now-officially-the-worst-nuclear-power-disaster-in-history/

PS - your video is well over 5 years old.  Whether true or not, are you willing to concede that RT has been accurate during the last 5 years?


Yes. You lost that debate.


If I click the link, it shows I won.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25919446 -

The more evidence, the better

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25919479 -

I'm not re-debating that story. You claimed it was fake.  You had an opportunity to prove it was fake.  You failed to meet that burden under conditions we both agreed to. If you can't or won't accept that, I'm done.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25919531 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
koods said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
koods said:
Here’s RT saying Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl



This is laughable. The amount of radiation released during Chernobyl was far greater as well as the dozens of deaths from acute radiation poisoning. Nobody died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima.


We've discussed this before, and this article says you're wrong:  https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/27/move-over-chernobyl-fukushima-is-now-officially-the-worst-nuclear-power-disaster-in-history/

PS - your video is well over 5 years old.  Whether true or not, are you willing to concede that RT has been accurate during the last 5 years?


Yes. You lost that debate.


If I click the link, it shows I won.


And i thoroughlly debunked your link. I think your major problem is you rely on the fringe alternative news sources instead of reliable sources. :themoreyouknow:


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25919565 -

Enlil said:
I'm not re-debating that story. You claimed it was fake.  You had an opportunity to prove it was fake.  You failed to meet that burden under conditions we both agreed to. If you can't or won't accept that, I'm done.


And we won't redebate those two sentences.  I've conceded on those and won't bring them back up.  Now I'm moving on to the next of a great many lies from that video.  There are LOTS more, as you should know if you watched The Ecstatic's video.

We never made a rule that we only get to argue about one lie per video (if we did please post a link).  I simply agreed to limit my evidence on the two sentences in question to one point.

The questions for Balls is:

  1.  Can we only bring up one lie per story, or can we bring up all the lies contained in any given story?
  2.  If it's the latter, should we bring them all up at a time, or does it make more sense to look at one at a time?

I think we should review them one at a time or our posts would get WAY too long (as would each rebuttal), and no one would bother reading them.

But again, I'll do whatever you decide moving forward.  But I did NOT previously agree to just one lie per story.


With that said, I can certainly agree that once a lie is found in a story, we can rule that story fake and not use it for any other lies.


Balls?



PS - it's very clear Enlil knows there are plenty more lies in that video, or he wouldn't bother fighting this.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25919679 -

You are the one who chose which alleged lie(s) to argue and which ones not to.  You could have argued a dozen lies if you wanted to.  Now you want a second bite at the apple.  I'm not going to participate if you're able to keep relitigating the same story over and over.  It's that simple. 

It's like you are suing me in a car accident.  First, you go to trial and try to convince the jury that I was at fault because I was speeding.  You lost, and now you want a second trial to try to convince the jury that I was at fault because I ran a red light.  It's fundamentally unfair to me for you to get a second chance at it.  I'm sorry, but that's just the fact.  There is a good reason this wouldn't be allowed in a real trial.

Are you afraid that you can't find another story to attack?  Or are you just afraid that you won't find another that has already been attacked before by a random youtuber?  If it makes you feel any better, I would have easily proven the one-fifth estimation to be true.



--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25919780 -

Enlil said:
It's like you are suing me in a car accident.  First, you go to trial and try to convince the jury that I was at fault because I was speeding.  You lost, and now you want a second trial to try to convince the jury that I was at fault because I ran a red light.  It's fundamentally unfair to me for you to get a second chance at it.  I'm sorry, but that's just the fact.  There is a good reason this wouldn't be allowed in a real trial.


No, I told you we had a video with 45 minutes worth of alleged lies in it, and we simply started with the one that The Ecstatic brought up and ONLY focused on that one point.  You won, and so I'm moving on to a different point.  NO ONE agreed we could only bring up one point per video, or else I would have brought up the best one I could find first.  And as I stated, I think it would be ridiculously cumbersome to discuss them all at once, which is why I'm asking Balls how he wants to proceed.

If I find John Oliver says the crisis isn't the US's fault somewhere else in the video, I won't bring that point up again.  I'm moving on to a DIFFERENT point.

Enlil said:
Are you afraid that you can't find another story to attack?  Or are you just afraid that you won't find another that has already been attacked before by a random youtuber?


I've got another from another video in the que, and I'll bring that out, but first we need to establish the rules so you don't just make them up as we go.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25919805 -

I'm not sure there should be a limit to the number of points brought up, just the caveat that making it too convoluted will make it harder for the judge to make heads or tails of the post.  Given the 2 round limit for arguments, i say go oint by point until it becomes unworkable.  If anything, a demonstrable pattern always tends to bolster an argument.  As a rule of thumb, i would probably limit myself to 3-5 points per post. 
I did rather enjoy this exercise, even though i ruled against my own common sense.  I think that going forward it would be a good idea to codify the rules and procedures for these debates.  We can always amend them after each round until we find the sweet spot.  Maybe we can have an appeals process of some kind

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25919814 -

I enjoyed the debate. What was the verdict? Mistrial?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos] * 1
    #25919868 -

Not guilty.
Now the question is whether to figure out how to appeal the verdict or move on but more clearly lay out the rules for next time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25919873 -

So John Oliver is not guilty of spreading fake news, correct?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25919878 -

The story was 19 minutes. I've had fun,  but if we're going to keep redoing the same story, I'll step aside and let someone else step in.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos] * 1
    #25919884 -

ballsalsa said:
I want to make it abundantly clear that my ruling in this case should not be construed as an endorsement of the veracity of The Last Week Tonight piece in question. In fact I reserve all judgment as to the actual truth value of the segment.  I found only that the evidence in the case did not rise to the standard necessary to deem it "fake news" per the definition agreed upon before these proceedings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25920362 -

Enlil said:
The story was 19 minutes. I've had fun,  but if we're going to keep redoing the same story, I'll step aside and let someone else step in.


No, NOT the same story.  I already told you, I've conceded the 30 seconds of the video that we actually debated.  We never touched the other 19 minutes WHATSOEVER.

If you want me bring up all the lies of the other 19 minutes in one single post, fine - I can do that, we just need to make it clear that's the rules up front, not after the fact.  Balls felt it was best to bring up just one new point at a time to keep the discussion under control, and I strongly agree.  But I'll play by your new rules if that's what you demand.  You simply need to define your rules up front, not after the fact.

So what's it going to be?  All the lies in one post, or one at a time?  Or do we ask our judge to decide?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25920411 -

The 19 minutes were all one story.  I'm done with that story.  If you want to debate whether a different story is fake news, I'm game.  I'm just not going to go back to that one.

I can see your POV on this, but I'm not sure you can see mine.  From my perspective, going back and rearguing that the same story is fake news based on a different statement therein goes against my sense of fundamental fairness.  So much so, that it's on the edge of offensive to me.  It really is like winning a lawsuit and having someone come back and sue for the same exact thing again.  It would never be allowed in court, and any lawyer who tried to do it would likely be sanctioned for trying it.  If you want to argue some other statement from that story with someone else, be my guest.  It just leaves a real nasty taste in my mouth, and I wouldn't do it.

Like I said, I get your POV.  And I do believe you when you say that you had a different understanding of the boundaries of what you were arguing than I did.  That's cool.  I respect your position.  I just don't want to be involved in what I consider a redo.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25920536 -

Enlil said:
I can see your POV on this, but I'm not sure you can see mine.  From my perspective, going back and rearguing that the same story is fake news based on a different statement therein goes against my sense of fundamental fairness.  It really is like winning a lawsuit and having someone come back and sue for the same exact thing again.  It would never be allowed in court, and any lawyer who tried to do it would likely be sanctioned for trying it.


No, it's not "the same exact thing".  It's like you winning one lawsuit and then having a different lawsuit brought up against you.  That IS allowed in court.

Enlil said:
Like I said, I get your POV.  And I do believe you when you say that you had a different understanding of the boundaries of what you were arguing than I did.  That's cool.  I respect your position.  I just don't want to be involved in what I consider a redo.


Again, it's not a redo as I won't bring up anything from the 30 seconds that we already debated.


I'll let Balls weigh in.  I think he was in agreement that we should only argue one point at a time to keep the post length from getting out of control.  As before, I'll accept his decision.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25920673 -

Give it up. You lost.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Edited by koods (04/07/19 05:16 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25920686 -

We disagree, and regardless of what anyone says, I'm not relitigating that story. I've said it multiple times,  in multiple ways. It's starting to feel like I'm in a dr. Suess book. I will not do it in a house.  I will not do it with a mouse.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25920919 -

I'll try one more time to explain it:

In the law, when you sue someone, you are required to bring every claim or "theory of liability" against that person that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence.  The reason for this is that there are often multiple reasons that someone is liable to you for a particular event that damaged you.  It would be fundamentally unfair if you could try one, and if that fails, try another later, and if that fails, see if you can get them the third time, etc. 

This is such a core principle to the fairness of the system that it isn't even really discussed much.  We all learn it in law school, and it becomes a basic part of our understanding of due process.  The process of truth seeking through the adversarial system has its flaws, and the idea that you can't get a second, third, fourth bite at the apple is intended to address one of those flaws, albeit imperfectly.

Now, I know this isn't real court.  I know this is a drug site.  I know neither you nor Ballsalsa ever went to law school or learned any of this shit.  So, I know that it's not a big deal to you guys.  It is to me. 

We agreed on a neutral to decide whether this particular story was fake news.  You had the burden of proving it was, and you had the opportunity to bring up any/all false information in that story.  You chose to bring up two sentences.  You lost.  You could have brought up 20 sentences, but you didn't.  Now you want to go back and try again with a different part of the story.  It bothers me, and it makes the whole process seem like bullshit. 

I'm sorry, but that's just how I feel. I really am more than okay with someone else coming in and taking my place. I'm also okay with you claiming victory and deeming this to be my surrender.  I'm just not okay with going back and redoing that story under these circumstances.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25920935 -

For what it's worth, my personal opinion on the matter is that seeing as how the only stakes are the most minor of bragging rights and that the process was fun and has the potential to be more fun in the future, we should just move on to the next round.  Before we do that, we should go over the rules again and codify them in a single post that can be edited as needed following discussion after a given round of debate.  There are surely plenty of other segments that can be dissected.  There isn't much to be lost or gained by either moving on to a different one or going after a different part of this one.  If one party is adamantly opposed to further discussion of this episode, I think we should forge ahead rather than abort the game.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #25920962 -

Though I'm not a lawyer, I agree with the law on this.  And I'm NOT going to bring up the same subject again.  I've accepted the judge's decision that the crisis in Venezuela is not our fault, and now I'm ready to move on to a completely different topic - the elections in Venezuela.  John Oliver lied about those too.  And he lied about many different things in that same video too, as you clearly know, or you wouldn't be fighting this.

I've agreed that if you want to implement a rule that every different topic has to be put in one post, I'll do that for you.  But I think that would make the post unwieldy, and I'll let the judge decide if he really wants to see it that format.  Of course, if we do that, each lie would be ruled on independently, since these are DIFFERENT lies, just like it would be done in court (which you keep saying is how you want it).

To your credit Enlil, you definitely have the most appropriate avatar of anyone in the political forum.  :lol:

Edit:  I see balls responded, and I think he's agreeing with me?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25920990 -

I think someone needs to be the bigger man here and acquiesce for the sake of the game.  I don't care which one of you it is.  As far as how many lies to address in a post, I also don't care.  I'm not afraid of an unwieldy post, so I think you guys should knock yourselves out until you think you've made a sufficient case whether that be 1 point addressed or 100.  Just use your best judgment.  I think we should think of this first trial run as more of an exhibition match than league competition, learn what we can from it, and try again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25921009 -

Thanks for the debate, guys.  It's been great fun.  I think I am out before it descends further into personal snipes.  Koods may want to step in and carry on this fight.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25921043 -

That's actually not a terrible idea.  We could use your help making the rules, but at the same time it isn't entirely fair to have a participant do that.  Maybe come back for another round on another day.  If koods were to accept the challenge, I would think it fair for he and Fal to have an opportunity to agree on a different neutral judge should they so desire.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25921049 -

Since you're the one who wants to turn this into a legal debate, please answer this legal question:

If someone goes to a party and rapes someone, then gets pulled over for drunk driving on the way home, does that mean both cases have to be heard at the same time since they are both associated with the party?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25921082 -

Typically, they would be.  What you're talking about, however, is a criminal trial, which has a constitutional overlay giving the defendant some extra rights. There are some very good reasons why a defendant might not want his DUI jury to hear accusations of him raping someone.

In a civil trial, the idea of a "transaction or occurrence" encompasses events that are related temporally, generally.  For instance, if you were suing someone for defamation for writing a book about you containing a bunch of lies, everything in that book would arise from the same transaction or occurrence.  You'd have to bring all claims arising out of that book in one lawsuit.

If, however, they wrote two books, published at different times, you could bring a separate lawsuit for each book, even if both books contained the same defamatory statements about you.  (There are other doctrines that come into play that could limit your ability to argue certain things in the second case, but they aren't really something relevant to this discussion.)

The publication of the defamatory statements against you is the triggering event that gives rise to your claims.

That is the closest parallel I can think of to what we are doing here.

And yes, Ballsalsa, I'll help you craft fair rules any future debate threads like this.  Of course, it should always be up to the participants themselves whether they want to agree to any particular rule or rules.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25921136 -

In closing, I'll say that not a single person on this forum has been able to provide a single lie from RT.com from the last 5 years, in spite of my repeatedly asking for such evidence.

And we have a 45 minute video explaining how dishonest John Oliver has been on Venezuela, that Enlil has no interest in discussing, since we already discussed 30 seconds of it, AFTER which he made up a rule that we have discuss everything at once since that's how it would be done in a court.  I still think that style of debate doesn't work well on a discussion forum, as that would make the posts far too long, but I would have accepted it if he proposed it as a rule beforehand.



I'll leave it the jury decide for themselves which source appears to be more honest.  And which debator is more interested in figuring out the truth rather than 'winning' the game.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/07/19 11:32 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25921190 -

ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
What is the best way to proceed?
You may choose only one


Votes accepted from 04/07/19 11:39 AM until the end of time
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25921208 -

I say just let him have the win.  It means more to him than it does to me.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25921231 -

I disagree.  My goal here was to determine whether RT is more reliable than John Oliver.  You're avoiding a discussion about John Oliver's Venezuela episode and making up a new rule as we go so that you can get a win without discussing the rest of it.  :shrug:

Again, I'll accept your new rule if the judge disagrees with me that it's too cumbersome to do it that way on a discussion board.



Edit:  By the way, if Enlil was really interested in who's right, he'd WELCOME a discussion on the other topics that we haven't covered yet.  If it's about winning, he'd want to avoid those.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/07/19 12:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25921321 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Edit:  By the way, if Enlil was really interested in who's right, he'd WELCOME a discussion on the other topics that we haven't covered yet.  If it's about winning, he'd want to avoid those.


The search for the truth is the very reason why I won't do it your way.  There are many ways to seek the truth, and the adversarial system is but one.  We've chosen to use an adversarial system with a neutral judge deciding. 

The problem here is that a neutral judge becomes less and less neutral the more times we bring a particular claim before the same judge.  Further, rearguing the same story creates a cumulative effect of evidence across multiple "trials" which favors whichever party has the burden of proof.  Similarly, redos allow the party with the burden of proof to hone the rhetorical devices used which always works against the one defending against that burden.

There is a reason that prosecutors have an outrageously high conviction rate in retrials after a hung jury.

We can discuss as many false statements as you think are in that story.  I'm just not going to do that as an adversarial process.

I'm really okay with you winning here.  It doesn't matter that much to me.  I just don't want to dilute this process to the point where truth takes a backseat to tenacity.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25922032 -

ballsalsa said:
I think someone needs to be the bigger man here and acquiesce for the sake of the game.  I don't care which one of you it is.


I think someone needs to be the judge here for the sake of the game.  Asking Enlil and I to figure this out ourselves puts us right back to where we were before we tried this new format.  We both agreed to honor your decisions, and if either of us doesn't, then we're free to concede the game to the other person.

There are currently three decisions that we disagree on that require the judge's input to get us back on track.

  1.  Whether it was fair to bring up the rule that we only get one argument per episode AFTER one argument had already been brought up.
      a.  Enlil knew I was only going to make one argument when he asked "Are you finished in the other thread with your first round? I don't want to assume".  He should have explained why he asked me that, after I only brought up one point out of so many.
      b.  I am fine with this rule, I only think it should have been explained/agreed on first.
  2.  Whether other topics from the story on Venezuela are the "same story" or a "redo" of the original point on whether the US was at fault for Venezuela's crisis
      a.  To me, there are still many COMPLETELY different topics that haven't even been brought up at all before your first decision was made.
      b.  Even if you agree with Enlil on point #1 above, I still believe there are completely separate arguments.  I even said "I can certainly agree that once a lie is found in a story, we can rule that story fake and not use it for any other lies."
  3.  Whether to put all alleged lies into one giant post, or keep them separate.
      a.  I believe doing them one at a time works far better in an online discussion format.
      b.  If we do one at a time, I agree NOT to bring up any other points already ruled on, but I'll do whatever you want as judge.

Time to show some balls, bals and make some tough decisions.  :smirk:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25922101 -

Look,  the options are pretty clear here.  Enlil isn't willing to continue if we keep debating that episode.  We can either debate a different one or we can not debate anything.  to answer your questions,
1)It wasn't entirely fair, which I have acknowledged.  I don't think it's a bad rule though.
2)I would be fine with it either way, but Enlil isn't and I can't judge a debate with only one participant.  I made a ruling and I think we should move forward from there in the most productive way possible which, in my view, is to continue a debate with 2 participants. 
3)the format allows for 2 epic length posts, currently.  I'm very willing to see that revised.  Perhaps this period of open discussion would be a good opportunity to get feedback from the spectators as well as the 2 of you and set some clear and fair rules so nobody feels blindsided next time

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25922109 -

I don't think we're limited to one post each time, either.  We said we each get two turns.  Falcon and I agreed to a final argument with no new evidence for the petitioner.  I don't think there's any limit to how many posts one can use for his turn, though.

Frankly, I was blindsided when Falcon tried to bring up another part of the same story.  He says I made up a new rule, but to me, it looks like he did.  He picked a story from the source and chose to debate it.  After that story was found not guilty of being fake news, that was the end of it for that story as far as I was concerned.  If anyone was trying to pull a fast one, it was Falcon.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25922145 -

I can see both points. 
are we chopping this baby in half or what?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 3
    #25922164 -

I'm all for the following rules:

Petitioner picks a story.  It can be an article or video segment...whichever applies.

Petitioner goes first.  Takes as many posts as necessary to establish that the story is fake news.

Respondent rebuts

Petitioner goes again. 

Respondent rebuts

No more evidence is introduced.

Petitioner gets final word using only evidence already introduced within the above four turns.

Judge decides as to the entire story.  That decision is final.  If the story is fake news, the respondent picks a story and becomes petitioner for next round.  If it is not fake news, petitioner either concedes a final loss or chooses another story.

Stories must be from last five years EXCEPT falcon is allowed to go beyond that in this next round if he chooses to.

All other rules stay the same.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25922167 -

I'm not against that.

What say you Fal?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25922308 -

ballsalsa said:
Look,  the options are pretty clear here.  Enlil isn't willing to continue if we keep debating that episode.  We can either debate a different one or we can not debate anything.


Are you saying you're ruling for Enlil because he's the bigger cry baby?  Or perhaps I'm just not understanding what you just said?

ballsalsa said:
1)It wasn't entirely fair, which I have acknowledged.  I don't think it's a bad rule though.


And I said I'm perfectly fine with that rule as well.  But I'm not sure what that means for the first video?  Does that mean I can't touch it because it would upset Enlil (understandably given the vast amount of damaging content therein that hasn't even been discussed yet)?

I TOTALLY AGREE with Enlil that we should NOT be allowed to bring up the same topic twice.  That's almost common sense from a fairness perspective.  But I wanted to bring up NEW topics that are COMPLETELY SEPARATE than the first.  I would think that seems fair to anyone but a lawyer.

ballsalsa said:
2)I would be fine with it either way, but Enlil isn't and I can't judge a debate with only one participant.  I made a ruling and I think we should move forward from there in the most productive way possible which, in my view, is to continue a debate with 2 participants.


So your ruling is that different topics from the same video should count as the same topic?  Or is it that you want to emulate a court, even though none of us but Enlil are lawyers?

ballsalsa said:
3)the format allows for 2 epic length posts, currently.  I'm very willing to see that revised.  Perhaps this period of open discussion would be a good opportunity to get feedback from the spectators as well as the 2 of you and set some clear and fair rules so nobody feels blindsided next time


People who make their posts too long won't have them read.  I know this because people rarely respond to super long posts.  I'll do it however you and Enlil want though.


Far more important than any of the above, the purpose of this game is to determine whether RT has been more honest during the last 5 years than John Oliver.  So far, no one has posted any dishonest RT news from the last five years, but we have a John Oliver post full of questionable information of which we only reviewed 30 seconds from.  Enlil wants to censor the other 19 minutes, I want people to know about it.

So here is what I propose.  I'll present the remaining evidence from the John Oliver Venezueala post for the forum to read and make up their own mind.  If Enlil wants to defend it, fine.  If not, fine.  For purposes of the game, your ruling goes in Enlil's favor.

Does that sound fair???

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #25922449 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Are you saying you're ruling for Enlil because he's the bigger cry baby? 



If you can't handle doing this without name calling, maybe it's best that we just leave this where it is.

It was all one story, the topic of which was the Venezuelan crisis.  There were multiple stories in that episode, but the 19 minute video was a single story about Venezuela.  It's no different than me attacking a single article on RT.com.  You're being disingenuous here, and now you're resorting to name-calling.




--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25922723 -

I dont think there is much danger of folks thinking that LWT is a serious news program.  I tried to make it as clear as possible that i dont consider it as such, and that Enlil won based on a technicality.  That said, i'm more concerned with the process and format than the outcome of our first try at it.  I'm not dead set on being the final authority either.  It might be cool to have a rotation of jurists, or nominate a tribunal.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25922776 -

I had my reasons for choosing that source.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25923032 -

Enlil said:
ballsalsa said:
I dont think there is much danger of folks thinking that LWT is a serious news program.  I tried to make it as clear as possible that i dont consider it as such


I had my reasons for choosing that source.


Exactly - Enlil chose that as his source.  Now we're trying to determine whether LWT is more reliable than RT or not.

ballsalsa said:
i'm more concerned with the process and format than the outcome of our first try at it.  I'm not dead set on being the final authority either.  It might be cool to have a rotation of jurists, or nominate a tribunal.


Since we selected you to be the judge for this first trial, I believe it's absolutely imperative that you are the final authority.  This discussion won't go anywhere if you don't make tough decisions to keep this moving.  :shrug:

Please don't worry about hurting my feelings.  Whatever you decide I'll go with (and not hold it against you), even if I express my disagreement.  :smirk:  The important thing is that you make decisions.  :mushroom2: :thumbup:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25923043 -

Enlil said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
ballsalsa said:
Look,  the options are pretty clear here.  Enlil isn't willing to continue if we keep debating that episode.  We can either debate a different one or we can not debate anything.


Are you saying you're ruling for Enlil because he's the bigger cry baby?


If you can't handle doing this without name calling, maybe it's best that we just leave this where it is.


Sorry about that.  What's the word I should have used for your threatening to quit if you don't get your way?

Enlil said:
It was all one story, the topic of which was the Venezuelan crisis.


I think it was multiple stories, as I don't see what the elections in Venezuela have to do with the US creating a Venezuelan crisis.

Look, John Oliver does one half hour episode per week.  RT does news videos and news stories every single day of the week, plus a bunch of specials like "Redacted Tonight".  You have about 100 times more content to choose from to find fake news in.  I can't believe how much of a (insert the word you selected above) you're being about this.

Enlil said:
There were multiple stories in that episode, but the 19 minute video was a single story about Venezuela.  It's no different than me attacking a single article on RT.com.  You're being disingenuous here, and now you're resorting to name-calling.


I agreed not to discuss anything more about the US being responsible for the crisis.  I don't see what their elections have to do with the US being responsible for their crisis though.  To me, you're the one being disingenuous here.

Bals - why don't you rule who is being more disingenuous, and regardless we'll move on.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25923328 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Sorry about that.  What's the word I should have used for your threatening to quit if you don't get your way?




Principled integrity.

The reason I chose that source was because they have so little content. They're less likely to have fake news for that reason alone.

What's with the sour grapes? You lost on that story fair and square. Move on to another story.

You've already agreed that we will approach this one "story" at a time. 
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Let's play a game.  Tell me a news source that you trust more than rt.com, and I'll find a fake news story from them.  Then you do the same for rt.com.  We go back and forth until someone can't find a fake news story, and loses.  Ready?



I think all we really need,  ballsalsa, is a decision whether the following constitutes more than one story.




If it's one, falcon's whole argument is moot.  If it's more than one,  we need you to decide where each story begins and ends.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25923566 -

Enlil said:
What's with the sour grapes? You lost on that story fair and square. Move on to another story.


I don't know how many times I've agree with you on this already.  It was ruled it's not the US's fault for creating Venezuela's crisis.  Done.

Enlil said:
I think all we really need,  ballsalsa, is a decision whether the following constitutes more than one story.

If it's one, falcon's whole argument is moot.  If it's more than one,  we need you to decide where each story begins and ends.


Exactly.  You and I clearly disagree.  This is why we have a judge.  Balls?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25923974 -

I think we should treat each piece/video/article as one story.  I also think maybe we should have another round with the roles reversed.  New story from RT within the last 5 years.  Then both participants will have gotten their feet wet in each position.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25923991 -

Ok then, I guess I got burned for not knowing the rule before I made my post.  But I'll accept your decision as you're the judge.

But you're also saying that Enlil now needs to present a fake RT story from the last 5 years, correct?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25924009 -

That would be my preference, yes.
Like I said before, I see these opening salvos as more of feeling out of the process than anything.
In a way, yes, you got burned because we were making the shit up as we went, but my hope is that we can avoid that going forward.

Edit: Maybe Enlil could edit the rules we have so far into the OP so we don't have to go searching for them

Edited by ballsalsa (04/08/19 10:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25924038 -

So, I'm to present a second story before he presents a fake story?  How is he ever going to catch up?

I don't have a problem doing it, but I don't see how it's going to work unless we're saying that the story we've already agreed was fake news doesn't count.

I'm game, though, if that's the decision.



--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25924061 -

That's the spirit!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25924103 -

At 3:40, John Oliver says:

"Listen, it is mother's day today, and there is nothing wrong with moving back in with your mother, it's just it's a little weird when your mother has to send you an unmarked militia to force you to do it."



Crimeans voted by about 96% to rejoin Russia; that's not being "forced" to rejoin Russia, and certainly not by a militia - that's obviously a lie.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/08/19 11:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25924127 -

96% is not a result you get in legitimate elections. 96% is a result you see when there’s only one choice on a ballot.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25924195 -

Maybe you should travel to Crimea and talk to the people there to see what they think, oh great king of make believe?

Or maybe just do a little research first so you don't keep making yourself look stupid?

German sociologists on Crimea’s choice
Written by ORIENTAL REVIEW on 10/02/2015
Quote:
A few days ago an interesting study, “The Socio-Political Sentiments in Crimea,” was released by the Ukrainian branch of GfK, the well-known German social research organization, as part of the Free Crimea initiative. Intriguingly, the primary objectives of this project, launched with the support of the governmental Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, were to “debunk aggressive Russian propaganda” and to “reintegrate Crimea into Ukraine.” Thus the researchers can hardly be suspected of being Russian sympathizers. So let’s take a look at the results.

In answer to the most important question: “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?” 82% of the respondents answered “yes, definitely,” and another 11% – “yes, for the most part.” Only 2% gave an unambiguously negative response, and another 2% offered a relatively negative assessment. Three percent did not specify their position.




So there you have it.  In 2015, only 4% of Crimeans opposed Crimean reintegration with Russia.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25924485 -

Are we starting a new round?  Is this you taking your turn?  I'm confused what's happening at this point?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25924499 -

I *think* Falcon is debating with koods now.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #25924913 -

Balls was a bit unclear on the rules when I asked if it's Enlil's turn ("That would be my preference, yes.")

Enlil protested, and in the absence of clear direction I went ahead and posted another John Oliver lie.

So balls - your call.  Are you now requiring Enlil to post an alleged RT lie from the last 5 years?  Or are you requiring him to address the new alleged John Oliver lie?

Make a FIRM decision!  :smile:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25924971 -

I'm good with either, and after it's decided, I'll block the thread again, edit the OP with the updated rules, and we'll begin.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25925181 -

in this round Enlil will have the burden of proof.
From now on, I'll be more explicit in my instruction

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25925201 -

Thread is now blocked.  Mods, please respect. Will update OP after court.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925271 -

Understood. Good luck y'all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos] * 1
    #25925538 -

Okay guys, I have posted the updated rules in the OP.  I have taken some liberties on certain details, but I think that they represent our mutual understanding of the rules.

Please confirm your assent to the rules as posted before I begin the next round.  If something needs changed, let's do it now.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25925675 -

The judge should be allowed to ask questions as needed between turns.
Aside from that, I'm ok with the rest as long as Fal agrees.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925708 -

Two things:

1.  I believe we also agreed that the threshold of proof for the judge is 'more likely than not'.
2.  Now that it's you're turn, I see you redid the original agreement to give yourself the last word, but when it was my turn, it was the other way around.
:hmm:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925714 -

Ask questions and then get answers?  Answers from whom?  Does that open the door for sources in answers?  I need more clarification on this.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925716 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Two things:


2.  Now that it's you're turn, I see you redid the original agreement to give yourself the last word, but when it was my turn, it was the other way around.
:hmm:


That was at your request.  We agreed on that. 
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil said:
Also, if you're concerned about who has the last word, we can fix that problem by simply making a rule that the petitioner gets a final argument wherein he is not allowed to bring in any new evidence not previously introduced in the thread.


I think that's fair.


If you don't want that rule, I'll remove it.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925729 -

1)good call on the more likely than not threshold.
2)It is an advantage for the petitioner.  We should have had it last time, but we didn't.  It was added because you mentioned the advantage of the last word.

@Enlil- ask questions of the person whose turn just concluded and only about the subject matter contained within the posts that made up that turn. Yes, I would want answers.  No new sources could be introduced during these questions/answers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925737 -

So propose a process for that.  How does the other party know whether or not a question is going to be asked?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925766 -

I think rule #5 is fair.  I only wished it had been suggested it before the end of the first round.

Same thing with rule #7.



I just noticed your OP doesn't say "Edited by Enlil (timestamp)".  Now that's a secret super power mods get that doesn't seem very fair at all.

Mod:  "Show me where I said XXXXX!"
Poster:  "I could've swore you said XXXXX, but in looking back at your post it appears you said something different..."
:hmm:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925782 -

Why so snarky?  There's no need to be a dick to each other.  If you don't trust me, then find another opponent.  I don't know what to tell you.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925787 -

That wasn't meant to imply you cheat, just an interesting observation about any mod's superpowers.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25925822 -

It's one of the few perks of the job.  We can't edit someone else's posts without leaving an edit stamp, though.  Also, if a mod edits your posts, a record is kept, and we can see what he changed it from.

As soon as Balls gets back to me on the process for questions, I'll update the OP and get this party started.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25925852 -

Sounds good.

For the record, I'm perfectly ok with Balls' request to ask questions.  As I said before, to me this about getting as much information as possible to make the right decision.  But I'll agree to whatever you and balls agree to on this.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925864 -

Oh, and I think we need one more rule.  If it turns out we both end up finding a lot of lies, I guess there needs to be a point where we call the game over.

I'm not yet sure what that number should be, I'm thinking somewhere between 8-12?

On the one hand, it might be good to see how this progresses to see what a reasonable number actually is, on the other hand we shouldn't allow someone to simply say "I'm bored" and quit once they realize they're about out of material.

To be clear, that wasn't meant as a snarky remark, just a general rule for the future if this type of format is ever used again.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925868 -

Quitting is conceding a loss. I'm sure I can find 100 fake stories if necessary.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925887 -

I guess the only way to make sure there is a break in between turns for clarification would be to make it compulsory.
I think that if I need to ask a question of anyone I'll just interject at my discretion because this feels like adding turns to the rounds.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925895 -

Check final rule changes.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925900 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Two things:

1.  I believe we also agreed that the threshold of proof for the judge is 'more likely than not'.



Work this in there somewhere and let's light this candle.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25925908 -

Already did:

Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes false information.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.



--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925924 -

thanks, I'm tired.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925929 -

Enlil said:
Already did:

Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes false information.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.



What's the burden of proof for the second sentence?  How about:

Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.



--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925932 -

And I got burned by the last sentence.  How about something like:

Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news, unless a conclusion is drawn where the omitted information would have resulted in a different conclusion.


Example:  "As you can see from the evidence, the US is not at fault", but they omit the part proves more likely than not that the US is at fault.

Assuming the petitioner provides this omitted information to the judge, who then believes it more likely than not this information would have resulted in a different conclusion.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/09/19 11:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925937 -

maybe there's a way we can tighten up the language a bit

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925939 -

I added an example to make it more clear.  Does that help?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925950 -

The problem I see with this rule is that simply presenting a biased perspective would render any story fake news.  I'm not sure any source, certainly on television, should be held to that standard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925976 -

Ok.  Are we ready?  Or are you still working something out with Enlil?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25926238 -

I was asleep, but my first impression of your proposed change is that the language you added would basically make any omission of relevant information fake news.  It that what you want?  If so, I do believe we're going to be here a good long while.

I haven't made any changes to the rules since my last post, so please clarify whether any are necessary.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25926333 -

Enlil said:
I was asleep, but my first impression of your proposed change is that the language you added would basically make any omission of relevant information fake news.  It that what you want?  If so, I do believe we're going to be here a good long while.


No, that's absolutely not what I want.  As you noted before, I previously said "This could go on forever if it included omission of relevant facts.  I recommend we go with false information."

I brought this up because when I argued that the US sanctions, which were designed to deny Maduro a critical source of financing to help him run the country, were absolutely relevant to "what is happening in Venezuela", you argued "that is NOT relevant to this discussion.  Falcon specifically limited the definition of 'fake news story' to include only stories with false information."

If I say that something "is not my fault" but I omit the information which would prove it to be my fault, I am lying not by ommittig the information, but by saying "it's not my fault".

Would you agree or not?



Enlil said:
I haven't made any changes to the rules since my last post, so please clarify whether any are necessary.


I did ask what the burden of proof was for 'false information' in your second sentence:
Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes false information.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.


I recommended changing it to something like:
Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.


Thoughts?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25926342 -

I don't have a problem with your last suggested language, although it's redundant.

As to the omission of relevant information argument, I'm not sure what you're arguing isn't the same as arguing that such an omission would count as fake news.  The term "relevant" means "anything that tends to make a fact in issue more or less likely to be true."  If we're saying that any omitted information that might change the analysis counts as fake news, we're saying that any omission of relevant information counts as fake news.

I've made the suggested changes.  Let me know if we have final approval.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25926525 -

I would be willing to hear arguments as to why an omission demonstrates an intent to deceive, but the standard would have to be quite restrictive to have any meaning in this setting.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25926822 -

As long as everyone is gtg, i am as well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25926856 -

I'm trying to get closure on this omission issue, or omissue, if you will.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25926919 -

ballsalsa said:
I would be willing to hear arguments as to why an omission demonstrates an intent to deceive, but the standard would have to be quite restrictive to have any meaning in this setting.


Maybe this example will make it clearer.

Let's say I sell you a car and tell you the car in great condition, but I don't tell you that the car was once involved in a horrible accident from which is was restored to great condition.  That's would count as deception by omission, but it would NOT count as a lie.

Now, let's say I sell you the same car and tell you it's in great condition and never had any problems or issues.  That would count as a lie, and my bringing up the omission would expose the lie.

Does it make sense now?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25927121 -

In the second example, the lie exists with or without the omission.  If you wish to prove the lie by pointing out a fact, whether or not it was omitted, you can always do that.  That the car was in a wreck may or may not be an intentional omission depending on what the seller knows.  In either case, however, you can still point out the false information (never a problem with the car) and use that to establish fake news.


That isn't the same as saying that an omission, in itself is fake news.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25927172 -

In that case, fake news is news with actual facts being omitted and then replaced with false information.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos] * 1
    #25927218 -

I think that there is a distinction to be made between an incidental omission of fact and an omission with the express intent to deceive. 

Example: We are discussing the constitution.  I lay out my position but leave out some article because i missed it in my reading or didn't  understand the implications of it. That's an incidental omission.

Same situation but i leave out something that i can be demonstrated to have known previously or that a reasonable person would expect me to understand, in a way that clearly is deceptive in nature.  Thats a lie.

Im not sure how one would go about proving that though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25927266 -

Incidental omissions sounds tough to prove as deceptive fake news :strokebeard:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25927273 -

In either case, does it change the outcome? Is fake news any less fake if it comes from ignorance?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25927304 -

I would argue a fake news statement needs to be explicit and specific, with little to no room for interpretation of it being intentionally fake or not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #25927320 -

That takes us back to eliminating lies of omission completely.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25927348 -

Enlil said:
In either case, does it change the outcome? Is fake news any less fake if it comes from ignorance?


It doesn't change the outcome, but it does make it less fake, in my view.  I think the better label in that case would be "inaccurate news".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25927464 -

Enlil said:
In the second example, the lie exists with or without the omission.  If you wish to prove the lie by pointing out a fact, whether or not it was omitted, you can always do that.  That the car was in a wreck may or may not be an intentional omission depending on what the seller knows.  In either case, however, you can still point out the false information (never a problem with the car) and use that to establish fake news.


That isn't the same as saying that an omission, in itself is fake news.


I agree.  Which is why I wasn't happy when you said this in the final post of the argument:

Enlil said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
John Oliver made his show after the sanctions of 2017, and he COMPLETELY ignored that we tried to make things so bad in Venezuela that Maduro would be forced out.


That, your honor, is NOT relevant to this discussion.  Falcon specifically limited the definition of "fake news story" to include only stories with "false information."  The only reason he brings up omissions in the story now is because he knows that his argument is weak as to false information.


Though the first part of my statement was irrelevant to the lie, the second part supported my next sentence which was ""Saying we're not at fault for what's 'happening in Venezuela' and saying it's not fair to accuse America is a lie."  For you say the whole sentence "is NOT relevant to this discussion" was wrong.

Anyway, I think we're aligned.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25927466 -

For clarity, you lack jurisdiction to decide levels of fake.  You are to make a clear determination of fake/not fake.  If the burden of proof has not been met, it's not fake.  If it has, it's fake.  You can express whatever opinions you want, but the final determination must be black and white for this to work.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Anyway, I think we're aligned.


Perfect.  Then I'm going to assume it is my turn now.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25927479 -

Fine by me.

Balls?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/10/19 07:10 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #25927521 -

My chosen story is a short video piece from 2016:



This story is about NATO training exercises taking place in Norway.  The exercises were called "Cold Response," and they have happened several times over the last decade.  This particular exercise happened in 2016.

The story begins by claiming:
Quote:
Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia.


The story then discusses the scale of the exercises by music-fueled video montage.  At 00:32, the story goes on to say:

Quote:
Despite the proximity to Russia, Russia isn't named as the target of the NATO drill . . .


After that, the story goes on to imply that this is somehow a NATO threat against Russia. 

My focus is on the statement implying how close these exercises were to Russia and its border with Norway.  As an initial matter, let's look at a map of Norway:



On this map, Norway is in Yellow on the left side.  The Norway-Russia border can be found at the top-right part of the map.

So the first question is:  Where did these exercises take place?  Well, we know that during these exercises, a NATO tank collided with a civilian vehicle, killing the civilian therein. As explained in the story, that occurred in Snåsa, Norway.  So, where is Snåsa?


And how far is Snåsa from the Norway-Russia border?


Over 1000 miles away, assuming we don't cross any international borders.



Only 833 miles if we take a shortcut through Sweden and Finland.

So, is that really "near Norway's border with Russia?"  Or is the story intentionally misrepresenting how close it is in order to paint a more sinister picture?  That will be up to you to decide, your honor.

And with that, I end my first turn of this round.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25927940 -

The question to be answered here is whether the statement "Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia" is a lie or not.

What does "near" mean?

As Enlil told me earlier in this discussion:  "Context."

NATO could hold this excercise just about anywhere else in the world where there's snow, but it chose to do it in Norway, a country that borders Russia.

Enlil argues that 850 miles by car isn't "near Norway's border".  But 850 miles is less than the distance from Cabo San Lucas, Mexico to the US border town of Chula Vista, CA.

How would the US respond if Russia held military exercises in Cabo?  Would Congress say "Meh, Cabo's not that near the US's border"?

John Bolton recently said "We strongly caution actors external to the Western Hemisphere against deploying military assets to Venezuela, or elsewhere in the Hemisphere, with the intent of establishing or expanding military operations.  We will consider such provocative actions as a direct threat to international peace and security in the region."

So Bolton (and the Trump administration) say they won't even tolerate Russia in our Hemisphere.  Venezuela's over 2,500 miles away, and that's too close.

One could easily argue that holding exercises in a country that touches Russia is "near".  Whether you agree or not, can you really say that they are lying for taking that postion?  I happen to share that opinion myself, and I've said as much in the past.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
They're not amassing soldiers near our border like we are on theirs.


Here's another post of mine saying our military bases are too close to their borders, which actually includes the Norwegian location above where these military operations are taking place.

Was I lying for having this opinion?  I don't believe you can make a case that one's own definition of "near" is a lie.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25928339 -

Did that post complete your turn?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25928611 -

Yes, sorry.


Perhaps we should change additional rule 4 from:

4. Each party must announce that he has finished his turn in order for the next turn to begin.

to

4.  Each party must announce if he wants to make additional posts before the next round begins, or it will be assumed that he has finished his turn.


Either way - I just thought this might make it a little easier.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25928672 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The question to be answered here is whether the statement "Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia" is a lie or not.



This is incorrect.  The test isn't whether or not it is a "lie."  The test is whether or not it is "false information."  The subjective intent or knowledge of the person making the statement is wholly irrelevant to that analysis.

Similarly, it is irrelevant what Mr. Bolton or Mr. Wolvrn03 think is or isn't "near."

All that matters is whether or not the statement is false. 

Having said the above, Mr. Wolvrn03's post illustrates the very reason why RT is a source of fake news.  He specifically frames the analysis in a way that looks at "near" from a subjective point of view of Russia.  That is, of course, RT's whole raison d'etre. It is a propaganda tool to promote Russia's interests throughout the world. 

Look at it this way:  Why didn't RT point out how "near" these exercises were to Sweden?  Or Finland?  They literally took place less than 50 miles from the Swedish border.  The piece specifically asked the question, "then who is 'Cold Response' directed at?" It goes on to use a cute little cartoon to point out two absurd alternatives: Iceland and Greenland.  Absurd not only because they pose no threat, but because ICELAND IS A FOUNDING NATO MEMBER. Instead, RT chose to say that it was near Norway's border with Russia, completely ignoring the two non-NATO cold nations between Russia and the exercises.

And what about choosing that specific border?  From the map, it looks like the exercises were closer to St. Petersburg than to the Norway-Russia border.  Why not just say "near Russia" if that were really the issue?  There's a good reason for that.  RT knew that the exercises occurred in Norway and that Norway is a NATO country.  RT wanted to leave the impression that this bordering NATO nation had chosen to do exercises near their border.  It also obscures the fact that there are two nations and 150 miles of water between the exercises and the closest point in Russia. In fact, by specifying Norway's border with Russia, this leaves the impression that these exercises were taking place somewhere in the northern part of Norway where the border would at least be a straight shot.  Of course, we know this isn't true.

This post concludes my second turn of this round.  I will modify the rules to reflect Falcon's latest suggestion.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25929607 -

Enlil said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The question to be answered here is whether the statement "Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia" is a lie or not.


The test isn't whether or not it is a "lie."  The test is whether or not it is "false information."  The subjective intent or knowledge of the person making the statement is wholly irrelevant to that analysis.


Agreed.  Replace "a lie" with "false information" above.

Enlil said:
Similarly, it is irrelevant what Mr. Bolton or Mr. Wolvrn03 think is or isn't "near."

All that matters is whether or not the statement is false.


IF Enlil is correct, then it also doesn't matter what Enlil thinks is 'near'.  So who then gets to decide?  Is there a universally agreed upon definition of "near" for a military exercise?  I believe it absolutely IS a subjective argument that depends on one's perspective.

Enlil said:
Having said the above, Mr. Wolvrn03's post illustrates the very reason why RT is a source of fake news.  He specifically frames the analysis in a way that looks at "near" from a subjective point of view of Russia.  That is, of course, RT's whole raison d'etre. It is a propaganda tool to promote Russia's interests throughout the world.


Whether Enlil's statement is correct or not (I disagree), this is completely 'irrelevant' according to Enlil's own logic.  'All that matters is whether or not the statement is false.'

Again, who determines this?  Is it is a subjective term that depends on one's perspective?  I certainly believe so.

Enlil said:
Look at it this way:  Why didn't RT point out how "near" these exercises were to Sweden?  Or Finland?  They literally took place less than 50 miles from the Swedish border.  The piece specifically asked the question, "then who is 'Cold Response' directed at?" It goes on to use a cute little cartoon to point out two absurd alternatives: Iceland and Greenland.  Absurd not only because they pose no threat, but because ICELAND IS A FOUNDING NATO MEMBER. Instead, RT chose to say that it was near Norway's border with Russia, completely ignoring the two non-NATO cold nations between Russia and the exercises.


The reason RT gave those 'absurd alternatives' is because Russia wasn't named as a target of the exercise.  So who was NATO training to fight against in the snow?  It really doesn't matter.  All that matters is whether or not their statement is true or false.

Enlil said:
And what about choosing that specific border?  From the map, it looks like the exercises were closer to St. Petersburg than to the Norway-Russia border.  Why not just say "near Russia" if that were really the issue?  There's a good reason for that.  RT knew that the exercises occurred in Norway and that Norway is a NATO country.  RT wanted to leave the impression that this bordering NATO nation had chosen to do exercises near their border.  It also obscures the fact that there are two nations and 150 miles of water between the exercises and the closest point in Russia. In fact, by specifying Norway's border with Russia, this leaves the impression that these exercises were taking place somewhere in the northern part of Norway where the border would at least be a straight shot.  Of course, we know this isn't true.


St Petersburg and the Russian border with Norway are about equidistant.  The other countries Enlil mentioned aren't Norway's enemies.  RT was emphasizing my point that the exercises ARE INDEED near Russia.  And if you think I'm just saying that to bolster my point, then reread my last post proving I did previously state our soldiers and bases are near Russia.  In fact, if you look at the map I previously posted to show how close our bases are to Russia, you'll notice that the one in Norway is actually one of the closest of all the bases to Russia that I considered close.



None of this matters, however, per Enlil's argument.  All that matters is whether or not Enlil can prove a subjective statement is false information, and explain why his opinion of 'near' is more relevant than the one I had before this discussion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25929631 -

And it isn't my opinion that matters. That's why I offered none. It doesn't matter whether Norway is an enemy to Russia or not. What matters is if it is false.

Is near subjective? Sure. Is fault subjective? Absolutely. That's not the point. We're not trying to figure out if Russia subjectively believes 1000 miles is near. We're trying to figure out if the statement,  in context,  is objectively false. That's where your honor comes in.

So, why would they say near Norway's border with Russia instead of Norway's border with Sweden? The only answer is because they were advocating a pro-Russia position and misstating the facts to do it.

So, take your time. Look at the maps. Watch the video again.  Is it fake news? That's up to you.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #25929696 -

Thank you both for your arguments, gentlemen.  I'll now take some time to consider them before coming to my decision.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 3
    #25931209 -

This court acknowledges that the piece from RT clearly has a russo-centric bias.  That being said the very concept of nearness requires context and scale.  If you google the nearest star to the sun, you'll likely come up with Proxima Centauri as your answer.  On the sorts of scales that humans normally interact, that would hardly be considered near, but on a cosmic scale 4.2 light-years is actually quite close indeed.  Likewise, on a global military scale, 1000 miles is a reasonably short distance for an unopposed mechanized force to traverse in good time.  For that reason, this court rules that the specific language in question, namely:
Quote:
Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia.


is not objectively false and that therefore the segment in question is not, in fact, fake news

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25931293 -

Thank you.  The thread has been unblocked.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #25931306 -

As an aside, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of views this thread has, given the limited number of posters.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25931368 -

ballsalsa said:
This court acknowledges that the piece from RT clearly has a russo-centric bias.  That being said the very concept of nearness requires context and scale.  If you google the nearest star to the sun, you'll likely come up with Proxima Centauri as your answer.  On the sorts of scales that humans normally interact, that would hardly be considered near, but on a cosmic scale 4.2 light-years is actually quite close indeed.  Likewise, on a global military scale, 1000 miles is a reasonably short distance for an unopposed mechanized force to traverse in good time.  For that reason, this court rules that the specific language in question, namely:
Quote:
Heavily-armed NATO troops are firing their weapons near Norway's border with Russia.


is not objectively false and that therefore the segment in question is not, in fact, fake news


Thank you!

I do think "near" truly depends ones point of view.  Were we near from an American perspective?  Not really.  Were we near from a Russian perspective?  Of course.

If Russia were having military excercises in Cabo, I'm sure America would argue that's too close from an Amercian-centric perspective.  :shrug:

Thank you for taking this seriously.

While the thread is open, others are certainly welcome to weight in with their thoughts.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25931372 -

a quick poll before further discussion:
On a scale of 1-10, how satisfied are you with this debate format?
You may choose only one


Votes accepted from 04/12/19 08:30 PM until the end of time
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 2
    #25931382 -

It took a round before we got the rules right, but we're definitely pretty close now I think.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25931405 -

Good stuff guys, that was fun hearing both sides of the argument. Well played :thumbup:

Keep up the good work.
:popcorn:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25932834 -

I'm ready for the next round.  Who's up next?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #25932879 -

I am, according to the rules.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 2
    #25933023 -

I'm ready whenever.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25938712 -

While we're waiting, here's another John Oliver lie for the que:



Starting at around 0:45, John Oliver says "...it's also worth noting this (MH17 shoot down) wouldn't have happened if you, Vladimir Putin, hadn't given the rebels those fucking missiles."

There is, in fact, no convincing evidence that Putin gave missiles to the rebels.  The serial number of the missile in question showed it was one transported to Ukraine in 1986.  Even if the missile did fall into the hands of East Ukrainian Defense Forces (which is another debate), that's still not Putin giving the rebels those fucking missiles.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25938778 -

It's my turn.  I'm just in trial until Friday.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25938795 -

Ok, no problem.  I'm about to start a vacation through Monday and might not be on much, starting tomorrow.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25938796 -

No cutting in line Falcon :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #25938800 -

John Oliver was pretty easy to figure out.  I actually like the guy, but anything that the establishment lies about, he'll lie about as well.

Edit:  If that weren't the case, HBO (a subsidiary of AT&T) would've hired someone else to do the show.  The same goes for Bill Maher.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/16/19 08:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #25951824 -

Since Enlil is busy, I propose we open this game up to anyone that can find fake news on RT.com.

After all, for me this game isn't about winning or losing; I don't care if I lose.  For me, it's all about determining whether or not RT is as reliable a news source as US mainstream media.

Any takers?  Can anyone find fake news from RT America from the last 5 years?

We'll use the same rules that are in the OP.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25951841 -

The question you have to ask yourselves is whether people like Ed Schultz, Larry King, and Lee Camp joined RT to become Russian agents, or because RT was the only major media outlet that allowed them to express their non-establishment feelings for issues like support of Bernie Sanders, taxing the rich more, etc.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25952139 -

I would join in but i know almost nothing about RT. I think i saw like one episode on UFOs and thats it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #25952483 -

If it was fake news, you should Google it and post it!


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #25955103 -

I guess it wasn't fake news then.

HEY KOODS!  Got any fake news from RT in the last 5 years to share?  Or we can finally say that RT is a reliable source of information?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #25955277 -

There's no UFO fake enough for LC!
:loldongs:
I'm just playing with you, LC.  You know I love you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25955391 -

Ha, you know it!

Found the clip, if anyone is interested: https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/451519-extra-terrestrial-intelligence-ufo/?fbclid=IwAR14JS0-gaSKK__56VauTFMA5xNVCUFjzBYsKZTYwNUdlsIHzRGeasQHykE

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #25955424 -

Sounds like RT's making fun of American idiocy.  :lol:

If you want to submit it as fake news, let us know.  That's the only story anyone's been able to find thus far.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25955436 -

Maybe. The issue is could we find information to confirm Dr. Steven Greer's info?

For example, was the Ex-CIA Director actually killed? Not sure anyone can prove that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos] * 1
    #25955725 -

LogicaL Chaos said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Sounds like RT's making fun of American idiocy.  :lol:

If you want to submit it as fake news, let us know.


Maybe. The issue is could we find information to confirm Dr. Steven Greer's info?

For example, was the Ex-CIA Director actually killed? Not sure anyone can prove that.


RT wasn't necessarily agreeing with Dr Greer's claims though.  In fact, Sophie Shevardnadze was often challenging them.  You can see by her facial expressions that she wasn't terribly convinced:





But the beginning of the clip stated that over half of all Americans believe in aliens, so it's probably not wrong to give this guy some airtime to express his personal point of view.

You may recall a few years ago when a crazy poster in the Shroomery started saying that Trump never colluded with Russia, and everyone here called him a conspiracy theorist.  Well it turns out that guy was right.

So though I currently don't believe Dr Greer, there's nothing wrong with allowing him to share his point of view.  I don't think RT saying the Center for the Study of ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) believes in aliens is fake news, but if you disagree you can play the game.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25955955 -

I would agree. Because of RT's (Sophie's) skeptical viewpoint on Dr. Greer and CSETI, it would not be a good topic for discussion of RT fake news.

I will do more research on RT TV and see if i can find a topic that they seem to be pushing agenda on.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #25956260 -

I'm sorry, guys.  My mom had a stroke.  I'll get back to this in due time.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25956387 -

So sorry to hear that buddy.  That's obviously the priority.  Do what you gotta do.


Koods - are you planning to step up, or are do you plan to stop bashing RT?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25956776 -

That sucks.  Here's hoping for a speedy recovery.  I know there probably isn't, but if there's anything i can do to help, hit me up.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25957077 -

Yikes that scary. Hope she comes out OK.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25958142 -

Too bad this report hadn't yet come out:

Economic Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela
Quote:
Executive Summary

This paper looks at some of the most important impacts of the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the US government since August of 2017. It finds that most of the impact of these sanctions has not been on the government but on the civilian population.

The sanctions reduced the public’s caloric intake, increased disease and mortality (for both adults and infants), and displaced millions of Venezuelans who fled the country as a result of the worsening economic depression and hyperinflation. They exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis and made it nearly impossible to stabilize the economy, contributing further to excess deaths. All of these impacts disproportionately harmed the poorest and most vulnerable Venezuelans.

We find that the sanctions have inflicted, and increasingly inflict, very serious harm to human life and health, including an estimated more than 40,000 deaths from 2017–2018; and that these sanctions would fit the definition of collective punishment of the civilian population as described in both the Geneva and Hague international conventions, to which the US is a signatory. They are also illegal under international law and treaties which the US has signed, and would appear to violate US law as well.


"Refreshingly, what's happening in Venezuela is actually not our fault" my ass.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods] * 1
    #25963015 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Koods - are you planning to step up, or are do you plan to stop bashing RT?


So not a single example of fake news from RT in the last 5 years, even with the help of a Google search?  Damn, RT is even better than I thought!

In that case, I propose we go back to Last Week Tonight, as there are still plenty of examples of fake news to look at.  We can start with the one above that I had in the que.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:


Starting at around 0:45, John Oliver says "...it's also worth noting this (MH17 shoot down) wouldn't have happened if you, Vladimir Putin, hadn't given the rebels those fucking missiles."

There is, in fact, no convincing evidence that Putin gave missiles to the rebels.  The serial number of the missile in question showed it was one transported to Ukraine in 1986.  Even if the missile did fall into the hands of East Ukrainian Defense Forces (which is another debate), that's still not Putin giving the rebels those fucking missiles.


Enlil, do you want to defend this, or should we hand it off to someone else you designate?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25964286 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil, do you want to defend this, or should we hand it off to someone else you designate?


Since Enlil is understandably distracted, are there any volunteers?  I nominate koods since he still believes RT is not a good source.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25965936 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil, do you want to defend this, or should we hand it off to someone else you designate?


Since Enlil is understandably distracted, are there any volunteers?  I nominate koods since he still believes RT is not a good source.


Since koods isn't stepping up either, are there any volunteers to defend the John Oliver piece above?



Again, the point of this game isn't about 'winning', it's to show that RT is as reliable a source as US establishment news.

But given that not one person on the shroomery has been able to find even a single piece of fake news from RT from the last 5 years, even with the help of a Google search, I think it's now safe to say that RT is a FAR more reliable source than US establishment news.

The latest from the Venezuelan coup attempt reinforces this.



If anyone disagrees, then post some fake news from RT from the last 5 years, or accept that RT is a very reliable source.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25967064 -

Not here to debate you. Just sharing what Google thinks is fake or misleading stories by rt.


https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer/search/rt;hl=en;gl=?authuser=1&pageId=none

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/
Do you trust this site for its other news ratings?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25967084 -

It’s not worth it. No matter what you show him, he’s not gonna budge.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25967090 -

They were literally called out for fake news yesterday  :lol:

https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-russia-today-reuters/29915005.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25967094 -

Hey koods, notice that my rt ups not delivering to no go zones isnt on the list?  :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25967134 -

MagicMush123 said:
Not here to debate you. Just sharing what Google thinks is fake or misleading stories by rt.


https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer/search/rt;hl=en;gl=?authuser=1&pageId=none

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/
Do you trust this site for its other news ratings?



Media bias is fine as long as they're open about it. The journalism to be weary of is the kind that claims to be objective.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25967244 -

koods said:
It’s not worth it. No matter what you show him, he’s not gonna budge.


You forgot, I'm not the judge here.

Pick one of those and let's go, since you clearly believe those are fake news.  :popcorn:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25967266 -

MagicMush123 said:
They were literally called out for fake news yesterday  :lol:

https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-russia-today-reuters/29915005.html


Fine, you go first.  Make your case that's fake news (or do you want to let the article to speak for itself?)


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25967359 -

Let me give you a free peek at what you're up against:

Polygraph.info is a website produced by funded by Voice of America (VOA)​ and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are both American propoganda outlets (this article by The Atlantic is worth a read).

Of course a US Government funded propoganda website isn't going to be honest about RT, because RT is the one calling out US Government propoganda in the first place!

The tweet in question wasn't even published by RT, so technically, it's ineligible.


Regardless, I'm willing to give this to you as a 'freebie' if you provide a Reuters article from today that shows a pro Maduro rally, as claimed by Polygraph.info.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/02/19 12:37 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25967437 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Let me give you a free peek at what you're up against:

Polygraph.info is a website produced by funded by Voice of America (VOA)​ and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are both American propoganda outlets (this article by The Atlantic is worth a read).

Of course a US Government funded propoganda website isn't going to be honest about RT, because RT is the one calling out US Government propoganda in the first place!

The tweet in question wasn't even published by RT, so technically, it's ineligible.


Regardless, I'm willing to give this to you as a 'freebie' if you provide a Reuters article from today that shows a pro Maduro rally, as claimed by Polygraph.info.


Well firstly, are you really contending that every single article in question on the google toolkit is unjustly categorized as fake or misleading?
2nd margarita simonyan is the chief and editor of rt. So if the chief cant be trusted to post credible information on her Twitter feed (she posted political news) how much confidence do you have that she will keep fake news off her website?
  And third, rt is owned and operated by the Russian government. So i dont know how you get off saying that the polygraph is an American propaganda outlet so therefore its not reliable and shouldn't be trusted, but the rt is... If you think that about the polygraph then you should also think of rt as equally unreliable and biased

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123] * 1
    #25967461 -

Lol he refuses to see that RT is exactly what he rails against.

Some of those RT stories are objectively false, but he still demands more evidence. There is no amount of evidence that will convince him. This thread is a waste of time.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25967720 -

MagicMush123 said:
Well firstly, are you really contending that every single article in question on the google toolkit is unjustly categorized as fake or misleading?


The "Google Toolkit" is a summary of what polygraph.info (a US Government website) says.  If you don't bring any of those items up in this thread for balls to judge, then you're the one who's actualy saying they must be fake or misleading.  Go ahead, pick one and let's find out if it's true or not!

MagicMush123 said:
2nd margarita simonyan is the chief and editor of rt. So if the chief cant be trusted to post credible information on her Twitter feed (she posted political news) how much confidence do you have that she will keep fake news off her website?


Who says she can't be trusted?  You haven't yet shown she was lying.  I gave you an opportunity to prove her wrong by posting a Reuters article from yesterday that shows a pro-Maduro rally.  So far, you haven't done that, so it appears she was correct.

MagicMush123 said:
And third, rt is owned and operated by the Russian government. So i dont know how you get off saying that the polygraph is an American propaganda outlet so therefore its not reliable and shouldn't be trusted, but the rt is... If you think that about the polygraph then you should also think of rt as equally unreliable and biased


If you can't find any lies from RT, then you're the one saying RT is truthful.  Prove they lie by showing us a lie!

Again, I'm offering you a 'freebie' here.  All you need to do is prove the RT editor lied about Reuters not covering any pro-Maduro rallies by showing us that Reuters did in fact cover a pro-Maduro rally yesterday.  Can you show the editor was lying?  Or not?  :popcorn:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25967726 -

koods said:
Lol he refuses to see that RT is exactly what he rails against.


Koods, you haven't yet shown us an RT lie from the last 5 years.  Bring one up and let Balls be the judge.  Otherwise, please quit lying.  It's unbecoming of a moderator.

koods said:
Some of those RT stories are objectively false, but he still demands more evidence. There is no amount of evidence that will convince him. This thread is a waste of time.


Show us one and let balls judge according to the rules of this thread.  If you don't, you're clearly lying, and people need to vote you out as moderator.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968016 -

Crickets?

So you couldn't find even one thing from the US Government website "polygraph.info" that is true?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25968232 -

Is the polygraph not trustworthy because of its American influence? So like i said, are you really arguing that every single article is question is being unjustly characterized as fake or misleading news?
  The polygraph showed that she either lied or misunderstood what the live feed that she was watching on Reuters was.. there is no Reuters article from yesterday because it was a live stream. They showed livestreams from Venezuela and Paris. They have a Reuters compilation of their live coverage from Venezuela.  Reuters covered both and when margarita chimed in it was when they were showing paris and the timestamps on her tweets prove that

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968383 -

MagicMush123 said:
Is the polygraph not trustworthy because of its American influence?


No, it's not trustworthy because neither you, nor anyone else, could provide evidence that the RT editor was lying when she claimed Reuters wasn't showing a rally in support of Maduro in Caracas.

MagicMush123 said:
So like i said, are you really arguing that every single article is question is being unjustly characterized as fake or misleading news?


No - YOU'RE arguing that by not finding any truthful statements from them for analysis.  If you find any truthful polygraph.info articles, bring them up in this thread, and let's discuss who's lying based on the rules above.

MagicMush123 said:
The polygraph showed that she either lied or misunderstood what the live feed that she was watching on Reuters was.. there is no Reuters article from yesterday because it was a live stream. They showed livestreams from Venezuela and Paris. They have a Reuters compilation of their live coverage from Venezuela.  Reuters covered both and when margarita chimed in it was when they were showing paris and the timestamps on her tweets prove that


Ok, let's analyze this using the rules above.  :thumbup:

Here is the tweet in question:  https://twitter.com/M_Simonyan/status/1123584864123535363

Quote:
"We show a rally in support of Maduro in Caracas.  Reuters shows a green boulevard."


Technically, if Reuters showed a green Boulevard, then the RT editor wasn't lying, though to be fair, she implied that Reuters wasn't showing a "rally in support of Maduro".

So to prove polygraph.info correct, you simply need provide something from Reuters showing a rally in support of Maduro.

Let's look at polygraph's evidence.  They show an article from Reuters that covers Guaidó, not Maduro:



Fail.

Next they show a video of Guaidó supporters during the coup attempt.

Another fail.

I saw no evidence whatsoever of a rally in support of Maduro.  Can you find any?


Per the game rules - you actually get to go first, so I just gave you some free information to help you with your first post.  Please provide your evidence against the RT editor's tweet.  :popcorn:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25968536 -

Dude, if you read the article it is clearly referencing that Reuters was broadcasting a livestream of paris on their website. Idk how i go back in time and prove what was being broadcasted. But im sure that if the poly was lying about what Reuters was broadcasting, im sure that they would have been called out on it by now...

But i would really appreciate it if you would quit evading and answer why exactly you think that the polygraph is so unreliable and biased but the rt isn't? The polygraph is a website dedicated to fact checking all news, not discrediting rt.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968559 -

Russian propaganda network complaining that other networks aren’t broadcasting Venezuelan propaganda.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25968588 -

And fal failed because it didn't matter if Reuters was covering Maduro or guaido. The point was they were posting what was happening in Caracas  :lol:  when margareta indirectly claimed that they weren't covering Venezuela when it actually on the front page, they were just livestreaming paris atm :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968631 -

Ok, round 1 is done.  Here is my rebuttal:

MagicMush123 said:
Dude, if you read the article it is clearly referencing that Reuters was broadcasting a livestream of paris on their website. Idk how i go back in time and prove what was being broadcasted. But im sure that if the poly was lying about what Reuters was broadcasting, im sure that they would have been called out on it by now...


How in the world does a livestream of paris prove Reuters was showing a rally in support of Maduro???

MagicMush123 said:
But i would really appreciate it if you would quit evading and answer why exactly you think that the polygraph is so unreliable and biased but the rt isn't? The polygraph is a website dedicated to fact checking all news, not discrediting rt.


If Reuters didn't show a rally in support of Maduro, then the RT editor was correct and polygraph.info was lying.  It's that simple.

MagicMush123 said:
And fal failed because it didn't matter if Reuters was covering Maduro or guaido. The point was they were posting what was happening in Caracas  :lol:


Of course it matters.  Did you not read the tweet from the RT editor?  She accused Reuters of not showing a rally in support of Maduro.  Did they or didn't they?  If they didn't show that, then she was correct.

Ok, on to round 2...


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25968633 -

koods said:
Russian propaganda network complaining that other networks aren’t broadcasting Venezuelan propaganda.


Per the rules, you have to stay quiet until we're done arguing with this alleged 'fake news' point.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25968657 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Ok, round 1 is done.  Here is my rebuttal:

MagicMush123 said:
Dude, if you read the article it is clearly referencing that Reuters was broadcasting a livestream of paris on their website. Idk how i go back in time and prove what was being broadcasted. But im sure that if the poly was lying about what Reuters was broadcasting, im sure that they would have been called out on it by now...


How in the world does a livestream of paris prove Reuters was showing a rally in support of Maduro???

MagicMush123 said:
But i would really appreciate it if you would quit evading and answer why exactly you think that the polygraph is so unreliable and biased but the rt isn't? The polygraph is a website dedicated to fact checking all news, not discrediting rt.


If Reuters didn't show a rally in support of Maduro, then the RT editor was correct and polygraph.info was lying.  It's that simple.

MagicMush123 said:
And fal failed because it didn't matter if Reuters was covering Maduro or guaido. The point was they were posting what was happening in Caracas  :lol:


Of course it matters.  Did you not read the tweet from the RT editor?  She accused Reuters of not showing a rally in support of Maduro.  Did they or didn't they?  If they didn't show that, then she was correct.

Ok, on to round 2...


Are you kidding? She was showing the rally as opposed to a "green boulevard", making it seem as it rt was better than Reuters because they're showing a rally, while Reuters is showing a " non eventful green boulevard " to discredit Reuters... and the polygraphs rebuttal was that Reuters actually was covering Venezuela and their proof was this article 



It didn't matter who's side they were covering, polygraph didn't even mention which side but just mentioned that Caracas was being covered at the time margareta claimed it wasn't.

I wasn't even here to debate you but to see what you thought of the all the fake news in the toolbox. But you wouldn't talk about that and instantly went on the defense, and you wanted to evade and limit the discussion to the poly which i posted. And I only posted it to show that they were accused of fake news as of yesterday.  And you seem to have no answers except for that the poly is an establishment media so therefore its propaganda, even though rt is literally owned and operated by the Russian government  :crazy2:  that's fine that i got sucked into a debate  :lol: although now im curious who balls or enlil agrees with :lol:

Edited by MagicMush123 (05/02/19 05:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968661 -

But still. If you had any character or even a backbone you would answer my question which has been evaded twice now

MagicMush123 said:
But i would really appreciate it if you would quit evading and answer why exactly you think that the polygraph is so unreliable and biased but the rt isn't? The polygraph is a website dedicated to fact checking all news, not discrediting rt.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968706 -

MagicMush123 said:
It didn't matter who's side they were covering, polygraph didn't even mention which side but just mentioned that Caracas was being covered at the time margareta claimed it wasn't.


Once again, I ask the judge to review the tweet in question:  https://twitter.com/M_Simonyan/status/1123584864123535363
Quote:
"We show a rally in support of Maduro in Caracas.  Reuters shows a green boulevard."


What point was the RT editor making here?  It's clear to me that her point is that RT covered a large rally in support of Maduro, while Reuters ignored it.

Sure, I understand that Reuters is an establishment media outlet, and they generally won't cover support for Maduro.  But that's exactly the point the RT editor is making.  And yes, the pro-Maduro rally did happen:




MagicMush123 - you get the last word before Balls makes his decision.



Wait - I see you made another post:

MagicMush123 said:
But i would really appreciate it if you would quit evading and answer why exactly you think that the polygraph is so unreliable and biased but the rt isn't? The polygraph is a website dedicated to fact checking all news, not discrediting rt.


I didn't evade.  I already answered your question above:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Polygraph.info is a website produced by funded by Voice of America (VOA)​ and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are both American propoganda outlets (this article by The Atlantic is worth a read).
.
.
.
If Reuters didn't show a rally in support of Maduro, then the RT editor was correct and polygraph.info was lying.  It's that simple.



--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968710 -

This thread works best when posting privileges are restricted to 2 participants and a judge.  I don't have the authority to make those restrictions mandatory  but if you guys want to proceed anyway, I'll be happy to act as judge up until such time as it devolves into a shitfest.
If we do this, we'll follow the format, meaning, I'll pretend i havent read any of this and you guys will start from scratch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25968715 -

No lasts words i think all my points were made. And agian,  the poly showed that Reuters was actually covering Caracas at the time that it was claimed that they weren't 

So it was being covered :lol:

And again thanks for evading the questioning.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25968733 -

ballsalsa said:
This thread works best when posting privileges are restricted to 2 participants and a judge.  I don't have the authority to make those restrictions mandatory  but if you guys want to proceed anyway, I'll be happy to act as judge up until such time as it devolves into a shitfest.
If we do this, we'll follow the format, meaning, I'll pretend i havent read any of this and you guys will start from scratch


Sorry balls, like i said i was actually coming here for a debate, this was unexpected :lol:  dont really mind starting over, but i feep we will stick 5o our scripts and posts our points all over again  😅😅

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968740 -

I'm also fine with you making a judgement now.

This round may have had 3 turns instead of 2, but I'm fine with you taking everything into account starting here.

Mush, are you good with that or would you prefer to start over?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25968745 -

Id probably prefer to judge now. We didn't follow the format, but thats because I wasn't coming here to debate you. We could always judge now and maybe pick another article and follow the format from now on?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25968768 -

Deal. Let me drive home first though

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25968923 -

No rush.  Give it adequate thought, as you always do.  :thumbup:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25968944 -

Ok.
It has thus far been the case that I have been forced to find a statement or piece to be misleading, but not fake news.
In this case, we have a statement made about a green blvd and we have the unspoken implications of that statement.  It is the opinion of this court that the tweet in question was intentionally and perhaps even maliciously misleading.  It had a clear intent to discredit a rival news agency while bolstering the political claims of an ally/potential vassal (of Russia).  With that being said,  when read at face value and ignoring any unspoken implications, the statement is objectively true.

Verdict: Not Fake

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25969000 -

Thanks for the fair assessment balls :thumbup:  i wouldn't be doing too much celebrating fal, you barely won this round :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969044 -

I think your argument was weaker that you think it is.  Balls always tries to be nice to the side he rules against.  :smirk:

Do you really believe that the RT editor was trying to say that Reuters won't cover Venezuela?  Of course not, that's ridiculous.

Her point was that they didn't cover a pro-Maduro rally.  Which they didn't.  Her Tweet was spot on - RT covered it, Reuters didn't.

Polygraph.info is counting on people not reading their posts too closely, which 99% of the people probably don't, so people will think that RT produces fake news.

As far as I can tell, RT doesn't produce fake news - they simply provide the other side's point of view; in this case Venezuela's.

My two cents anyway, until someone is able to find fake news from them.  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969070 -

Here ya go. Russia didn’t hack the DNC. Total bullshit



--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969104 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I think your argument was weaker that you think it is.  Balls always tries to be nice to the side he rules against.  :smirk:

Do you really believe that the RT editor was trying to say that Reuters won't cover Venezuela?  Of course not, that's ridiculous.

Her point was that they didn't cover a pro-Maduro rally.  Which they didn't.  Her Tweet was spot on - RT covered it, Reuters didn't.

Polygraph.info is counting on people not reading their posts too closely, which 99% of the people probably don't, so people will think that RT produces fake news.

As far as I can tell, RT doesn't produce fake news - they simply provide the other side's point of view; in this case Venezuela's.

My two cents anyway, until someone is able to find fake news from them.  :shrug:


And balls effectively admitted that she may have purposely mislead in her tweet. Misleading aka lying...  You basically won on a technically because balls only wanted to take the tweet at surface value, which was fine (hes the judge and he can rule however he wants)... and they effectively did cover Caracas which the poly stated and which was true..
do you seriously contend that the above pic/article isnt covering Venezuela?? Im sorry that the title wasn't worded the way you would have liked

So anyway you still haven't gotten around to explaining how exactly there are two establishment media news networks, yet one is untrustworthy due that fact but the other isn't. I still cant make that leap of logic, and apparently you can't either since your only rebuttal is that the polygraph is an American outlet... which still applies to rt... Unless you're really trying to say that Russia is more trustworthy than the usa.

Ill say it agian. The polygraph exists to fact check. They don't exist to discredit rt. Thats ridiculous. If rt posts fake news then the polygraph has no choice but to debunk it

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: koods]
    #25969114 -

Wow, that was a good video koods!

:congrats:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969147 -

MagicMush123 said:
do you seriously contend that the above pic/article isnt covering Venezuela?? Im sorry that the title wasn't worded the way you would have liked


No.  I contend that it wasn't showing a rally in support of Maduro, which is what her tweet was about.

MagicMush123 said:
So anyway you still haven't gotten around to explaining how exactly there are two establishment media news networks, yet one is untrustworthy due that fact but the other isn't.


I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you - neither is trustworthy or untrustworthy because they  are associated with the Government.

One side is trustworthy because it covered both sides of the news, the other is untrustworthy because they a) only covered one side and b) lied about the other side.

It has NOTHING to do with whether or not they are associated with the Government.

MagicMush123 said:
Ill say it agian. The polygraph exists to fact check.


And I'll say it again.  Polygraph.info is a website produced by funded by Voice of America (VOA)​ and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are both American propoganda outlets.  If you didn't read the article I linked to, here's what it said:
Quote:
A law went into effect this month that ends the ban on U.S. government-made propaganda from being broadcast to Americans. In a remarkably creative spin, the supporters of this law say that allowing Americans to see American propaganda is actually a victory for transparency.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 went into effect July 2, and allows government-made news — which includes products like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks — to reach Americans.

In the 1970s Sen. William Fulbright said these outlets "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics" because, as he and his allies argued, U.S. taxpayers should not have to pay for propaganda directed at them.

But now these agencies say that's actually unfair to taxpayers. Broadcasting Board of Governors spokeswoman Lynne Weil told FP it's actually best for taxpayers to be able to see the propaganda, so they can serve as a check on it.

"Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars--greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said.

Likewise, a former government official said: "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff…. Now we'll have a better sense: Gee, some of this stuff is really good. Or gee, some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."



--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969167 -

polygraph also made insinuations in the article.
Quote:
in which she repeatedly promotes the idea, that there is no press freedom in the democratic countries,


:shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969168 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
do you seriously contend that the above pic/article isnt covering Venezuela?? Im sorry that the title wasn't worded the way you would have liked


No.  I contend that it wasn't showing a rally in support of Maduro, which is what her tweet said it is about.

MagicMush123 said:
So anyway you still haven't gotten around to explaining how exactly there are two establishment media news networks, yet one is untrustworthy due that fact but the other isn't.


I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you - neither is trustworthy or untrustworthy because they  are associated with the Government.

One side is trustworthy because it covered both sides of the news, the other is untrustworthy because they a) only covered one side and b) lied about the other side.

It has NOTHING to do with whether or not they are associated with the Government.

MagicMush123 said:
Ill say it agian. The polygraph exists to fact check.


And I'll say it again.  Polygraph.info is a website produced by funded by Voice of America (VOA)​ and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are both American propoganda outlets.  If you didn't read the article I linked to, here's what it said:
Quote:
A law went into effect this month that ends the ban on U.S. government-made propaganda from being broadcast to Americans. In a remarkably creative spin, the supporters of this law say that allowing Americans to see American propaganda is actually a victory for transparency.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 went into effect July 2, and allows government-made news — which includes products like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks — to reach Americans.

In the 1970s Sen. William Fulbright said these outlets "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics" because, as he and his allies argued, U.S. taxpayers should not have to pay for propaganda directed at them.

But now these agencies say that's actually unfair to taxpayers. Broadcasting Board of Governors spokeswoman Lynne Weil told FP it's actually best for taxpayers to be able to see the propaganda, so they can serve as a check on it.

"Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars--greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said.

Likewise, a former government official said: "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff…. Now we'll have a better sense: Gee, some of this stuff is really good. Or gee, some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."



Interesting. Because your entire talking point revolves around the poly not being trustworthy because they're funded by voa and free press radio. Sounds like you dont like their American connections and discredit them based on that. Which is pretty ironic because rt is funded and operated by the Russian government and "provides a Russian viewpoint on major global events " (propaganda?) :lol:

And also funny how you point the lack of fake news from rt as a source of their honesty.. but what about the lack of fake news from the polygraph? Why dont you prove that they are liars and are unjustly targeting rt to discredit them. Which you already claimed earlier... and at the very least the recent claim from the poly got downgraded from fake to misleading. Either way why do stand by a news outlet that purposely misleads their readers down the road that they want them to go down?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25969171 -

ballsalsa said:
polygraph also made insinuations in the article.
Quote:
in which she repeatedly promotes the idea, that there is no press freedom in the democratic countries,


:shrug:


Yea... it was at the bottom and in Russian so i just ignored it:shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969194 -

MagicMush123 said:
Interesting. Because your entire talking point revolves around the poly not being trustworthy because they're funded by voa and free press radio. Sounds like you dont like their American connections and discredit them based on that.


No.  I discredited them based on whether they're telling the truth or not.  I only brought up that they're a propaganda outlet because you actually thought "the polygraph exists to fact check."  :rofl2:

Sorry I'm laughing, I thought everyone knew Voice of America was an American propoganda machine.

MagicMush123 said:
Which is pretty ironic because rt is funded and operated by the Russian government and "provides a Russian viewpoint on major global events " (propaganda?) :lol:


The other side's viewpoint isn't propaganda.  Misleading information is.

MagicMush123 said:
And also funny how you point the lack of fake news from rt as a source of their honesty.. but what about the lack of fake news from the polygraph? Why dont you prove that they are liars and are unjustly targeting rt to discredit them.


Sure, let's do that!  Do you want to pick the next source, or should I?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25969209 -

ballsalsa said:
polygraph also made insinuations in the article.
Quote:
in which she repeatedly promotes the idea, that there is no press freedom in the democratic countries,


:shrug:


Ya, I missed the evidence backing that up.  It took me to "telegraph" whatever app that is.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969224 -

If its owned and operated by the Russian government then its more than just providing an opposing view.( which btw doesn't need to be done because both views do get expressed by various domestic networks) its more than likely a propaganda machine. Even if they post factual stories most of the time.

You you need to get it through your head that the poly doesn't exist to fact check or discredit rt

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969226 -

its a rant about the poisonings in england.  i just google-translated.  not the most reliable source, i admit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25969249 -

Hey balls, whats your feelings regarding poly? Do you think they're a trustworthy news source? Every rt article in question  on the Google toolbox was done by the polygraph...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969264 -

MagicMush123 said:
If its owned and operated by the Russian government then its more than just providing an opposing view.( which btw doesn't need to be done because both views do get expressed by various domestic networks)


Were both views expressed by Reuters?  If you found evidence of Reuters showing a rally in support of Maduro, you'd have won the above discussion

MagicMush123 said:
You you need to get it through your head that the poly doesn't exist to fact check or discredit rt


Because you say so?  Why don't we continue to fact check them and find out, instead of just make believing?

Let's go to the very next claim that polygraph.info rates as false:
Quote:
Claim by RT (Russia Today):

“The Russian economy has seen the biggest growth since 2012, expanding by 2.3 percent last year, according to preliminary estimates provided by [the] Russian state statistics agency.”

POLYGRAPH.info rating: Likely False

https://www.polygraph.info/a/rt-boasts-about-russia-economy-russian-officials-are-skeptical-fact-check/29755333.html


So where do we normally go for GDP information?  Trading Economics: 

And what do they have to say about Russia's GDP growth?  "Considering 2018 full year, the Russian economy grew 2.3 percent, the strongest pace of expansion in six years."

Or, since you were defending Reuters:  "Russia's GDP growth, at six-year high - 'Gross domestic product grew 2.3 percent last year'"

Looks like Polygraph is caught lying about RT - again.  Shall we continue to fact check?  Or would you prefer continuing to make believe?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25969268 -

ballsalsa said:
its a rant about the poisonings in england.  i just google-translated.  not the most reliable source, i admit.


Why not?  The duck story was explained here.  :shrug:

In summary, the CIA director lied to Donald Trump about novichok in order to convince him to expel 60 Russian diplomats.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/03/19 12:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969300 -

Lol it says likely false... apparently someone at the polygraph is suspicious of their claims and provided an opposing view.
I never said that the polygraph was gospel and i never said that rt only puts out fake news... As far im concerned the polygraph could be wrong and the rt could put out fake news.  Dont get me wrong, i think that any news network could put out fake news. And if you were reasonable then you could that rt could too

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969306 -

MagicMush123 said:
Lol it says likely false... apparently someone at the polygraph is suspicious of their claims and provided an opposing view.


So what's a fake story from RT then?  That's what this whole thread is asking for?.

MagicMush123 said:
I never said that the polygraph was gospel and i never said that rt only puts out fake news... As far im concerned the polygraph could be wrong and the rt could put out fake news.  Dont get me wrong, i think that any news network could put out fake news. And if you were reasonable then you could that rt could too


I'm reasonable.  All you have to do is point out their fake news.  :shrug:

I'm not a big fan of the koods style of argument:  "RT is fake news.  I can't find any examples, but trust me on this."


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969310 -

If you were reasonable you would have admitted it now because its a fact that rt has posted fake news. You have a whole list on the Google toolbox... if you want to prove rt right why dont go through the list one by one and prove the polygraph wrong on their claims?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969616 -

because google int always super-accurate.  QED translated as FAQ, novichok translated as novice, etc.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969629 -

MagicMush123 said:
Hey balls, whats your feelings regarding poly? Do you think they're a trustworthy news source? Every rt article in question  on the Google toolbox was done by the polygraph...


I don't really think anyone is a trustworthy news source in that i think it is impossible to divorce ourselves completely from our bias.  I do think that polygraph can provide useful info to someone with the wherewithal to separate the wheat from the chaff but i wouldn't simply accept everything they print.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25970100 -

MagicMush123 said:
If you were reasonable you would have admitted it now because its a fact that rt has posted fake news.


If you were reasonable you would have posted fake news from RT from the last 5 years.  :shrug:

Look, I'm sure it exists.  The goal of this exercise was originally to show that RT is just as good as establishment news, but since nobody's been able to find a single example of fake RT news from the last 5 years, now I think it's even better than establishment news, as we point out fake establishment news at least every month, and no one's ever gotten burned by posting an RT story.

Polygraph is an interesting find, but so far they're 0 for 2 and appear to be as much of a propaganda site as their parent site "Voice of America".  I'm happy to keep going down the list, but so far they're not looking too good.

So again, I ask the question, should I pick the next topic from Polygraph, or do you want to?  Maybe we'll finally find a fake news story, or maybe we'll prove that Polygraph is just another US Government propaganda tool.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25970128 -

Well it doesn't matter if it was during your specified timeframe or not. Its a fact that rt has posted fake news in the past. But besides that, im willing to humor you... it doesn't matter to me or not whether the polygraph or rt proves more trustworthy. Lets objectively go through the fake claims list on the Google toolbox together  and lets see where it takes us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25970209 -

MagicMush123 said:
Well it doesn't matter if it was during your specified timeframe or not.


Of course it matters.  If they've been honest during the last five years, that's important to know.  Because if anyone uses them as a source, then we can say "it's a recent RT article, therefore it's likely reliable".

MagicMush123 said:
im willing to humor you... it doesn't matter to me or not whether the polygraph or rt proves more trustworthy.


Of course it matters who's more trustworthy.  The whole purpose of this exercise is to determine whether RT is as reliable (or more reliable?) as establishment backed sources, such as Polygraph.info.

MagicMush123 said:
Lets objectively go through the fake claims list on the Google toolbox together  and lets see where it takes us


Great idea.  I suspect everyone reading this thread is curious what we find.



The next false claim by Polygraph.info is this one:
Quote:
Claim by RT:

“The head of the Russian Lower House Committee for Eurasian Integration says the recent proposal to split Russia into several parts, voiced by a Latvian MP, is proof of NATO’s hostile plans.”

POLYGRAPH.info rating: False

NATO Isn't Planning to Break Up Russia


Make your case that this is fake news.  Everyone else please stop posting here until Balls make a  final decision.

Round 1.  Go.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25970371 -

Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?

I guess i didn't really mean a me vs you debate on it, but sure. I probably wont play till Monday or something though. I primarily post when im at work and its the weekend  :lol: we can wait till Monday or you can start now if you would like

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25970405 -

MagicMush123 said:
Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?


Sure, I guess.  No matter what it's a fact that the US had slavery before, right?  What relevance does that have today?

MagicMush123 said:
I probably wont play till Monday or something though. we can wait till Monday or you can start now if you would like


Per the rules you go first.  So Monday it is I guess.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25970472 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?


Sure, I guess.  No matter what it's a fact that the US had slavery before, right?  What relevance does that have today?

MagicMush123 said:
I probably wont play till Monday or something though. we can wait till Monday or you can start now if you would like


Per the rules you go first.  So Monday it is I guess.


Now you're just arguing in bad faith

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25970724 -

MagicMush123 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?


Sure, I guess.  No matter what it's a fact that the US had slavery before, right?  What relevance does that have today?

MagicMush123 said:
I probably wont play till Monday or something though. we can wait till Monday or you can start now if you would like


Per the rules you go first.  So Monday it is I guess.


Now you're just arguing in bad faith


Can anyone please explain this comment to me?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25970754 -

He doesn't think your slavery analogy is apropos.
Let's leave it at that before the thread falls apart.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25971009 -

ballsalsa said:
MagicMush123 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?


Sure, I guess.  No matter what it's a fact that the US had slavery before, right?  What relevance does that have today?


Now you're just arguing in bad faith


He doesn't think your slavery analogy is apropos.


Got it.  Thanks Balls.  :thumbup:

Fixed it.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25976026 -

So its monday and here i am. So, what we have here is an article written by rt. This article utilizes dangerous and false rhetoric from Russian officials to print out a propaganda piece.
They utilized strong words, a correct but not factually correct statement from a Russian official to push their anti nato, anti west narrative. They essentially wrote an opinion peice based on the opinion of a Latvian, distant far right politician. Both politicians words were published correctly but both opinions had no place in reality. No reasonable person would take aleksandrs tweet as evidence that NATO wants Russia to split apart. Aleksandrs Kiršteins is a far right politician that in no way represents Latvia or nato. And i thought that the polygraph did a good job in disproving the notions of Leonid. Even if they had acted as if rt had made the claims.
The last half of the article appears to be the only part that was added by rt themselves, and it too has omitted information to help steer the reader towards their Russian bias. They site natos military exercises as a sign of hostility or agression towards Russia.  Omitting critical information, such as that nato is strictly a defensive organization and that all their military exercises are planned in advance, which Russia is informed of well ahead of time. Not to mention that their excercises are subject to international inspection and Russian inspection.. which Russia has  visited on multiple occasions. So Russia's claims that Aleksandrs tweet were a sign of natos hostile plans was absurd, and no reasonable person could come to such a conclusion.
But if rt is a Russian media outlet financed and operated by Russia, is it fair to say that rt represents Russia? After all they are a Russian media outlet publishing what their government officials have said.... why is rt publishing factually wrong information said by their officials if they weren't trying to mislead in the first place?
So given the above, i agree that rt was publishing misleading aka fake news. And i agree with the polygraph putting the blame on rt and rather the rogue official. If rt is Russians state mendia company they shouldn't be basing entire articles on off cuff remarks by fringe politicians, or factually incorrect and loaded statements by Russian officials. This is misleading and not intellectually honest news.  The polygraph was correct for labeling it as fake, due to fact that it utilized false and misleading information to steer their readers towards their Russian bias

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25976032 -

Accidentally posted early, but whatever lol

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25976360 -

I'm still at work, followed by the gym and dinner, so if you want to change anything, feel free.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25976796 -

MagicMush123 said:
This article utilizes dangerous and false rhetoric from Russian officials to print out a propaganda piece.
They utilized strong words, a correct but not factually correct statement from a Russian official to push their anti nato, anti west narrative. They essentially wrote an opinion peice based on the opinion of a Latvian, distant far right politician. Both politicians words were published correctly but both opinions had no place in reality.


Per the rules, "a fake news story is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true."

There is no disagreement that a Latvian Member of Parliament tweeted that a peaceful life in Europe was possible only if Russia is divided into several small countries, and there is also no disagreement that a Russian Member of Parliament responded that this is proof of NATO’s hostile plans and that this demonstrated that Russian concern over NATO bases in Baltic countries was justified.

Therefore, RT published no information that is most likely false.

Your argument is similar to saying American news shouldn't cover anything President Trump says unless they know he's telling the truth.  :shrug:

MagicMush123 said:
The last half of the article appears to be the only part that was added by rt themselves, and it too has omitted information to help steer the reader towards their Russian bias.


Per the rules, "Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news."

That's really all I have to say about the article in question, but I'll address your other points just for the heck of it and ask Balls to ignore the rest of this post (or not since he's the judge and I decided to post it here).




MagicMush123 said:
No reasonable person would take aleksandrs tweet as evidence that NATO wants Russia to split apart.


I didn't take his tweet as evidence that NATO wants Russia to split apart, though some people believe it to be true.

MagicMush123 said:
Aleksandrs Kiršteins is a far right politician that in no way represents Latvia or nato.


And Leonid Kalashnikov is a communist politician who doesn't represent Russia any more than Kiršteins represents Latvia.

MagicMush123 said:
They site natos military exercises as a sign of hostility or agression towards Russia.  Omitting critical information, such as that nato is strictly a defensive organization and that all their military exercises are planned in advance, which Russia is informed of well ahead of time. Not to mention that their excercises are subject to international inspection and Russian inspection.. which Russia has  visited on multiple occasions. So Russia's claims that Aleksandrs tweet were a sign of natos hostile plans was absurd, and no reasonable person could come to such a conclusion.


How many wars has Russia started since WWII compared to NATO?  NATO supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya.

MagicMush123 said:
if rt is a Russian media outlet financed and operated by Russia, is it fair to say that rt represents Russia?


That's a great question that's far beyond the scope of this fake news discussion.  Many famous American journalists, such as Ed Schultz, Lee Camp, and Abby Martin have said RT gives them the freedom to say whatever they want.  Ed Shultz said MSNBC didn't allow him to support Bernie Sanders, but RT did.

Is allowing journalists to speak freely in Russia's best interests?  That's an interesting topic for another thread.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25983692 -

Okay, you're right. The omission of relevant information is not fake news, i should have familiarized myself with the rules more closely  :lol: but even if not fake, i still stand by my assertion that it was a propaganda piece. I don't think the latter piece of your argument is relevant so im just not going to respond to it.

Was real busy this week. Sorry for the late response

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123] * 1
    #25983806 -

MagicMush123 said:
even if not fake, i still stand by my assertion that it was a propaganda piece.


Thank you for conceding.

Many people think a goal of NATO is to weaken Russia.  I don't think far fetched at all.  If you believe it, then the piece is relevant; if not, then I suppose it's propaganda.  I guess it depends on your point of view.

I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25983827 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
even if not fake, i still stand by my assertion that it was a propaganda piece.


Thank you for conceding.

Many people think a goal of NATO is to weaken Russia.  I don't think far fetched at all.  If you believe it, then the piece is relevant; if not, then I suppose it's propaganda.  I guess it depends on your point of view.

I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?


The nato website did a good job of debunking Russian conspiracies though... and yea, i wasnt really paying attention this week, but there are many more stories from rt that the polygraph identified as "fake"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25983848 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
even if not fake, i still stand by my assertion that it was a propaganda piece.


Thank you for conceding.

Many people think a goal of NATO is to weaken Russia.  I don't think far fetched at all.  If you believe it, then the piece is relevant; if not, then I suppose it's propaganda.  I guess it depends on your point of view.

I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?


NATO has always been about Russia and preventing their influence from spreading into Western Europe. It was the firewall that kept the iron curtain from marching unchecked across the continent. While the threat of russian dominance over Europe has waned, it has not disappeared.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25984019 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
...
What does "near" mean?

As Enlil told me earlier in this discussion:  "Context."

NATO could hold this excercise just about anywhere else in the world where there's snow, but it chose to do it in Norway, a country that borders Russia.
...


Not so much an objection to the context of nearness
but as Canada has a lot of prime real estate with snow
how would we best go about convincing member nations other than the US
that Canada is near enough to be logistically reasonable for people to ship their military to
without them settling for Iceland or Alaska instead


http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/nato-countries/

well, suppose Alaska is actually further from member nations and still near Russian border so maybe we just have to appeal over Iceland
greater landmass means more room for troops to practice; maybe an appeal to the sentiment of being a founding member?

we could benefit from tourism dollars, and we have some of the only land as far north as the training area (if the exercises were in the Northern Hemisphere's summer months and that was pertinent?)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25984023 -

MagicMush123 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?


The nato website did a good job of debunking Russian conspiracies though... and yea, i wasnt really paying attention this week, but there are many more stories from rt that the polygraph identified as "fake"


But we've shown how NATO itself is spouting propaganda about how it is a "defensive" organization, while NATO supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya.

And if you found another RT piece that was a lie on polygraph, can you present it?  So far polygraph hasn't done so well...


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Tantrika] * 1
    #25984030 -

Tantrika said:
Canada has a lot of prime real estate with snow
how would we best go about convincing member nations other than the US that Canada is near enough to be logistically reasonable for people to ship their military to

we could benefit from tourism dollars, and we have some of the only land as far north as the training area (if the exercises were in the Northern Hemisphere's summer months and that was pertinent?)


I agree, Canada would be a great place for NATO to train.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25984042 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Tantrika said:
Canada has a lot of prime real estate with snow
how would we best go about convincing member nations other than the US that Canada is near enough to be logistically reasonable for people to ship their military to

we could benefit from tourism dollars, and we have some of the only land as far north as the training area (if the exercises were in the Northern Hemisphere's summer months and that was pertinent?)


I agree, Canada would be a great place for NATO to train.


come for the training,
stay and spend military wages on some hockey games
:canada:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25985043 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?


The nato website did a good job of debunking Russian conspiracies though... and yea, i wasnt really paying attention this week, but there are many more stories from rt that the polygraph identified as "fake"


But we've shown how NATO itself is spouting propaganda about how it is a "defensive" organization, while NATO supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya.

And if you found another RT piece that was a lie on polygraph, can you present it?  So far polygraph hasn't done so well...


So far they're 0 for 2 in their identified fake stories.
But the stories that they presented were misleading with the omission of relevant information and were clear Russian propaganda... they're careful in their wording to not actually state fake claims and they leave out relevant information that discredits Russia. Im still not really sure what argument you're trying to win by standing by a state propaganda machine  :shrug: it looks worse on you than it does rt :lol: especially sinse i said from the very beginning that i dont stand with any news outlet and said that any news station could put out fake news

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25985086 -

MagicMush123 said:
So far they're 0 for 2 in their identified fake stories.

But the stories that they presented were misleading with the omission of relevant information and were clear Russian propaganda... they're careful in their wording to not actually state fake claims


I told you twice now about NATO aggression (NATO supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya).  NATO has also broken its promise to Russia not to expand Eastward towards Russia after the reunification of Germany.

In spite of the evidence, you still choose to believe "that nato is strictly a defensive organization", because that's what they say (but not what they do).  Who's the one supporting propaganda here?  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/11/19 12:41 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* American Propaganda
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 atomikfunksoldier 7,730 117 04/30/03 10:53 AM
by Rono
* US Propoganda
( 1 2 3 all )		 oO_wombat_Oo 1,686 51 04/10/03 10:53 AM
by Xlea321
* Propoganda... MokshaMan 1,238 13 11/02/01 06:33 PM
by ElPrimo
* anne coulter is on oreilly tonight
( 1 2 all )		 KingOftheThing 1,873 29 05/30/04 03:04 AM
by EchoVortex
* Feds Spend $1,000,000,000 on Anti-Drug Propaganda Ravus 1,027 6 02/02/05 05:59 PM
by Catalysis
* nutbag propoganda shakta 367 3 09/10/03 03:05 PM
by Edame
* How GIs in Iraq are Used to Spread Bush Propaganda Zahid 573 0 10/17/03 12:13 AM
by Zahid
* Israel v Palestine: who is right?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phalanxx 4,161 50 06/10/03 03:36 PM
by Phalanxx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,818 topic views. 0 members, 332 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.252 seconds spending 0.059 seconds on 26 queries.