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

MushroomMan Mycology
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!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |  [ show all ]
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
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |  [ show all ]

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 7,777 117 04/30/03 10:53 AM
by Rono
* US Propoganda
( 1 2 3 all )		 oO_wombat_Oo 1,689 51 04/10/03 10:53 AM
by Xlea321
* Propoganda... MokshaMan 1,253 13 11/02/01 06:33 PM
by ElPrimo
* anne coulter is on oreilly tonight
( 1 2 all )		 KingOftheThing 1,878 29 05/30/04 03:04 AM
by EchoVortex
* Feds Spend $1,000,000,000 on Anti-Drug Propaganda Ravus 1,029 6 02/02/05 05:59 PM
by Catalysis
* nutbag propoganda shakta 368 3 09/10/03 03:05 PM
by Edame
* How GIs in Iraq are Used to Spread Bush Propaganda Zahid 574 0 10/17/03 12:13 AM
by Zahid
* Israel v Palestine: who is right?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phalanxx 4,184 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
4,821 topic views. 2 members, 121 guests and 14 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 0.058 seconds spending 0.031 seconds on 21 queries.