Tash (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 305
Pro financial, medical liberty
|
|
December 10, 2021, 03:50:30 PM Last edit: December 10, 2021, 06:52:02 PM by Tash |
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373
|
|
December 10, 2021, 09:37:52 PM |
|
The only fit-for-offioce government official is a sedated one.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4536
|
|
December 11, 2021, 02:16:56 AM |
|
if tash is quoting things found on facebook.. tash has already mis-understood the reality of the situation
if its on facebook. treat it all as opinion. you are then suppose to do research away from social media to then find the facts. that verify or dismiss the opinion
something tash never does, so tash never shows verifiable facts
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
Cnut237
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
|
|
December 11, 2021, 03:42:40 PM |
|
~
You may as well say "facts are nothing more than opinion", as that's how you tend to regard it when people post links to data, even if it's lots of data from multiple independent sources that all present the same picture. But I think your position - and that of most people on the anti-vax side - is faith-based rather than fact-based anyway... in which case, why are you even concerned about facts? You would never regard them as something that could challenge your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
BernyJB
|
|
December 11, 2021, 04:15:32 PM |
|
Hmmm... I guess Tash has got a reputation already. Gonna have to start knowing you guys better...
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373
|
|
December 11, 2021, 11:16:49 PM |
|
Fact checks are hearsay until adjudicated in a court of law.
Stunning: Facebook Court Filing Admits 'Fact Checks' Are Just A Matter Of 'ProtectedUnder libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.
Anthony Watts of Wattsupwiththat explains:
Opinions are not subject to defamation claims, while false assertions of fact can be subject to defamation. The quote in Facebook's complaint is,
Meta's attorneys come from the white shoe law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dore, with over a thousand attorneys and more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. They obviously checked out the implications of the matter for Section 230 issues, the legal protection Facebook/Meta have from liability for what is posted on their site. But at a minimum, this is a public relations disaster, revealing that their "fact checks" are not factual at all and should be labeled as "our opinion" or some such language avoiding the word "fact."
As an amateur, it seems to me that if Facebook inserts its opinions into posts or blocks them because of its opinion, then that does make it a publisher with legal responsibility for what appears on its website.
Technically speaking Facebook farms out its "fact checking" to outside organizations, usually left wing groups. In the case of Stossel's video that was defamed, the outside website called "Climate Feedback," which is also named a defendant in the lawsuit.
Watts summarizes well the PR implications:
Such "fact checks" are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy, and based on science.
...
|
|
|
|
Ultegra134
|
|
December 12, 2021, 11:03:41 PM |
|
Unlike you, and all your conspiracy theorist friends, fact checkers provide sources for their claims, something that conspiracy theorists don't do. Presenting a YouTube video, or a Facebook post doesn't count a reputable source. Moreover, you can check the sources legitimacy yourself, since everything is listed there, publicly to check for yourself.
|
R |
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄▄ ████████████████ ▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀█████ ████████▌███▐████ ▄▄▄▄█████▄▄▄█████ ████████████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀▀ | LLBIT | │ | CRYPTO FUTURES | | | | | | | │ | 1,000x LEVERAGE | │ | COMPETITIVE FEES | │ | INSTANT EXECUTION | │ | . TRADE NOW |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3822
Merit: 1373
|
|
December 13, 2021, 12:45:06 AM |
|
Unlike you, and all your conspiracy theorist friends, fact checkers provide sources for their claims, something that conspiracy theorists don't do. Presenting a YouTube video, or a Facebook post doesn't count a reputable source. Moreover, you can check the sources legitimacy yourself, since everything is listed there, publicly to check for yourself.
Exactly the point. Fact checkers can draw charts and graphs, and populate them with all kinds of data. Perhaps you have been to a few of the county recording offices, and found that some of the records seem true. But unless you do tons of legwork, and check graves yourself, you are only looking at hearsay. For example. According to his popularity in the eyes of the people, Trump won the election, easily. The way he lost was the States' election authorities legalizing what would normally be illegal activity. This gave Biden the 'win' even though the whole thing was done against what normally would be repugnant to the operation of law... and certainly against good faith. There are loads of fact checkers who have come up with far more accurate facts than places like CNN have.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4536
|
|
December 13, 2021, 05:08:47 AM |
|
But unless you do tons of legwork, and check graves yourself, you are only looking at hearsay.
yea do the legwork. like contact the sources. .. .. but badecker hates legwork. he is given a link to a record. the link includes the processes used, and the contact details of who done it. and badecker just cries 'too sciency to read' and claims it must be false. someone else gives him a 'average joe' basic summary. badecker cries 'it not sciency' both times badecker avoids the legwork. badecker, tash and pretty much most anti-vax are as someone pointed out, faith not fact based
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
Cnut237
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
|
|
December 13, 2021, 06:37:36 AM |
|
badecker, tash and pretty much most anti-vax are as someone pointed out, faith not fact based
Yep, I've said that many times. This is why there is no point in us presenting facts, data, evidence so that they can take a more informed opinion. I will keep trying, but I know that they never accept any evidence that contradicts their pre-established, evidence-free, faith-based conclusions. The thing that perplexes me is that they don't see this, they seem to think that their position is based on facts, which is why they desperately seek out whatever "facts" they can find from whatever discredited source or YouTube wacko that fit their conclusion, and disregard the vast mountain of evidence that goes against what they have already decided is the correct conclusion. Seeking out highly selective "evidence" is intellectually inauthentic; instead, why not just be honest with yourself about what you're doing? If you want to have a faith-based position, then fine, just admit it.
|
|
|
|
lottery248
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1005
beware of your keys.
|
Unlike you, and all your conspiracy theorist friends, fact checkers provide sources for their claims, something that conspiracy theorists don't do. Presenting a YouTube video, or a Facebook post doesn't count a reputable source. Moreover, you can check the sources legitimacy yourself, since everything is listed there, publicly to check for yourself.
to be fair, we shouldn't trust only one source just because it's fact-checked. for the best practice, gather the same news reports from multiple sources, regardless of fact-checking or the reliability of its source. if the fact-check only contains primary sources (or sources coming from allies but nothing from opposites just because they aren't reliable, especially regarding conspiracies), they too could be a conspiracy. assuming there are two fact-checkers who have a contrasting conclusion, both get reliable sources, who are we going to trust? for example, this article about covid vax deaths i have linked before also contains numerous sources on their claims. no matter how misrepresented to you, under your logic, this too should be considered a fact-check.
|
out of ability to use the signature, i want a new ban strike policy that will fade the strike after 90~120 days of the ban and not to be traced back, like google | email me for anything urgent, message will possibly not be instantly responded i am not really active for some reason
|
|
|
Cnut237
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
|
|
December 13, 2021, 07:52:32 AM |
|
to be fair, we shouldn't trust only one source just because it's fact-checked. for the best practice, gather the same news reports from multiple sources, regardless of fact-checking or the reliability of its source. if the fact-check only contains primary sources (or sources coming from allies but nothing from opposites just because they aren't reliable, especially regarding conspiracies), they too could be a conspiracy. assuming there are two fact-checkers who have a contrasting conclusion, both get reliable sources, who are we going to trust? for example, this article about covid vax deaths i have linked before also contains numerous sources on their claims. no matter how misrepresented to you, under your logic, this too should be considered a fact-check. They won't listen to you. Often, the Covid data I link to is from ourworldindata, which has a huge number of independent sources from all around the world. But they don't accept this, because... well, because they don't want to. I've yet to see a valid reason for their objection to it.
|
|
|
|
lottery248
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1568
Merit: 1005
beware of your keys.
|
|
December 13, 2021, 09:52:33 AM |
|
to be fair, we shouldn't trust only one source just because it's fact-checked. for the best practice, gather the same news reports from multiple sources, regardless of fact-checking or the reliability of its source. if the fact-check only contains primary sources (or sources coming from allies but nothing from opposites just because they aren't reliable, especially regarding conspiracies), they too could be a conspiracy. assuming there are two fact-checkers who have a contrasting conclusion, both get reliable sources, who are we going to trust? for example, this article about covid vax deaths i have linked before also contains numerous sources on their claims. no matter how misrepresented to you, under your logic, this too should be considered a fact-check. They won't listen to you. Often, the Covid data I link to is from ourworldindata, which has a huge number of independent sources from all around the world. But they don't accept this, because... well, because they don't want to. I've yet to see a valid reason for their objection to it. the biggest problem isn't about fact-checking, but there are authorities censoring any counter-fact-checking practices, which is already happening, such as YouTube banning vaccine misinformation. in fact, this kind of practice isn't telling those information wrong but what information they fear people talking about.
|
out of ability to use the signature, i want a new ban strike policy that will fade the strike after 90~120 days of the ban and not to be traced back, like google | email me for anything urgent, message will possibly not be instantly responded i am not really active for some reason
|
|
|
cmg777
|
|
December 13, 2021, 10:37:16 AM |
|
I wonder if they'll fact check this: Chris Cuomo’s CNN producer charged with luring girls for ‘sexual’ training https://nypost.com/2021/12/11/chris-cuomo-cnn-producer-john-griffin-charged-with-luring-girls/I bet the "Fact Checker" (Fact Censor is more accurate) would give it this headline instead: "John Griffin home schools young girls" True "Chris Cuomo’s CNN producer charged with luring girls for ‘sexual’ training" FALSE because I said so and I'm with the establishment fact checking (Censoring) system. So I disagree that its "opinion" but rather a paid actor(s) that try to diffuse somewhat truthful information so that way their elite masters do not get exposed for the corrupt, evil people that they are and actually see the light of justice. I guess fact checks can be read by the masses as an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Tash (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 305
Pro financial, medical liberty
|
|
December 13, 2021, 11:58:25 AM Last edit: December 13, 2021, 12:08:48 PM by Tash |
|
I wonder if they'll fact check this: Chris Cuomo’s CNN producer charged with luring girls for ‘sexual’ training https://nypost.com/2021/12/11/chris-cuomo-cnn-producer-john-griffin-charged-with-luring-girls/I bet the "Fact Checker" (Fact Censor is more accurate) would give it this headline instead: "John Griffin home schools young girls" True "Chris Cuomo’s CNN producer charged with luring girls for ‘sexual’ training" FALSE because I said so and I'm with the establishment fact checking (Censoring) system. So I disagree that its "opinion" but rather a paid actor(s) that try to diffuse somewhat truthful information so that way their elite masters do not get exposed for the corrupt, evil people that they are and actually see the light of justice. I guess fact checks can be read by the masses as an opinion. NBC’s Brian Williams America Being Burned Down “With Us Inside”https://youtu.be/_Gn_alAgOCo193400x30=5,802,000 (Was not 190k 30 years ago)
|
|
|
|
BernyJB
|
|
December 13, 2021, 03:32:27 PM |
|
badecker, tash and pretty much most anti-vax are as someone pointed out, faith not fact based
Yep, I've said that many times. This is why there is no point in us presenting facts, data, evidence so that they can take a more informed opinion. I will keep trying, but I know that they never accept any evidence that contradicts their pre-established, evidence-free, faith-based conclusions. The thing that perplexes me is that they don't see this, they seem to think that their position is based on facts, which is why they desperately seek out whatever "facts" they can find from whatever discredited source or YouTube wacko that fit their conclusion, and disregard the vast mountain of evidence that goes against what they have already decided is the correct conclusion. Seeking out highly selective "evidence" is intellectually inauthentic; instead, why not just be honest with yourself about what you're doing? If you want to have a faith-based position, then fine, just admit it. There's always a point, and if 1000 people ignore your facts but one reads them and happens to think about checking them by themselves, that point has been made. I will never stop being on the side of hard facts. If you decide to keep going, welcome! It's a long battle, but it's worth it. The one thing that mystifies me though, is that, in the one country that allows fact checking (the US), conspiracy theorists (and all kinds of ignoramuses) are everywhere, while in other countries (like mine) where people "commit suicide" by shooting themselves in the back of the head, nobody even talks about it. Curious, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tash (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 305
Pro financial, medical liberty
|
|
December 14, 2021, 05:36:19 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfts
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1514
|
|
December 14, 2021, 07:20:32 PM |
|
So if opinions are labeled as facts, then we are dealing with fraud, its not "fact checked"
So who fact checks the fact checkers? Even more fact checkers? And then who would fact check them? The solution, perhaps just an endless loop of fact checkers, because the purpose they serve is just to editorialize the facts, interject their own opinions, then portray their opinions as the truth. I remember the early fact checks on coronavirus, downplaying the virus significantly, essentially telling everyone that it isn't anything to worry about. Argument could be made that in January they were correct in "fact checking" the risks of coronavirus. Still shortsighted though. Their fact checks regarding politics are even more of a sham, not even trying to be objective.
|
|
|
|
|