"Get it yet? Vaccines are the SOURCE of our modern-day epidemics of chronic disease. There is a dark, deadly truth about the vaccine industry, the CDC and vaccine scientists everywhere. The truth is that vaccines are the vector by which cancer and other diseases are spread through the human population."
-Linked Article
"Get it yet? Vaccines are the SOURCE of our modern-day epidemics of chronic disease. There is a dark, deadly truth about the vaccine industry, the CDC and vaccine scientists everywhere. The truth is that vaccines are the vector by which cancer and other diseases are spread through the human population."
-Linked Article
I think they make a pretty good case that the Washington Post's argument isn't good though. WP was making it out that the issue was very extensive, which seems at least a bit much.
"Get it yet? Vaccines are the SOURCE of our modern-day epidemics of chronic disease. There is a dark, deadly truth about the vaccine industry, the CDC and vaccine scientists everywhere. The truth is that vaccines are the vector by which cancer and other diseases are spread through the human population."
-Linked Article
I think they make a pretty good case that the Washington Post's argument isn't good though. WP was making it out that the issue was very extensive, which seems at least a bit much.
Doesn't matter. They got something wrong once. It seems that Warghoul (who's just repeating Trump's twitter feed of course), is implying that means we shouldn't take this report seriously either.
Re: Pizzagate. This is not the place for conspiracy theories.
In a debate forum it is reasonable to talk about events the likes of this and to argue pro and against them before passing them off as conspiracy. (especially why this fake news scam has been brought up to try and discredit this). It is horrible to talk about elite pedophile rings, but if it is the truth then it should be discussed. The truth should always be the aim. But I can totally understand why it does not want to be talked about. But I guess an argument can be set up without using it with the likes of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
This is probably the most reasonable thing I have heard you say!!!
Think on how it applies to you and your favored sources of what for lack of a better term I'll call "information".
and vica-versa, if you could bring something to debate against with the current topic that would be nice.
"for lack of a better term..." this is sarcastic and degradation, if you want to debate please keep it civil. You are just trying to pass it off as crap. Sorry for the complement!
@DJK3654
"Has it occurred to you that Russia might want to intentionally make it look like they would start a war with Clinton to favor Trump in order to help their actual agenda? Because that seems like quite a plausible idea to me."
Now that you mention it, it seems plausible. But with the way things are going in Syria and Hillary wanting to implement a no fly-zone over there which would lead the US to shoot down Russian fighters. Russia has been invited there to fight against ISIS and the rebels, while US and allies are there illegally (according to UN law).
"And both the CIA and FBI agreed that Russia deliberately interfered in this election."
And I did too. I was supporting Trump to not get Hillary elected.
It is funny if you don't march lock step with the left you are a trump supporter. Not a fan or supporter or Trump. You show me a site that is always 100% correct on their 'news' and Ill buy you lunch. I am still trying to figure out how the Russkies tampered in the election. If they did leak emails god forbid people used that info to make a decision.
"They got something wrong one.." That made my day right there.
"Get it yet? Vaccines are the SOURCE of our modern-day epidemics of chronic disease. There is a dark, deadly truth about the vaccine industry, the CDC and vaccine scientists everywhere. The truth is that vaccines are the vector by which cancer and other diseases are spread through the human population."
-Linked Article
I think they make a pretty good case that the Washington Post's argument isn't good though. WP was making it out that the issue was very extensive, which seems at least a bit much.
Doesn't matter. They got something wrong once. It seems that Warghoul (who's just repeating Trump's twitter feed of course), is implying that means we shouldn't take this report seriously either.
They are the same thing though. The Craig Timberg article as in the OP is using Propornot as a source. The NaturalNews site does a pretty reasonable job of arguing that Propornot are not a good source, and therefore the article is lacking.
"Has it occurred to you that Russia might want to intentionally make it look like they would start a war with Clinton to favor Trump in order to help their actual agenda? Because that seems like quite a plausible idea to me."
Now that you mention it, it seems plausible. But with the way things are going in Syria and Hillary wanting to implement a no fly-zone over there which would lead the US to shoot down Russian fighters. Russia has been invited there to fight against ISIS and the rebels, while US and allies are there illegally (according to UN law).
Conflict doesn't mean war though. Russia and the US have been in various sorts of conflict for decades, but it has never been actual war in that time.
I don't think Russia is being misleading that they would have conflict with Clinton over these sorts of things, but I think they may well be posturing about actual armed conflict.
They are the same thing though. The Craig Timberg article as in the OP is using Propornot as a source. The NaturalNews site does a pretty reasonable job of arguing that Propornot are not a good source, and therefore the article is lacking.
That assumes that we should pay some attention to the argument itself, rather than just dismissing the claim entirely because the source was wrong about something once. There seems to be little room for this in the post I was quoting.
"for lack of a better term..." this is sarcastic and degradation, if you want to debate please keep it civil. You are just trying to pass it off as crap.
It is crap. We've done this dance before, remember? Every time you've cited a source on any topic, one of two things has been true: either (a) it has been blatantly pushing a particular narrative (i.e. biased) and filled with lies and omissions; or (b) it has been a decent source that you did not understand because you were reading it through the filter of your own commitment to a particular narrative (i.e. bias). If you wish, I can go back and find examples of both of these issues occurring, and of myself and others identifying and explaining them to you. So when I say that the information you prefer to work with is overwhelmingly bad information, it is with the weight of evidence and experience. And I am under no obligation to give deference to bad information. Stop complaining that I'm being mean to you and start asking yourself whether you might, in fact, have a problem. You say you're a skeptic, but real skepticism starts with the self.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Alright lets do it again, start with discrediting Wikileaks, in a reasonable way, instead of saying all my sources are "crap". This is a joke of an argument and an insult to debate!
"EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers"
I take issue with only one word "now". It always has been and unless it has a radical restructuring it always will be a badly disguised propaganda rag designed to inflame a certain viewpoint. Back in the Thirtys they were unapologetic supporters of the Nazi's both in Germany and at home in Mosley's blackshirts. Not much has changed now with them hanging on the coat tails of both the Chinese and the Russians. They have earned there nickname of the Daily Fail several times over!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Aside from the people getting paid from ad money on their admitted fake news sites, at least one of which is supporting efforts to stop fake news because he's getting worried about how few people fact checked anything he said, particularly members of the American right-wing. [link] There are also groups outside the US making money by selling bull*****, particularly in Macedonia. [link] Last of all we have websites like Breitbart, who have a relationship to the truth which can only be called tangential at best, as can be seen in (for example) their falsifying of scientific research to push an anti-climate change narrative which is favorable to fossil fuel companies. [link]
Aside from examples like that, sure, a crackdown on fake news is totally liberal censorship. You broke the code.
Alright lets do it again, start with discrediting Wikileaks, in a reasonable way, instead of saying all my sources are "crap".
What in particular would you like to discuss about Wikileaks? It's a big site.
He could start with how most of the original members left around 2011 and since then Assange keeps getting caught out posting unsupported conspiracy theories while also pruning anti-Russian material from the site.
It's an extremely biased right-wing rag with, to quote one of their own reporters, "institutional racism."
So you are saying bias is a type of discrediting? Yes! (Sounds like progress in this 'debate'). Washington post has left-wing bias so therefore now discredited...
It is funny if you don't march lock step with the left you are a trump supporter. Not a fan or supporter or Trump. You show me a site that is always 100% correct on their 'news' and Ill buy you lunch. I am still trying to figure out how the Russkies tampered in the election. If they did leak emails god forbid people used that info to make a decision.
"They got something wrong one.." That made my day right there.
They paid trolls to affect the election LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But still waiting on actual evidence.
I want to 'debate' "specifically" how he is going to discredit it. :S
There's nothing I even need to discredit until you show me some specific documents that you can claim provide evidence for your hypotheses. Just saying "Wikileaks" doesn't prove anything. And it's not my job to go through all ten-million-plus documents on the site and try to guess which ones, if any, you're thinking about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I want to 'debate' "specifically" how he is going to discredit it. :S
There's nothing I even need to discredit until you show me some specific documents that you can claim provide evidence for your hypotheses. Just saying "Wikileaks" doesn't prove anything. And it's not my job to go through all ten-million-plus documents on the site and try to guess which ones, if any, you're thinking about.
It seems like other people are discrediting whole sights, via "Right-wing bias", instead of going into a specific article and discrediting that. It seems the 'goal posts' are moving...
People who are accused of wrongdoing tend to deny it. Bill Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Does that mean he didn't? Of course not. We shouldn't believe someone didn't do something just because they say so. We need to look at all the other evidence surrounding the case to get a truthful picture of what happened. And your Daily Mail article contains those magic words of journalism: "His account cannot be independently verified."
Now, what can be independently verified, and has been, is that the DNC was hacked by two known Kremlin-backed hacking groups (source) and Podesta was also spearphished by one of those groups (source). It's still theoretically possible given what we know that the Russians got in but didn't do anything, and then WikiLeaks got access to the same information by other means. But it sure seems like a suspicious coincidence. Especially given Julian Assange's troubling pattern of pro-Russian behavior (source).
I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
"Will they be accused of bias?" Does a bear crap in the woods? Is the Pope reptiloid?
But I'm more concerned with what effect they think a nannying little message like "Before you share this story, you might want to know that independent fact-checkers disputed its accuracy" is going to have. That tone is only going to piss off people predisposed to believe the story.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
"Will they be accused of bias?" Does a bear crap in the woods? Is the Pope reptiloid?
But I'm more concerned with what effect they think a nannying little message like "Before you share this story, you might want to know that independent fact-checkers disputed its accuracy" is going to have. That tone is only going to piss off people predisposed to believe the story.
Unless they actually start curating (moving down or even removing) non-fact news articles. At which point we probably see the Conservapedia equivalent of Facebook form.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.naturalnews.com/2016-12-07-washington-post-admits-fake-news-propornot-source-defamation-craig-timberg.html
Remember when Naturalnews wrote that vaccines were causing the cancer epidemic?
Relevant quote:
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I think they make a pretty good case that the Washington Post's argument isn't good though. WP was making it out that the issue was very extensive, which seems at least a bit much.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Doesn't matter. They got something wrong once. It seems that Warghoul (who's just repeating Trump's twitter feed of course), is implying that means we shouldn't take this report seriously either.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
In a debate forum it is reasonable to talk about events the likes of this and to argue pro and against them before passing them off as conspiracy. (especially why this fake news scam has been brought up to try and discredit this). It is horrible to talk about elite pedophile rings, but if it is the truth then it should be discussed. The truth should always be the aim. But I can totally understand why it does not want to be talked about. But I guess an argument can be set up without using it with the likes of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
and vica-versa, if you could bring something to debate against with the current topic that would be nice.
"for lack of a better term..." this is sarcastic and degradation, if you want to debate please keep it civil. You are just trying to pass it off as crap. Sorry for the complement!
"Has it occurred to you that Russia might want to intentionally make it look like they would start a war with Clinton to favor Trump in order to help their actual agenda? Because that seems like quite a plausible idea to me."
Now that you mention it, it seems plausible. But with the way things are going in Syria and Hillary wanting to implement a no fly-zone over there which would lead the US to shoot down Russian fighters. Russia has been invited there to fight against ISIS and the rebels, while US and allies are there illegally (according to UN law).
"And both the CIA and FBI agreed that Russia deliberately interfered in this election."
And I did too. I was supporting Trump to not get Hillary elected.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
"They got something wrong one.." That made my day right there.
They are the same thing though. The Craig Timberg article as in the OP is using Propornot as a source. The NaturalNews site does a pretty reasonable job of arguing that Propornot are not a good source, and therefore the article is lacking.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Conflict doesn't mean war though. Russia and the US have been in various sorts of conflict for decades, but it has never been actual war in that time.
I don't think Russia is being misleading that they would have conflict with Clinton over these sorts of things, but I think they may well be posturing about actual armed conflict.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
That assumes that we should pay some attention to the argument itself, rather than just dismissing the claim entirely because the source was wrong about something once. There seems to be little room for this in the post I was quoting.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also this news just came up:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html
"EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers"
*Daily mail is now "crap"... LOL!*
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I take issue with only one word "now". It always has been and unless it has a radical restructuring it always will be a badly disguised propaganda rag designed to inflame a certain viewpoint. Back in the Thirtys they were unapologetic supporters of the Nazi's both in Germany and at home in Mosley's blackshirts. Not much has changed now with them hanging on the coat tails of both the Chinese and the Russians. They have earned there nickname of the Daily Fail several times over!
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Aside from examples like that, sure, a crackdown on fake news is totally liberal censorship. You broke the code.
He could start with how most of the original members left around 2011 and since then Assange keeps getting caught out posting unsupported conspiracy theories while also pruning anti-Russian material from the site.
Art is life itself.
How you are discrediting it... Or is it just: Typho0n posted it so now its crap and therefore discredited... ?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
So you are saying bias is a type of discrediting? Yes! (Sounds like progress in this 'debate'). Washington post has left-wing bias so therefore now discredited...
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
He wasn't trying to discredit it in that post. He was asking what specifically about Wikileaks you would like to discuss.
I want to 'debate' "specifically" how he is going to discredit it. :S
Edit: Wikileaks claim to have a 100% Truthful publishing, so anything he can come up with will discredit it.
How about starting with Julian Assange himself saying that is was not the Russians!
They paid trolls to affect the election LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But still waiting on actual evidence.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I edited it above, but lets go with Julian Assnage himself saying it was not the Russians.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/julian-assange-russian-government-not-source-of-leaked-dnc-and-podesta-emails-wikileaks-editor-contradicts-cia-claims-in-new-interview-35300175.html
It seems like other people are discrediting whole sights, via "Right-wing bias", instead of going into a specific article and discrediting that. It seems the 'goal posts' are moving...
Maybe you want to go back on this one and discredit it specifically: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Now, what can be independently verified, and has been, is that the DNC was hacked by two known Kremlin-backed hacking groups (source) and Podesta was also spearphished by one of those groups (source). It's still theoretically possible given what we know that the Russians got in but didn't do anything, and then WikiLeaks got access to the same information by other means. But it sure seems like a suspicious coincidence. Especially given Julian Assange's troubling pattern of pro-Russian behavior (source).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
But I'm more concerned with what effect they think a nannying little message like "Before you share this story, you might want to know that independent fact-checkers disputed its accuracy" is going to have. That tone is only going to piss off people predisposed to believe the story.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.