Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Ok. So if it's a link to something you approve of then it's to be taken seriously (i.e.a PC one).

Er!? No, a newspaper that generally has to check facts. You got stuff from the Times, the Telegraph, Le Monde, Le Parisien, Le Figaro, et al then I'll take it more seriously but boobtube or interweeb 'news-sites' I treat with the scepticism you say is a good thing.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:07 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Ok. So if it's a link to something you approve of then it's to be taken seriously (i.e.a PC one).

Er!? No, a newspaper that generally has to check facts. You got stuff from the Times, the Telegraph, Le Monde, Le Parisien, Le Figaro, et al then I'll take it more seriously but boobtube or interweeb 'news-sites' I treat with the scepticism you say is a good thing.

There's an art to being sceptical. And how do you know how well any of those papers have 'checked facts'? Are there any real journalists left? Very few if here is anything to go by. I think the 'media studies' mickey mouse 'degree' is a world-wide phenomenon. 'Investigative journalism' now means doing a quick web search.
It's odd. You have admitted yourself that you don't give a damn about muslim refugees, yet you have a hissy fit when anyone says something that muslims might be 'offended' by, whether or not it's true. How typically PC.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:There's an art to being sceptical. And how do you know how well any of those papers have 'checked facts'? ...

Don't know about your country but it's law here.

Are there any real journalists left? Very few if here is anything to go by. I think the 'media studies' mickey mouse 'degree' is a world-wide phenomenon. 'Investigative journalism' now means doing a quick web search. ...

I think the broadsheets still have a higher standard.

It's odd. You have admitted yourself that you don't give a damn about muslim refugees, yet you have a hissy fit when anyone says something that muslims might be 'offended' by, whether or not it's true. How typically PC. ...

You're just making stuff up now. Unlike you, I think, I've stood face-to-face and challenged the fundamentalist Muslim brigade but again unlike you, I think, I also have some Muslim friends. Personally I find it odd that you are at odds with the fundamentalist Muslim as they are the epitome of non-PC and like you hate America and Americans.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:02 am Ok. So if it's a link to something you approve of then it's to be taken seriously.

What do you expect?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:30 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:There's an art to being sceptical. And how do you know how well any of those papers have 'checked facts'? ...

Don't know about your country but it's law here.

Are there any real journalists left? Very few if here is anything to go by. I think the 'media studies' mickey mouse 'degree' is a world-wide phenomenon. 'Investigative journalism' now means doing a quick web search. ...

I think the broadsheets still have a higher standard.

It's odd. You have admitted yourself that you don't give a damn about muslim refugees, yet you have a hissy fit when anyone says something that muslims might be 'offended' by, whether or not it's true. How typically PC. ...

You're just making stuff up now. Unlike you, I think, I've stood face-to-face and challenged the fundamentalist Muslim brigade but again unlike you, I think, I also have some Muslim friends. Personally I find it odd that you are at odds with the fundamentalist Muslim as they are the epitome of non-PC and like you hate America and Americans.

I'm not making stuff up. Actually it was specifically Syrian refugees you said you don't give a damn about. You know you said that. People don't forget what they write, unless they are going senile.
You would find that 'odd' because you can only think politically, without any real logic and reasoning or respect for what's true. If you can think in that way then 'sides' become irrelevant.
If fact checking is 'law' there then why are you concerned about which publications are quoted?

''The venerable online activist crew known as the Gay N—er Association of America (GNAA) decided to have some fun with racist assumptions in the media, and the Daily Mail fell for it hook, line, and sinker. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the GNAA began posting to the Twitter hashtag #SandyLootCrew images of African Americans (including some GNAA members) pretending to steal as many ludicrous items as they could think of, along with over-the-top comments. These included a woman holding a mannequin (“LAST NIGHT EVEN MOMMA GOT OUTTA HER HOUSE TO LOOT ME A NEW SHIRT . . . LUV U MOMMA”), a kitten (“N–GA I JUS STOLE A CAT OUTTA SUM1S HOUSE GET ON MY LEVEL”), and a wide-screen television (“PICS OF MY BOY DEMARCUS SWIPING THAT TV”). The original photos were either unrelated to looting or connected to earlier events like Hurricane Francis and Hurricane Katrina.''
As an aside though, what point exactly were they making? It's not as if there isn't a shortage of photos and videos of people looting. I suppose it's a 'logic' only the PC can understand.

It weird. The lights go out in a US city and the first thing people think is 'Lets go and break windows and steal stuff'. We have power cuts here fairly often. I don't recall anything like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts85TH-jaD4

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:00 pm "More than happy to engage in a conversation about "the poorly run, philosophically deranged, Venezuelan government"."

Well, I'm not in-forum enough these days to make a decent troll attack, much less have a conversation, but we can do a little back n forth if you can put up delays.

I know the feeling. Thank you for taking the time.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:00 pm"What is your case?"

Consider...

V has oil out the wazoo...big bucks were flowin' in to the country for a long time...The gov, by way of Chavez, didn't do shit to save a dime of it.

Well, he was putting the revenue into improved infrastructure and services for the people of Venezuela.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:00 pmV has a fine hydroelectric power system...so fine V coulda sold surplus power and squirreled some that money away for a rainy day...Chavez, of course, didn't do that.

Venezuela has a cash flow problem, certainly, but they still have massive oil reserves, and their national debt is under 30% of their Gross Domestic Product, compared to almost 90% for the UK and over 100% for the US. I don't think we have much to teach them about squirrelling away.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:00 pmChavez 'nationalized' (took over) a sizable chunk of the private sector (promptly runnin' that chunk into the ground).

You'll need to provide some stats to back that up.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:00 pmV has set price controls (discouraging innovation [if I can't, by edict, profit, then why the hell should I try?]).

Ok. What price controls have been set, and why would those specific controls discourage innovation?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:00 pmThe new fella Maduro(sic) has done nuthin' to change things...he makes things worse, in fact, by reworkin' the gov in a way that -- surprise, surprise -- favors the gov.

The power base of Venezuela is the population, it is after all a democracy. The fact is that most people in Venezuela are better off, even now, than they were before Chavez was elected. In that respect, the government is the people and, surprise, surprise, the people voted to be better off.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:00 pmNow, I don't know that any of the above falls strictly under the umbrella of formal 'socialism' but absolutely all of the above falls under the umbrella of 'communitarianism' (which I consider socialism a strain of).

Socialism is a very broad term, the defining feature of which is social ownership of facilities, natural resources or the means of production. As such, it is hated by some capitalists, who want the right to own everything. Owning the product of your own efforts, manual or intellectual, is fair enough, and people who contribute should be rewarded. Personally, I don't think that natural resources, water or minerals, oil for example, should be owned by individuals. I believe that leaving health and education to private individuals leads to services that only serve the owners, and I think the media should be scrutinised to ensure that it doesn't simply report things favourable to the owners. The worst of it, in my view, is that lack of any control of banking results in so much debt (because that is what money is-the promise to pay), that countries such as the UK and US can sell the goodwill of people whose grandparents haven't been born yet, to plutocrats. What makes a few thousand people richer than the industrialised world is that our great, great, great (as many as you like) grandchildren, will still be paying them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:00 pmIt is the unfortunate direction the U.S. is bein' pushed, poked, and prodded in (which is why I point to V when talkin' with local folks: 'is this what you want, here, in Louisiana?').

That's really isn't the way the US is being pushed. What the people in Louisiana want is nobodies business but theirs, but what the US as a whole has chosen is to be nearly $20 trillion in debt.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm not making stuff up. ...

You are about my 'PC'ness.

Actually it was specifically Syrian refugees you said you don't give a damn about. You know you said that. People don't forget what they write, unless they are going senile. ...

You'll have to quote me as apparently I'm having a senior moment.

You would find that 'odd' because you can only think politically, without any real logic and reasoning or respect for what's true. If you can think in that way then 'sides' become irrelevant.
If fact checking is 'law' there then why are you concerned about which publications are quoted?

Er!? Because the interweeb 'news-sites' aren't subject to UK law.

''The venerable online activist crew known as the Gay N—er Association of America (GNAA) decided to have some fun with racist assumptions in the media, and the Daily Mail fell for it hook, line, and sinker. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the GNAA began posting to the Twitter hashtag #SandyLootCrew images of African Americans (including some GNAA members) pretending to steal as many ludicrous items as they could think of, along with over-the-top comments. These included a woman holding a mannequin (“LAST NIGHT EVEN MOMMA GOT OUTTA HER HOUSE TO LOOT ME A NEW SHIRT . . . LUV U MOMMA”), a kitten (“N–GA I JUS STOLE A CAT OUTTA SUM1S HOUSE GET ON MY LEVEL”), and a wide-screen television (“PICS OF MY BOY DEMARCUS SWIPING THAT TV”). The original photos were either unrelated to looting or connected to earlier events like Hurricane Francis and Hurricane Katrina.''
As an aside though, what point exactly were they making? It's not as if there isn't a shortage of photos and videos of people looting. I suppose it's a 'logic' only the PC can understand. ...

I don't see the DM as a broadsheet.

It weird. The lights go out in a US city and the first thing people think is 'Lets go and break windows and steal stuff'. We have power cuts here fairly often. I don't recall anything like that.

I think you mean 'some people' and over here when the lights went out in Streatham some people did exactly that, I guess it depends upon the area.