Trump now accused of colluding....

[Vlad]

(09-14-2018, 05:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was clearly expressed within the article.

Then point to it.


As I've said, the title leaves much to be desired. I'm not going to argue that the ignorant will stop at the title and use that to form an opinion as it is clear that has happened.

Which is exactly the point. The misleading, Trump bashing title.
I didn't post this to talk about global warming, or whether it's a hoax or not a hoax.


Negligence and complicitness are not mutually exclusive. Per the OED definition, passive compliance, which is negligence, is being complicit. So the word choice is accurate, it just has a more judgemental tone to it.

Ok, so out of one side of your mouth you say the title left much to be desired, and on the other you say the word choice is accurate?
Take a stance already.

"Complicit" is certainly more judgemental...all the reason why "negligence" is more appropriate....duh.


The extremes experienced as a result of climate change are happening on a constant basis, so I'm not sure what this argument is about.

Well, it's not about climate change. I explained why I posted this thread.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't think you get to excuse the title of the article.

If I titled an article Trump finds cure for cancer and then the article went on to discuss how Trump is looking for cures. Would that be fake news?

As I said: Which side is more hard-headed

Did the author select the title? Is the content of the actual piece factually inaccurate or the argument logically invalid? Those are things I look for in a case of "fake news." Though I also look for a piece to actually be news rather than an opinion piece since opinion pieces are by their very nature subjective. So crying "fake news" about opinion pieces lessens the effect, anyway.

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 06:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did the author select the title? Is the content of the actual piece factually inaccurate or the argument logically invalid? Those are things I look for in a case of "fake news." Though I also look for a piece to actually be news rather than an opinion piece since opinion pieces are by their very nature subjective. So crying "fake news" about opinion pieces lessens the effect, anyway.

Your definition of fake news aside: I didn't cry fake news. I said it could be labeled as fake news. Eat a snickers.

You didn't answer the question I posed.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 06:32 PM)Vlad Wrote: Then point to it.

You mean, in addition to the quote you pulled from it which said that when it comes to extreme weather Trump is complicit? I find that pretty clear.

(09-14-2018, 06:32 PM)Vlad Wrote: Which is exactly the point. The misleading, Trump bashing title.
I didn't post this to talk about global warming, or whether it's a hoax or not a hoax.

It's an opinion piece. This is a person presenting their opinion. You can discuss the facts used in the argument. You can analyze the logic used to arrive at their conclusion. At the end of the day, though, this is the author's opinion. An opinion can't be a hoax because it isn't someone claiming something is an objective fact.

(09-14-2018, 06:32 PM)Vlad Wrote: Ok, so out of one side of your mouth you say the title left much to be desired, and on the other you say the word choice is accurate?
Take a stance already.

"Complicit" is certainly more judgemental...all the reason why "negligence" is more appropriate....duh.

If you were to read my response you would see that I see the word choice of complicit is appropriate, however tying it to the hurricane currently hitting the country is not. Therefore, my problem is with the title and not the content of the article because the article ties it to extreme weather in general.

And again, we're dealing with an opinion piece which inserts judgement. Were we talking about hard news or analysis, then a more neutral word choice is definitely appropriate, but opinion pieces get free reign.

(09-14-2018, 06:32 PM)Vlad Wrote: Well, it's not about climate change. I explained why I posted this thread.

Then I don't understand what you are talking about with that argument at all.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 06:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your definition of fake news aside: I didn't cry fake news. I said it could be labeled as fake news. Eat a snickers.

You didn't answer the question I posed.

I didn't answer it because it was a rhetorical. A faulty one, but still a rhetorical.

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 06:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't answer it because it was a rhetorical. A faulty one, but still a rhetorical.

The question was not rhetorical as my intent was to get an answer (maybe that's why it was faulty). But I do understand why you chose not to answer it.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 07:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The question was not rhetorical as my intent was to get an answer (maybe that's why it was faulty). But I do understand why you chose not to answer it.

Are you sure? Given my previously stated position that the title was clickbait and my position that opinion pieces can't really be fake news since they aren't news, but opinions, I don't fall into either category.

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 07:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Are you sure? Given my previously stated position that the title was clickbait and my position that opinion pieces can't really be fake news since they aren't news, but opinions, I don't fall into either category.

Getting a simple answer is often like pulling teeth. As you said the person that wrote the oped didn't label the article; the newspaper did vis-a-vis, the publication was guilty of fake news.

But as I said; Which side is more hard-headed. I do appreciate you providing illumination to the validity of the question.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 07:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Getting a simple answer is often like pulling teeth. As you said the person that wrote the oped didn't label the article; the newspaper did vis-a-vis, the publication was guilty of fake news.

But as I said; Which side is more hard-headed. I do appreciate you providing illumination to the validity of the question.

It's not news, it's an opinion piece, so there is no fake news.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't think you get to excuse the title of the article.

If I titled an article Trump finds cure for cancer and then the article went on to discuss how Trump is looking for cures. Would that be fake news?

As I said: Which side is more hard-headed

The people who deny that pollution effects our weather are much more hard headed than people who read the entire story instead of just the title.



There is massive amounts of scientific evidence that pollution effects our weather, and there is also massive amounts of evidence that reading nothing but the title of an article and calling it "fake news" is just stupid.   How can you call a story "fake news" when you don't even know what it says?  

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 07:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The people who deny that pollution effects our weather are much more hard headed than people who read the entire story instead of just the title.



There is massive amounts of scientific evidence that pollution effects our weather, and there is also massive amounts of evidence that reading nothing but the title of an article and calling it "fake news" is just stupid.   How can you call a story "fake news" when you don't even know what it says?  

Of course man has an effect on his environment and anyone that suggests otherwise is obtuse either purposely or by ignorance.

Of Course the Washington Post could be considered in participating in fake news when they title the article in their paper such as they did and anyone that suggests otherwise is obtuse either purposely or by ignorance.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 07:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Getting a simple answer is often like pulling teeth. 

That is because simple answers are for simple minds.

When you create a question that requires some exposition to answer don't complain when people can't respond with just a "yes" or "no".

Do you still have sex with other men?  "Yes" or "No"?

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 07:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not news, it's an opinion piece, so there is no fake news.

Okey Doke. I see you have your heels dug in. The newspaper titled the opinion piece and the title is fake.

At this point I'm just talking to myself as I fear you have our fingers in your ears going lalalalalala. Enjoy your weekend,

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 07:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of Course the Washington Post could be considered in participating in fake news when they title the article in their paper such as they did and anyone that suggests otherwise is obtuse either purposely or by ignorance.

Wrong.  It is complete ignorance to just read the title and not the complete story.

Only a Trump sycophant would label something "Fake News" with out even reading it.


"I don't know what it says but it is "Fake News". Derp."

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke. I see you have your heels dug in. The newspaper titled the opinion piece and the title is fake.

At this point I'm just talking to myself as I fear you have our fingers in your ears going lalalalalala. Enjoy your weekend,

The title of an opinion piece, which is stating an opinion, isn't fake. Unless you can say with certainty the author does not have that opinion, which you can't. I can't help reading articles with a more critical eye and not falling into the trend of using words for things that don't apply to them. When you apply the term fake so loosely, the word loses meaning.

[ballsofsteel]

If kavanaugh doesn't answer rhetorical questions then Bels shouldn't have to either.

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 07:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  It is complete ignorance to just read the title and not the complete story.

Only a Trump sycophant would label something "Fake News" with out even reading it.


"I don't know what it says but it is "Fake News". Derp."

So you've read the complete story of every title you've ever read?

The title is fake

The title was written by a news outlet.

As I said: It's simply a question of which you consider more hard-headed. Nobody likes to be shown how they are exactly what they propose to slur.

Do you care to answer the question that was in the too hard to do block for Matt?

If the title of an article is Trump cures cancer and then the article goes on to only discuss his desire to find a cure; is it fake news?

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 08:39 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: If kavanaugh doesn't answer rhetorical questions then Bels shouldn't have to either.

Of course no one has to answer questions, but much can be derived from their decision not to.

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 07:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is because simple answers are for simple minds.

When you create a question that requires some exposition to answer don't complain when people can't respond with just a "yes" or "no".

Do you still have sex with other men?  "Yes" or "No"?

No.

Do you have a followup

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-13-2018, 02:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...as you should. Of course. As far as I know, there's no definite answer to that anyway. What is pretty clear by now is that water temperature plays a major role in forming hurricanes. It's also a fact that anthropogenic CO2 emissions rose the level of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly. In scientifically accepted theory, this leads to warmer years. Are there warmer years? Yes.
And with warmer years, oceans get warmer too, hence increased likelihood of more and stronger hurricanes.

I'd figure a connection between global warming and more/stronger hurricanes seems extremely likely. Is it a fact, I wouldn't dare say. The thing I always wonder though is how climate change sceptics dare say so much. At some point, they have to be the ones 100% certain that such a thing as man-made climate change, with all its consequences (not just hurricanes), does not exist. If they're wrong, the planet is in peril.

Now regarding earth's history, we sure can't say how hurricanes behaved thousands or millions of years ago. I don't think that's too relevant though. There are things mankind cannot change (like a new ice age) and things it can change.
In that sense, it makes no sense to blame Trump or his policies for current hurricanes, to me it makes some sense to blame a "bad" environmental policy [of course along with 1.000 other things Trump or no one can change] for an increased intensity or appearance of future hurricanes.

I understand a lot of what you're saying here, but this hurricane is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

Satellites show it to be a Cat4/5 or whatever out in the ocean. Doom is predicted. It finally hits land as just a Cat 1 and promptly turns into a mere Tropical Storm.

Before satellites were streaming live information about all over the world, would anyone have ever know that the hurricane was originally a Cat 4/5 out in the ocean? Or would they have just known it landed as a 1, and stopped being a hurricane pretty much instantly?

That's my problem with throwing out a stat like "double the Cat 4/5 since 1970!