With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Dill]

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: [url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Fakenews-from-HuffPo?pid=323553#pid323553][/url]The article is not vey deep. That doesn't make it fake news. It is concerning if a far right Austrian party, which is also forging connections with Russia, met with Trump's conspiracy pushing National Security Adviser. You can't call that fake news because the factual history of the party's founder is mentioned along with Trump's bigotry, and then claim you are concerned about standards.

Journalistic standards are not upheld by calling every act of judgment you don't like an "opinion." Why isn't everything you have said about the Huffpo article an "opinion"? Other than bare assertion, you don't seem to have any means of distinguishing between opinion and fact. We get your own intuition followed by appeal to consensus. And a repetition of that if I question it. You do no research to establish the FPO founder was not a Nazi. You don't define what a bigot is or is not.

If the press calls someone a bank robber, it matters whether the person has actually robbed banks. If he has robbed banks, then mentioning this is not "editorializing", and you are destroying standards, not upholding them, when you claim it is only a journalist's "opinion" that the bank robber is a bank robber. You are hardly exposing hypocrisy.

And this brings us back to my critique of right wing media and discourse. When evidence, logic, and the facts work against you, you call everything "opinion." When others carefully lay out standards for distinguishing fact from opinion, you don't contribute. You dismiss all that as just more "opinion". As long as everything is opinion, then no one's opinion is better than any one else's. There is no effort to define and build and apply principles or standards. You claim I "ignore" statements but you won't provide examples. Once again we are at the point where you can offer nothing but quips, deflections and reports of how you feel. It may be that you really see no difference between that and constructing an extended argument--defining terms, researching points, deriving logically consistent conclusions from vetted premises. Looks like this vein has been mined out.
.............................................................................................................................................................................
You've officially become boring.  Endless restatement does not make your utterly inane drivel any less inane.  #fakepost

While we are on the subject of standards--

I remembered the above gem from your "Fake News from Huffpost" thread--A gentle reminder that this is not the first time we have disagreed over standards--you taking the lazy low road and I the high.  Your bald-assertive style was in full flower on that thread: unsupported claims followed by personal invective, over and over again.

I was explaining how one sets up and operates definitions to produce judgments differing sides to a debate could agree on, something other than "just opinion," and you were busy calling everything you did not like "fake news" and "opinion" and denigrating my efforts to raise the discussion out of the mud.

And not much has changed.  

(05-07-2017, 03:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please calm down with your histrionic about personal attacks.  You and GM make this accusation so often it has lost all meaning.  Disagreement with your assertions, as illustrated above, is none of the things you just claimed.  As for stifling debate, you're doing it again right here.  The funny thing is you don't seem to realize this.

We make this accusation often. Yes. So why do you call people names and belittle them, then accuse THEM of stifling debate?  The moderators ask us not to use personal attack. It brings down the level of discussion. Why do you ignore this standard? Can you tell invective from argument?

Accusing me of plagiarism (as if somewhere out there on the internet someone has already written answers to your specific posts and I am just copying them) and ignoring all requests for proof (beyond your intuition), is another form of personal attack.  It is also a way of avoiding substantive argument ("scroll up"), to keep the discussion spinning away from a close consideration of questions like whether Islam possess a threat (cultural suicide!) to Western Civilization and who can speak expertly on the subject.   

The plagiarism accusation brings me to another point fusing style and standards--the frequency of pointless quips instead of argument.  "If you say so." "I love it when you condescend to me, it turns me on."  Why don't you see that as just shooting blanks?  What have you accomplished?

So the difference in standards is one reason why we have such difficulty discussing matters.  That and the general lop-sidedness in effort--me taking care to make solid points supported with examples, you pointing to my quotes and making unsupported claims and quips accompanied by personal invective.  A discussion with Masterp on Islam goes straight as an arrow, no side issues generated by personal invective and unsupported claims.  With you, the discourse spins off in a dozen different directions as you "answer every point" (LOL).

This is my second post in 24 hours on the issue of standards, so I will leave the matter for now and go back to assessing the Islamic threat to Western Civilization.  

A suggestion: If you have some quips, invective, unsupported accusations and one-line "arguments," present them in response to this post.  If you have something substantive to say about the issue of Islam and Western Civilization, address it to the post which follows. See if you can develop a substantive argument with links, examples, clear definitions, and conclusions which follow from premises--but no quips.