White terrorist kills muslims with car

[Dill]

(06-24-2017, 02:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, except you phrased it to look like that's precisely what you were doing.  You're a dishonest poster, you engage in this conduct all the time then claim innocence when you get called on it.
And know you're doing it again.  Wanting honest, fact based, opinion free reporting is not associated with any news channel, paper or organization.
As any lawyer will tell you, deliberately omitting a pertinent fact is the same as lying.  You don't mind lying from journalists, I do.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

So you call me a liar for what AT WORST was ambiguous phrasing. When I restated your position without the ambiguity ("you are upholding a principle Fox and audience put forward as a journalistic standard--"we report, you decide"), you repeat the claim I am somehow lying.

Then you go on to defend the very position I impute to you--but also adding more descriptors like "honest" as if I had implied people don't want honest reporting. Next you assert that I "don't mind lying from journalists."  Since I do mind lying from journalists, you are imputing to me something I don't believe and certainly never said. By the standard you apply to me, that would make you a liar.

This accusatory style of yours makes it very difficult to engage in serious discussion. You frequently turn away from the substance of a discussion to unleash personal invective and accusations on people you disagree with (remember "copypasta"?). And yet, time after time, thread after thread, you have thrown me challenging questions and I have answered them directly and substantively. When you ask for further clarification, I do not dismiss the request. I respond. This is the "conduct I engage in all the time." You cannot say you've done the same.

I am not sure whether the accusations are a deliberate tactic, a means of defending you your beliefs by throwing up smoke and diversions, or that you are just unaware of any other way of proceeding, so you respond scattershot to differing premises and conclusions with no intent or ability to address the whole other than with one-liners and broad generalizations.  When you feel threatened, you turn the threat back on your interlocutors as quickly as you can. I ignore much of this, as I ignore most of the personal invective. But sometimes, like now, I think it important to restate some important principles of civil discussion about politics.

There might be people out there who are interested in a discussion of what counts as sound journalism. They might even be willing to participate. But no one is interested in listening to people argue over who is lying. That is a thread killer.