And its clear youre just here to argue for arguments sake. I dont know if we are ever gonna get anywere
And its clear youre just here to argue for arguments sake. I dont know if we are ever gonna get anywere
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Actually it sounded like the argument was mostly over. You agreed man is affecting climate change and that your real concern was about how liberals use it to forward an agenda. Questioning political agenda is definitely valid as is questioning scientific findings with an actual scientific basis. But, questioning a scientific finding simply because it helps a political rival is not valid.Originally Posted by Vteckidd
If we agree that the scientific finding is valid, we can move on the real issue which is what is the appropriate response. That is a discussion worth having.
I dont believe its valid on the scale that they want to advance the narrative, how about that. I have NOT seen any credible evidence that climate change IE mans existence has impacted NEGATIVELY the climate we live in. Alaska is still cold, hawaii is still hot. I think both sides can make an argument, but not an infallible one.
I also can concede that man probably has had SOME impact on the environment but to what extent we cannot possibly know conclusively. If youre asking me if man causes polution? sure. does pollution cause climate change? not conclusively. not IMO.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
That sounds like a valid position to me even though I disagree.
I hope you don't think the evidence is as simple as "Alaska is still cold". I know it's refered to as global warming but many places on earth will actually get colder, that's why climate change is a more appropraite term. This is not a simple issue so you will not get obvious (to laymen such as you and me) evidence until it is already a huge problem.
What does your opinion have to do with this? Don't take it personally because my opinion doesn't matter either. Neither of us have truly studied the issue in depth necessary to make such judgements on our own. That's why I defer to those who have taken the time to look at the data and use emperical methods.
So do you think trial lawyers are left or right?
Unions?
Bankers?
Scientific community is just as political as any other organization the second it starts getting grants and subsidies from the govt. Sorry. You can pretend its not influenced but that's just sticking your head in the sand.
Fox is just as usable as MSNBC. But oreilly was raw video, you can't argue that. Not my problem you're biased.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
O'Reiley is just as usable for information as the Colbert report. The last time I watched MSNBC was when they had a special on Steve Jobs. Entertainment purposes only. I'm not biased. I'll watch O'Reiley, but only to hear what he has to say. He is only a character on television, just as stewart is, colbert is, peter griffin is. If you want to cite facts, cite actual studies. They're out there. Do some leg work.
Oreilly isn't comedy, its reporting. Clearly you haven't watched him its not even close to Colbert or Stewart
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Yes, one of the main tenants of journalism requires determining the difference between pinheads and patriots.
i suppose 60 minutes isnt real reporting either since they had andy rooney on. Nice try pinhead
I dont think it is up for debate by any rational human being right or left that Bill Oreilly just tells it like it is, he is not a comedy reporting team like stewart and colbert.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Fail to see the comparison you are making. Real reporting is based on the methods and intent of impartiality, not who is involved in the production. The pinheads and patriots segment clearly is making judgements which are opinion in nature and that by definition is not journalism.i suppose 60 minutes isnt real reporting either since they had andy rooney on. Nice try pinhead
I think you mean he tells it like you perceive it to be. Having a different world view is not a fault. All people have their own perspectives and filters through which they see the world even when presented with the same facts.
watch STEWART and watch COLBERT, even their "correspondents" are comedians. They arent reporting on anything real. Go watch Oreilly, he has RIGHT wing people on and LEFT wing. He has libertarians. He very rarely gives his own point of view. There is more journalism on his show than any other network .
Pinheads and Patriots is a funny thing he does at the end of the show to lighten everything up. Its no different than what Bret Baier does at the end of Special Report, or what NBC does at the end of their news casts, etc. Youre REALLY stretching with that one. Many of the PINHEADS are right wing, as well as left wing people, or people that just do dumb stuff that has nothing to do with political commentators. Watch it, it should be easy to spot.
So youve seen one of his last 10 second clips on his show and judge the entire show based on it? makes sense. /sarcasm.
my point was because Andy Rooney had funny opinion pieces at the end of 60 minutes do you think they are not legitimate news agency?
im about as non politcally affiliated as they come, im not a GOP or Democrat. I can see the bias in Hannity, i can see the bias in stewart (even though i like him). I can see the bias in Chris Matthews. that bias isnt with bill oreillyI think you mean he tells it like you perceive it to be. Having a different world view is not a fault. All people have their own perspectives and filters through which they see the world even when presented with the same facts.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Fox news creates climate confusion
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...servatives.ars
Skip the science, report the controversy
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...ontroversy.ars
Fox staff ordered to cast doubt on climate change
http://mediamatters.org/iphone/blog/201012150004
Fox news, fair and balanced you say? LOL. Faux news is the equivalent to the comedy channel, except it's not funny at all
I never said Fox News was infallible, no news organization is, i would say they are more slanted AGAINST climate change, that is an accurate statement, but that doesnt effect my opinion because i dont form opinions based on what fox news tells me. Dont confuse me using Bill oreiily links to videos as being brainwashed.
Did you even read the report. They werent ordered to cast ddoubt, they were told to :
They were told dont report things as FACTS when the "FACTS" are still being debated. The UN reports say the climate has warmed since 2000-2009, but point out that that is only once source, and its being debated whether or not hte measurements they took were accurate....we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
At the time that was true, as several of the scientists INVOLVED IN THE UN study had passed around emails claiming they had doctored it
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Bill O'Reiley is a smart man. I do watch his show sometimes. If he was smarter, he'd tell fox news to take a hike.
Fox news isn't entirely stupid either. They know everything about climate change and what's happening. But here's the thing. Their fan base is christian conservatives who don't believe in "change" or anything that happens that's not the work of their god, and Fox knows this. So guess what is gonna get viewership and page views? Politicians casting a dark shadow over the issues like evolution by saying "it's just a theory", and climate change by saying "what about all this dissenting data?"
Fox news: stop casting this black cloud of uncertainty, tell the whole truth, and I just might take you as a credible source of information.
Let me get this straight. You are going to question the reliability of Fox News based on a mediamatters article?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
No, based on an email Fox sent out. Read it. There are other sources for the email, that was just the first one I pulled up
mediamatters is way more left than fox is right, but the context of what you were trying to show is fine, ive seen that on several other sites as well.
however, like i said before, their job is to report all the facts. They report that the UN study says climate has gotten warmer, but several other scientists say it hasnt. They were the first to break climate gate, etc.
I dont see any wrongdoing in that particular issue. I will agree their reporting tends to be more anti climate change. but thats prob because every other organization is PRO climate change. to the point they wouldnt even report on climate gate
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
But accordingly to the Koch brothers funded investigation, there was no scandal in the supposed "climategate". So breaking a story that turns out to be false is nothing to be proud of. Good for the other news organizations for not reporting on a supposed scandal before the facts were in. Also I don't believe any news organization is PRO climate change, they are pro sensationalism and it just happens that climate change is pretty sensational. It would be interesting to compare how many stories were released about climategate compares to how many were released about investigations determining there was no wrong doing by the climate scientists.
Herman Cain and other candidates also support waterboarding...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...waterboarding/
I agree completely. Waterboarding is what put US intelligence onto the courier that eventually led to bin Laden.
When used by a pro it is a very effective technique that has no lasting effects.
I already know what you are going to say next too. If used by someone that goes overboard it can lead to death. This is why I say a pro can use it effectively. not jimbob from the local bar.
Torture is not effective. I could give you any answer you wanted to hear to get you to stop pouring water over my face.
Which is why it must be done by a pro that knows how to it. What questions to ask. How to phrase questions. How to use verifiable or already known to be true info in framing the questions. And I am sure there are a dozen more aspects to it that I dont know about.
Lol. No there's really not. People think torture is some elaborate thing to get people to talk. It's nature is elaborate in it's simplicity.
What if they have the wrong person? What if the guy you have really doesnt know the answers to the questions you're asking? What do you do in that case? What if you pass that breaking point
There is absolutely no line of questioning combined with any act of torture that could get someone to tell you something they dont know the answer to.
Last edited by .blank cd; 11-14-2011 at 11:19 PM.
well facts are that Waterboarding led to the death of Bin Laden and the capture of KSM. So it worked.
Im of the opinion that its not torture. Thats just my personal belief. But its also not a big issue to me either. I dont think its a huge thing to debate. If we dont do it, then whatever, im sure there are other techniques we use that are close to as effective. The argument youre using is retarded though. Its a circular argument.
"terrorist wont give up info because hes trained to resist"
"water boarding can make them answer falsley"
So what are we supposed to do offer them cookies and milk?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Actually it's not a fact that waterboarding led to the death of Bin Laden. There are many conflicting reports including those from the agents who actually interrogated KSM and the other detainees. In my opinion, it is somewhat irrelevant anyways as who can say whether other techniques wouldn't have been just as effective? As you aluded to, the ethics of waterboarding is more of a personal belief than a objectively right or wrong issue. However, the effectiveness of that technique may play a role in how a certain portion of the population feels about it.
According to Peter King, the chairman of the house homeland security committee, it did.
As I already said and you ignored. Any for of interrogation is useless unless you have part of the story already and just need to fill in blanks. In the case of KSM and the courier, the US already had some info on him, but not enough to identify him. With the info they did have, and though the use of several forms on enhanced interrogations, they got KSM to give up the info he did have, and that led to the positive ID of the courier.
You are correct in that torture is useless if you are just fishing for info with no real direction. You are also correct in that if not done correctly it can lead to the death or serious injury of the person being interrogated. Then again, you can say the same thing about the guy that changes the brakes on your car.
You quoted me but your response sounds like it was directed at someone else. I said there were conflicting reports. That means some people said waterboarding was influential in getting Bin Laden and others said it wasn't. So what's the point of mentioning Peter King when I already agreed people were on the record saying it was influential? Also I never said torture was useless. Nor did I said it can lead to death (of course it can but I never said that).
Generally there are two camps on torture:
1) Toture is necessary and can be effective if done right (the ends justifiy the means)
2) Toture is morally wrong regardless of its effectiveness (the ends do not justify the means)
And of course there is the problem of defining "toture" which is largely subjective. What is the line between making someone extremely uncomfortable and torture? There is no answer we can all agree on. I can tell you that studies have been done that show people who don't think waterboarding is torture, often change their mind once they are subjected to it.
Welp, one down...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
