The call to CENSOR is what the means of ‘misinformation’ do. In comparison, it ‘redirects’ ones attention onto their POLITICAL enemies. I have no problem knowing how to recognize ‘misinformation’ and don’t welcome the BELIEF that the ONLY means of fighting it is to censor. In fact, given my own relative isolation when speaking in ‘political’ forums as a liberal-sided defender, I seem to be very ABLE to appropriately alter the views of those extremes. The point is that the supposed NEED to censor is suspicious given that I don’t see where the actual investments to PARTICIPATE exist.
You are still being ‘short’ with me here. Why are you administrating a site that requires actual depth and logic to promote others to be more ‘skeptical’ when you come across as supporting faith over reasoning? Your curt responses are NOT ‘succinct’. Succinctness is a compression of something that minimally preserves what a longer argument holds. It is not a justified excuse to write less where it LACKS the ability to represent the ‘uncompressed’ essentials of an arugment.
As for being short, you are still being long. I’m mostly a participant. I have no obligation to engage with you. There is no rule that says I have sort out your entire gish gallop.
Some twisting, but mostly responding to assumed thoughts in my head. Psychologists, or people who are skilled at conversing, call it “mind reading”. And I’ve seen people claiming I’m “reading their minds” too, especially in online conversations, so, hopefully I’m not guilty of that. It’s okay to make some assumptions, or to jump ahead in the conversation based on prior experience, but too much of it throws everything off.
This conversation is way beyond the point where people have realized they aren’t connecting. Scott just keeps piling it on though. So, he gets annoyed when I don’t respond to something like “why are YOU not noticing the risk?” I don’t know what to add to explain that I see the risk of a “filtering” program, and I see the risk of misinformation, and I’ve weighed the two.
Or, “That the mere fact of being able to redirect as censorship is itself INTOLERANT and seems to not bother you?” Not sure why he thinks I’m not bothered, or how he boils that down to a “mere fact”.
Thankyou? Credibility to debate relies on showing how other people’s words are ‘twisted’. I don’t use magic, I base my arguments on formal logic, and only use rhetoric to enhance it, not in place of it.
Yeah but if you think about it, that’s the number one Republican tactic, misrepresent what their “enemies” are actually saying and instead, project their own worst ideas upon others - with fabricated nonsense.
The difference between an honest constructive sciencie dialogue, as opposed to the GOP’s lawyerly, cynical, win at all costs debate for fun and profit, but never for truth or constructive learning.
So, what you are saying is that these billion-dollar private news companies (excluding Fox) that are supposed to be in competition of the news dollars. Have all decide not to cover the Russian point of view. And the government has banned the Russian News. Just like the lab source, Russian Dossier, and the laptop. That along with the Democratic leadership may get us in a nuclear conflict. This isn’t rocket science. We have thousands and thousands of years of developing the Rules of Laws. So, who is not following the Rules of Laws. Russia or the US? How would the public know if the data is all one sided?
That is not the question. The question is if Eastern Ukraine is fighting against Ukraine.
If not, then Russia has no business “liberating” Eastern Ukraine.
Mexico is not trying to liberate Texas because there are a lot of Chicanos living there.
France is not liberating Eastern Canada, because the s[peak French there.
Russia is no better than NAZI Germany trying to "consolidate " its territory (lebensraum).
The problem is no one wants to join Russia. OTOH, lots of countries would love to join NATO, a voluntary defensive coop in order to avoid being usurped by Russia.
And from recent history (like yesterday) it is no wonder that independent countries fear Russia. They have been there and done that under Soviet rule and they don’t want to go back.
And the Solomon Islands want to enter into a defensive agreement with China, yet guess what? The US is most unhappy about that idea, yet Solomon Islands are a sovereign country and surely have as much right pursue their own defensive measures as Ukraine does, after all they are both sovereign countries are they not?
Finally NATO are not a “defensive” alliance, that is a lie, nothing more than a lie you’ve been told.
This is very true. They can’t even state or discuss the facts. It has to be “alternative facts”, which means lies and then their supporters believe the lies and then repeat them and you know what they say about lies… repeat it long enough and loud enough… Except those who know the truth won’t even get sucked into the lies if they stay focused on the real facts.
I argued that NATO is not a defensive alliance, if you disagree with that statement then just say so.
NATO currently have camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, a part of Serbia that was seized (with the help of the the terrorist KLA) against the will of the Serbian government after being bombed by the “defensive” NATO alliance in 1999. (Note - Serbia had not attacked any NATO member state, in fact they were our allies during WW2 and suffered under Fascism).
The United States Army had been criticized for using the base as a detention facility housing detainees who were suspected of terrorism.[6] In November 2005, Álvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe described the camp as a “smaller version of Guantanamo” following a visit.[7][8][9] The US Army denied the accusation and stated that there were no secret detention facilities in the Camp.[10]