Jump to content

  • OVF player sponsorship 2022

    £10 to enter. More details and a link to donate can be found here

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Aussie Rules
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, hillmanhunter said:

OK. Let me try a different tack.  You say BBC/ITV/CH4 and Sky have lied a lot. Can you show us some of these lies and also how you verified that they were actually wrong?

Largely peaceful protest is one I simply cannot get over.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


11 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Largely peaceful protest is one I simply cannot get over.

 

 

You called the capitol insurrection attempt a scuffle. 
 

The news reported that 93% of the BLM protests have been peaceful. Was that wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

You called the capitol insurrection attempt a scuffle. 
 

The news reported that 93% of the BLM protests have been peaceful. Was that wrong? 

 

You called the scuffle an insurrection by terrorists.

 

Yes the coverage of BLM protests was horrific. They lied about the whole thing. It wasn't peaceful. It was hijacked by extremists and the state broadcaster refused to cover it properly.

 

Have you ever seen any other protest being assigned a percentage of peacefulness? I don't think any football lads or BNP style march would get that sort of coverage do you? 

Edited by Regal Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


Just now, hillmanhunter said:

I'm really interested in the process. How do you verify or refute news stories?

It depends on what the subject is and what information is available.

 

it's happened a few times on here where someone has misrepresented a court finding and used a media article to back it up. I've gone to find the actual public document to make my mind up and it turns out that the article was wrong. That's a good example.

 

Another good one is when people have used media articles from unknown journalists to back up a claim - such as the Brexit bus was a lie - but the EU's own website showed that the figure was accurate. 

 

Another good one is the Trump hoaxes - like when he said Nazi's were fine people (he never said that). Stuff that is easily verifiable by finding the original source of the story and the dishonest part is the selective quoting or taking out of context. 

 

I think step one is to be cautious of things that don't seem right at first glance -this is where we are all biased. It's why Andyregs can dismiss youtube videos without actually having to engage with the content of them. It's why I've seen Carole Cadwalldr's namein the past and just thought "i'm not even wasting my time with this garbage"

But the second part is to test the actual arguments being made. find alternative sources, and i don't mean copied and pasted versions of the same article. 

 

 

If you can identify patterns of dishonesty, like I believe I have with the sources i mentioned before, then it's fair enough to treat them as lies until proven otherwise. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

 

You called the scuffle an insurrection by terrorists.

 

Yes the coverage of BLM protests was horrific. They lied about the whole thing. It wasn't peaceful. It was hijacked by extremists and the state broadcaster refused to cover it properly.

 

Have you ever seen any other protest being assigned a percentage of peacefulness? I don't think any football lads or BNP style march would get that sort of coverage do you? 

“An insurrection occurs whenever an organized and armed uprising takes place against the authority of the United States.’ 18 U.S.C § 2383

I suppose we could use the term sedition instead.

“sedition occurs whenever two or more people conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to oppose by force its authority.” 18 U.S.C. (U.S. Code) § 2384

I believe that covers it better than scuffle. 

The percentage was given in response to claims like yours. I assume it includes violence instigated by the police as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

It depends on what the subject is and what information is available.

 

it's happened a few times on here where someone has misrepresented a court finding and used a media article to back it up. I've gone to find the actual public document to make my mind up and it turns out that the article was wrong. That's a good example.

 

Another good one is when people have used media articles from unknown journalists to back up a claim - such as the Brexit bus was a lie - but the EU's own website showed that the figure was accurate. 

 

Another good one is the Trump hoaxes - like when he said Nazi's were fine people (he never said that). Stuff that is easily verifiable by finding the original source of the story and the dishonest part is the selective quoting or taking out of context. 

 

I think step one is to be cautious of things that don't seem right at first glance -this is where we are all biased. It's why Andyregs can dismiss youtube videos without actually having to engage with the content of them. It's why I've seen Carole Cadwalldr's namein the past and just thought "i'm not even wasting my time with this garbage"

But the second part is to test the actual arguments being made. find alternative sources, and i don't mean copied and pasted versions of the same article. 

 

 

If you can identify patterns of dishonesty, like I believe I have with the sources i mentioned before, then it's fair enough to treat them as lies until proven otherwise. 

 

Your claim was about CH4/BBC  etc. Not people on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


44 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Another good one is when people have used media articles from unknown journalists to back up a claim - such as the Brexit bus was a lie - but the EU's own website showed that the figure was accurate. 

 

Weren’t you defending the use of a random youtuber as a source the other day?

and I did engage the content. Ive challenged you to defend the journalistic merits of what he said and the facts he has unearthed. You mentioned gaslighting?

Edited by Andyregs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyregs said:

“An insurrection occurs whenever an organized and armed uprising takes place against the authority of the United States.’ 18 U.S.C § 2383

I suppose we could use the term sedition instead.

“sedition occurs whenever two or more people conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to oppose by force its authority.” 18 U.S.C. (U.S. Code) § 2384

I believe that covers it better than scuffle. 

The percentage was given in response to claims like yours. I assume it includes violence instigated by the police as well. 

No that's fine if we're using actual definitions.

 

So BLM / Antifa are also insurrectionists.

 

It's just funny that I don't see that word mentioned in relation to those groups though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

No that's fine if we're using actual definitions.

 

So BLM / Antifa are also insurrectionists.

 

It's just funny that I don't see that word mentioned in relation to those groups though.

 

 

Fine. Show me when antifa attempted insurrection.

And downplaying what happened at the capitol as a scuffle just shows the laughable lengths you’ll go to for ‘your side’.

And the reason those words have never been used elsewhere is pretty clear. I mean, thanks for pointing out why you’re wrong. Obviously the reality you live in is different.

Edited by Andyregs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


3 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Yeah, and people on here post thing that they here political activists on C4/BBC etc say. 

No. You said your position is to automatically dismiss BBC etc until you find "further information". 

Where do you get this further information from and how do you know it's correct? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hillmanhunter said:

No. You said your position is to automatically dismiss BBC etc until you find "further information". 

Where do you get this further information from and how do you know it's correct? 

How many times do you want me to answer the same question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

Fine. Show me when antifa attempted insurrection.

And downplaying what happened at the capitol as a scuffle just shows the laughable lengths you’ll go to for ‘your side’.

Setting up autonomous zones with armed borders is a pretty good start.

 

Attacking courthouses and other Government buildings is another.

 

I mean we've seen news stories of this on going for almost a year at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    • Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please - Contact us here
    • If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here
    • Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here
  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...