Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fox news = false news
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 121 of 313 (616743)
05-24-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
05-24-2011 10:10 AM


I'm still not convinced that riding atvs is more dangerous than climbing trees. You're typing as if a little kid can just hop on a 500cc atv and be gowing 100 mph within a few seconds. (I doubt they could even get one of those started.)
I'm imagining a little 50cc automatic that putts around and is very easy to operate. That's what little kids ride and those are hardly dangerous at all.
But anyways, I can grant you that an atv is more dangerous. Now, where's the criminality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 10:10 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 10:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 122 of 313 (616745)
05-24-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 10:31 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm still not convinced that riding atvs is more dangerous than climbing trees. You're typing as if a little kid can just hop on a 500cc atv and be gowing 100 mph within a few seconds. (I doubt they could even get one of those started.)
I'm imagining a little 50cc automatic that putts around and is very easy to operate. That's what little kids ride and those are hardly dangerous at all.
But anyways, I can grant you that an atv is more dangerous. Now, where's the criminality?
The criminality is the parent irresponsibility.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 10:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:03 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 123 of 313 (616760)
05-24-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
05-24-2011 10:32 AM


And when the child is riding an atv but the parent is not being irresponsible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 10:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:13 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 124 of 313 (616766)
05-24-2011 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 11:03 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
And when the child is riding an atv but the parent is not being irresponsible?
Then it will be the parent operating the ATV and the child riding as a passenger wearing full protection clothing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:25 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 125 of 313 (616775)
05-24-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
05-24-2011 11:13 AM


Or it could be the parent responsibly allowing the child to operate the atv by itself.
Unless you just want to beg the question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:13 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 313 (616779)
05-24-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 11:25 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Or it could be the parent responsibly allowing the child to operate the atv by itself.
Unless you just want to beg the question?
Nope, don't think it could be.
The parent needs to understand the physical, emotional and judgement levels of children, and brain, coordination, judgement and experience are simply not there yet for kids that young.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:43 AM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 127 of 313 (616782)
05-24-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
05-24-2011 11:36 AM


The parent needs to understand the physical, emotional and judgement levels of children, and brain, coordination, judgement and experience are simply not there yet for kids that young.
Nah, I think they are there and the kids are capable enough. Its really not much different than riding a bicycle. Or do you think you should be 12 to ride one of those too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:36 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:48 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 128 of 313 (616783)
05-24-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 11:43 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
The parent needs to understand the physical, emotional and judgement levels of children, and brain, coordination, judgement and experience are simply not there yet for kids that young.
Nah, I think they are there and the kids are capable enough. Its really not much different than riding a bicycle. Or do you think you should be 12 to ride one of those too?
Bikes too can be dangerous and kids need control and supervision and full protection clothing riding them too.
BUT, bikes are no where near the level of risk of an ATV, JetSki or Motorcycle.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 12:22 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 130 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 12:22 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 129 of 313 (616800)
05-24-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jar
05-24-2011 11:48 AM


Topic?
If you two want to continue this conversation how about you get a private room or start a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:48 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 12:41 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 130 of 313 (616801)
05-24-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jar
05-24-2011 11:48 AM


double post
oops
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:48 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 131 of 313 (616807)
05-24-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Theodoric
05-24-2011 12:22 PM


Re: Topic?
I knew you were an idiot, but I didn't realize you were so hypocritical too.
Here is every word that you've added to this thread. Nowhere do I see any contribution of anything nor do you mention Fox News or address the topic at all. All you do is bitch and complain and play moderator. You've provided nothing. You're worthless.
quote:
If right wing dogma had not taken over, your brain may recognized the fact that we are not talking about opinions. We are talking about facts. An issue that it has been repeatedly shown that Fox has a problem with.
I will give you my standard response to religious fundies, because the same pertains to right wing wing nuts.
Your opinion has no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on your opinion.
Do you realize that in the political threads you use the same quality of argumentation that you so rightly criticize the fundies of using in science threads?
Also check out my signature.
quote:
Please enlighten us.
quote:
Reasoning behind this argument please.
quote:
So where was the liberal media bias you claim.
Evidence please? Don't you think it is more of a rural/urban divide? Wisconsin and Minnesota or historically very liberal states, we also ahve a huge # of ATV's. I do not see any "liberal" attempt to ban them.
Assertions here but no facts to back them up.
quote:
You still have provided no evidence for any of these assertions. Until you do all this is is bullshit coming from your fingers.
Evidence?
quote:
Do you have any evidence for your paranoid meanderings?
quote:
If it is private property no problem. If it is public property then there is a problem. No one should be allowed to defile, deface or destroy public property. There is no reason laws can or should not be passed to prevent this from happening on public property.
It offends me that you think you have some "right" to do this to public property.
quote:
Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
If everyone knows it is true why are you the only one on this side of the argument? Show us some evidence.
Why did you call them liberals?
quote:
Any evidence for these assertions? Any?
quote:
You will see that they were responses to different posts. The calls for evidence were for different unevidenced assertions.
If you do not have anything to add to the thread why are you posting? If you have a problem with my posts talk to an admin.
But does Riverrat? I think not.
quote:
Can you please point me to your source for this.
Please show me your source for this.
Coyote refuses to back up his assertions, can you back yours?
quote:
I saw the italics. Show your evidence. But then we all know it is bullshit you have no evidence for.
Glenn Beck? Glenn Beck? You ever notice he never shows sources or evidence.
He is the only person more of a paranoid loony than you. You make assertions and assertions and never show any evidence.
quote:
It always amazes me that there is a certain group that as soon as there is any discussion about guns they trot out the gun ban canard.
Has anyone besides you said anything about banning guns? Seems quite dishonest to suddenly through this into the debate.
We need to have a corollary to Godwins law. Something about the first to bring banning guns into an unrelated topic. Maybe we should call it the CS law since you seem to be quite prone to doing it.
quote:
My point exactly. And you are the one that skewed the topic to gun bans.
quote:
CS if you don't have anything to add to the conversation how about skipping the petty snide, comments. Everyone already knows you don't like me, so if it is ok with you then maybe we can concentrate on the topic.
But if you want to continue your sophomoric comments by all means go right ahead. I expect nothing less.
Oh BTW
As a matter of fact I do.
An attempt to further Riverrats off topic drivel. You see that is what is called evidence.
Seemingly neither you or him have nothing to discount the premise of the thread so instead you decide to lead the thread down a few rabbit holes.
quote:
Any chance anyone wants to get back to the topic instead of running down CS's rabbit holes.
quote:
That is all you've got?
Absolutely nothing on topic? Nothing to defend the crap you spew?
Typical.
quote:
If you two want to continue this conversation how about you get a private room or start a new thread.

To actually address the topic:
Everybody knows Fox News is a bunch of liars.. They should be classified as entertainment and not news.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 12:22 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 134 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 132 of 313 (616810)
05-24-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 12:41 PM


Re: Topic?
Thank you for contributing to the topic. The majority of my posts were on topic. To demand evidence for baseless assertions is very on topic. I know you do not feel people need to back up their assertions, but I do.
Tell you what Cs. Since you do not like me or my posts how about you just ignore them.
But if you post your crap without any evidence or justification, I will ask for evidence. It seems you just don't like to be called on the crap you post.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 1:03 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 133 of 313 (616819)
05-24-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Theodoric
05-24-2011 12:46 PM


Re: Topic?
The majority of my posts were on topic. To demand evidence for baseless assertions is very on topic.
But you're not adding anything or contributing to the discussion. Anybody can read through thread and point out every unsupported assertion with a call for evidence. It doesn't actually provide anything for the discussion. At the end of the day, it really doesn't have any value.
Tell you what Cs. Since you do not like me or my posts how about you just ignore them.
Since you don't like unevidenced assertions, how about you just ignore them.
But if you post your crap without any evidence or justification, I will ask for evidence. It seems you just don't like to be called on the crap you post.
I don't mind at all. I'm here because its a two-way street. I'd just blog if I didn't want to be called on.
I know you do not feel people need to back up their assertions, but I do.
Its not that. Its that mostly it doesn't really matter, discussion can still take place with things being assumed, and at least the person is actually adding something to the discussion.
Thank you for contributing to the topic.
Yeah, and once again you have not added anything to the discussion nor addressed the topic, nor even mentioned Fox News.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 12:46 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 134 of 313 (616829)
05-24-2011 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 12:41 PM


On topic
Everybody knows Fox News is a bunch of liars.. They should be classified as entertainment and not news.
This is obviously not true. Coyote for one would seem to disagree with you. Also, the millions that watch Fox news everyday would disagree with you. You should be careful speaking in absolutes.
Fox does not tout itself as an entertainment network, they tout themselves as a news network.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 135 of 313 (616836)
05-24-2011 4:23 PM


Fox news even has gone as far as alter photos for their own agenda.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024