|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Fox news = false news | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Rahvin writes: riVeRraT writes: While I agree that Fox news out and out lies sometimes, so does the general media. I was raised liberal, and that was due to all the liberal/democratic news I was watching, and learning in school in NYC. As I got older, and starting learning facts about the right and what hey are supposed to stand for, I became independent seeing the truth is in the middle. I even blame the liberal news for getting 3 wheelers unnecessarily banned back in the 80's. Facts are facts, but I think there is no document written by human hands that isn't biased in some sort of fashion. They are 50million ways of reporting the same story without lying, yet still putting your biased twist to it. I'm agreeing with you Taz, Fox should be held accountable, and so should every other news agency. How do you do that without interfering with freedom of speech? The FCC manages to legally restrict the freedom of speech for broadcasters all the time. You can;t use swear words or show nudity on broadcast television, for example, even though those are held by the Supreme Court to be valid forms of free expression and protected by the First Amendment. Surely if you can prevent nudity from being shown on broadcast TV, you can force news organizations to tell the truth. Except of course that Faux News did get sued over their lies. They claimed they are "entertainment" and so have the right to lie as a form of protected speech...and the courts agreed. My concern is why people (Coyote, for example) continue to support Fox even directly in the face of solid, incontrovertible evidence of blatant lies. Fox knows that what they report isn't true when they say things like "Obama's trip to India will cost $200 million per day!," and they choose to say it anyway. I can see defending the opinion guys for having shitty opinions - you're allowed to have a shitty opinion and express it however you want. But when they report a fact on which to base that opinion ("Obama's gonna institute Sharia law!" "Death Panels!" "$200 million a day!" Putting a "D" next to virtually every Republican who has a sex scandal ever...), they should be held accountable for that fact. The amount spent on Obama's trip is the same whether you're liberal or conservative or something else. You can be of the opinion that the cost is too much or appropriate or whatever, but opinions don;t change the actual amount. Why defend the lies, the known falsehoods, reporting facts that are well known to be completely untrue? Because fuck liberals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Its a lot like guns, riVerRrat...
The people who want to ban "Assault Rifles" don't know the first thing about guns or what makes one more dangerous to another. You could put a pimped out .22 with a front grip, folding stock, and a banana mag next to an AA-12, and they'll think the 22 is worse because it looks like an "Assault Rife"!! ZOMG!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Nobody cares about anything other than America.
The idea that Fox news might not be wholly truthful is compared to "misconceptions" about assault rifles being dangerous.....? I was comparing the banning of 3-wheelers to the banning of assault rifles in that the people who want the bannings don't know shit about what the things are or how to use them. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Don't you think just by calling it an "assault rifle" you've ceded the argument that we're talking about a firearm designed to kill a bunch of people all at once? I don't call them assault rifles... hence the scare quotes. Part of the point is that a .22 rifle with a folding stock, front grip, and banana mag would be called an "Assault Rifle" even though it wasn't designed to kill a bunch of people all at once.
I think the best arguments against "assault rifle" bans come in that, as a legal term, it's a bit of a cypher, and trying to ban it by description ropes in legitimate hunting weapons and excludes similar dangerous guns (machine pistols, etc.) That's what I'm gettinge at... "Assaut Rifle" is defined with things like folding stocks, grips and large round mags
But just saying "I love my AK, you can't have it" isn't a reasonable position in a nation with a truly stupefying level of gun crime. Sure, whatever. Out of curiosity, does that level of gun crime include the breaking of inane laws that shouldn't be there in the first place? Or is it limited to just "violence"? Or what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Why don't you think it was designed to kill a bunch of people all at once? Because the guy who made it did it because he like the way that it looked and intended to use it to put holes in paper and never to shoot a person.
Limit it how you please; there will still be an enormous amount of it. Oh well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Dr Adequate writes: Its a lot like guns, riVerRrat... The people who want to ban "Assault Rifles" don't know the first thing about guns or what makes one more dangerous to another. You could put a pimped out .22 with a front grip, folding stock, and a banana mag next to an AA-12, and they'll think the 22 is worse because it looks like an "Assault Rife"!! ZOMG! And most people who don't want terrorists to use biological weapons against the USA couldn't tell anthrax from baking soda. They would in fact be more alarmed by baking soda in a jar labeled ANTHRAX than by anthrax in a jar labeled BAKING SODA. But I don't see how this invalidates their position. To continue with that analogy, I'm bitching about people who don't know anything about chemistry but want to ban jars of white powder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Analogy fail. Not all white powders are dangerous. All firearms are designed with the intent to be lethal. I can't agree to that.
Don't give me any bullshit about "it's designed to put holes in paper," we both know you can do that sort of target practice with a fucking air rifle that can't put a hole in a human skull. Irrelevant.
Firearms are designed for the exclusive purpose of killing; some are designed for killing animals other than humans, but every single one can be used to commit murder. That's a pretty fucking big difference for the white powder analogy. Any white powder could be used to commit murder too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Catholic Scientist writes: Analogy fail. Not all white powders are dangerous. All firearms are designed with the intent to be lethal.
I can't agree to that. Which firearm is not designed to be able to produce lethal force? That seems like a different question... Would you also say that all cars are designed with the intent to be lethal? They are designed to be able to produce lethal force.
Don't give me any bullshit about "it's designed to put holes in paper," we both know you can do that sort of target practice with a fucking air rifle that can't put a hole in a human skull. Irrelevant. It's so relevant it's the entire point. Banning all white powder when only a subset of white powder can be used as a weapon is not comparable to banning all guns because, while only a subset of guns are used as weapons, all of them can be used as lethal weapons. All white powders can be used as lethal weapons, or all cars, or hammers, or all kinds of stuff. "Can be used as a lethal weapon" is not an argument for banning something.
Gun owners like to retort that "my guns aren't used to kill, they're used to shoot paper targets," but that's a bullshit argument because everyone with more than 3 neurons understands that if you really just want to put holes in paper you don't need an actual human-lethal firearm, all you need is a pellet gun or the like. You really don't get it at all, do you? You cannot imagine why someone would prefer to shoot bullets over pellets, nor can you think of a legitimate reason for it. It is kinda neat that you can read peoples' minds though. That you can know that people who design and use guns solely for target practice are just a bunch of liars.
Guns are designed to be lethal. Handguns are designed specifically to be used on people (while owners of some rifles at least can argue that their firearms are intended to be lethal to other animals). You're one of the poeple who posts like they know almost nothing about guns!
What, by forcing sufficient flour down someone's throat that they choke? That would work, wouldn't it?
Stop being an idiot, CS. Nuh-uh - You're an idiot!
You know the facts as well as I do. Any idiot with a loaded gun can point it at a person, squeeze a trigger, and commit murder. So its not that it *can* be used to do it, its that it makes it so easy?
Every firearm is in fact designed to do just that - kill. False.
The ones that are designed for hunting can be used to hunt human beings as easily as deer. Cars can be used to run down people. Oh, and they're specifically designed to break the speed limits, right? Shouldn't you also be arguing for banning some cars too?
If a kid gets into the gun safe and finds any loaded firearm of any type limited only by the child's ability to lift and carry the weapon, the worst that happens is somebody gets fucking shot, an occurrence that happens frequently enough that you cannot even pretend to be ignorant of it. Okay, so the rational response is to argue against people leaving loaded guns in a child's reach, not banning them outright. Well, unless your an idiot who doesn't know anything about guns. But that's my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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. You got any evidence for that assertion?
Has anyone besides you said anything about banning guns? Seems quite dishonest to suddenly through this into the debate. What amazes me is the level of supidity that you must have to be unable to follow the discussion back through the context to see why it was brought up in the first place... especially when the software keeps track of which messages are replies to what. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with Fox News.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Here is a story about an air rifle that can kill you dead, I have a 22 cal beeman that will get it done also Louis and Clark brought a lethal air rifle with them on that expidition...
You can just google about it for links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You got any evidence for that assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You're such a tool
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There probably is a law preventing you from mailing people baking powder labeled as anthrax, And assaulting people with fake plastic guns too.
which would be a more accurate analogy to the situation you describe. Not really. The 22 was a firearm before, its just been jazzed up with decorations.
And I find in that situation little cause for concern. I'm sure there's a limit somewhere... my point is that it should be determined by people who actually know something about guns and not by people who know almost nothing about guns.
So it means that I can't own "a pimped out .22 with a front grip, folding stock, and a banana mag". Good heavens, why would I want to? Irrelevant.
Today they deprive me of the front grip on my .22, tomorrow they'll make me take the rudder off my car. Your apathy to a gradual errosion of your freedoms isn't an argument for pursuing it.
But I regard the prospect with stoical equanimity. It doesn't really matter if you personally care or not. But once again the discussion is going from 'who should decide which guns to ban' to 'why should guns be allowed'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Frankly, I believe that criminal and Child Endangerment charges should be brought against any parent allowing a twelve year old or younger person to operate an ATV or JetSki. That's insane. I think the first time I rode a dirt bike I was about five years old. I've encounter more injuries from climbing trees. What about allowing kids to climb trees? Is that child endagerment too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Trees and ATVs are two entirely different subjects and magnitudes of risk. Yeah, from my experience, climbing trees is much more risky. If you think allowing children to ride atvs is criminal, then you should think the same of allowing them to climb trees.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024