PT is about the framing of an item of news. On the twittersphere many people have concluded that
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?
John Harris
You've not been paying attention.
↪John Harris
From the start I have said that we do not live in truth but in belief. The difference is the pass of change.
My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.
You're not making any sense. I didn't write what you've just quoted me as having said.
↪creativesoul
With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...
My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.
That only matters if you embrace the dictionary's definitions of evidence and justified. You havent done so. So, I still stand right on the matter. And there is no definition for "sufficient reason to believe."
You have to provide that definition yourself. Again, you've failed to do so, proving me right again.
Thanks, man.
I wrote:
With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...
Sand replied:
And yet you've continually proven yourself to not have a clue about any of those things. Feel free to define them and prove me wrong. We both know you can't.
Clearly you can't since you can't provide either the dictionary definitions or your own, even when you're free to do so.
...And yet you can't even define it...
Now this made no sense at all since nobody accused you of not using a dictionary.
It seems apparent that there is a need in this world of ours to be able to effectively discriminate between competing viewpoints and/or narratives in terms of which parts of which ones are true and what makes them so. — creativesoul
A sheer refusal to admit being wrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. — creativesoul
The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally.
Meanwhile: 39 shooting in Chicago this weekend, 9 deaths. No national media outrage. Why is that?
WikipediaMany of these memorials were dedicated in the early 20th century, decades after the Civil War, and have some relationship with campaigns to promote and justify Jim Crow laws in the South.The year 1911 saw the largest number constructed, which was the year of the semi-centennial of the Civil War. Memorials were dedicated on public spaces either at public expense or funded by private organizations and donors
He said reporters had misrepresented his "perfect" words in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, where Heather Heyer was killed after a car ploughed into a crowd of people protesting against far-right demonstrators including neo-Nazis.
He accused "truly dishonest people in the media and the fake media" of "trying to take away our history and heritage" because, he said, they "don't like our country".
He quoted his own initial public response to what happened in Charlottesville.
"This is what I said on Saturday: 'We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia,' - this is me speaking. 'We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence.' That's me speaking on Saturday, right after the event," he said.
But what he actually said on 12 August was: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."
Accusing the media of misrepresenting his words, and then misrepresenting his own words by leaving out the key part that the media was condemning. — Michael
I took a week off from the milieu of political insanity to go out amongst the normals and chalk up another huge trial victory, and when I got back I was stunned - stunned! - to find that a consensus had formed that Nazis are bad. Beforehand, I had no idea where the establishment stood on Nazis, but now it's crystal clear. They hate Nazis because Nazis are bad. Everyone from CNN to Mitt Romney hates Nazis. I couldn't be prouder of an establishment that takes that kind of tough stand. They're going to hate Nazis, and they don't care whose jack-booted toes they step on!
I also learned that if you hate Nazis for being bad, you're not allowed to hate anybody else who’s also bad, because Nazis are so bad that you have to devote all your hating capacity to hating Nazis such that there's no room left to hate anybody else. Those hammer and sickle flag-carrying Communists? Well, you must love the Nazis if you hate them, because you have got to hate the Nazis with all your mind and all your heart since, as we learned this week, Nazis are bad. I'm so glad that our moral betters have this all figured out.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.