Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   hillary clinton 4 prez (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/86583-hillary-clinton-4-prez.html)

Key 10-11-2016 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1755835)
Nothing is entirely reliable, but Wall Street Journal, NPR, and Forbes all get my approval. Also, Huffington Post is basically a left-wing Breitbart in that it uses clickbait like a mother****er.

So then your point is irrelevant based on people's take on what they consider reliable. Especially when the links provided by dj and myself have quotes to prove the cases.

Frownland 10-11-2016 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki (Post 1755839)
So then your point is irrelevant based on people's take on what they consider reliable.

There's not being 1000% reliable and then there's being almost satirically biased. The Huffington Post falls into the second part.

Key 10-11-2016 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1755841)
There's not being 1000% reliable and then there's being almost satirically biased. The Huffington Post falls into the second part.

But then you have people using Fox News as a reliable source, and I've not seen any argument toward that line of reasoning.

Chula Vista 10-11-2016 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki (Post 1755832)
Explain. What would you consider a reliable source of information?

Ki, HPost is as left as Fox News is right. You should never quote them or use them to try and prove a point. I've relied on Politifact for this election. They are the Snopes of politics. They go both ways in clearing up what's true and what's not.

Key 10-11-2016 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1755843)
Ki, HPost is as left as Fox News is right. You should never quote them or use them to try and prove a point. I've relied on Politifact for this election. They are the Snopes of politics. They go both ways in clearing up what's true and what's not.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make, the question was relating to examples of Trump's racism, and HuffPost have the evidence to prove that point. Whether it's agreeable or not, it's been laid out multiple times.

Frownland 10-11-2016 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki (Post 1755842)
But then you have people using Fox News as a reliable source, and I've not seen any argument toward that line of reasoning.

Wha...? I never said Fox was a reliable source. Other people using a ****ty source does not justify using one yourself. In fact, that might actually inspire you to use more reliable ones.

Are we really debating whether or not it's a good idea to use stronger evidence?

The Batlord 10-11-2016 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki (Post 1755830)
Huffington Post isn't clickbait you retard.

They let you write things?

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon (Post 1755833)
It's acceptable when the person is question is being lazy, I'm not going to bust my ass to go above and beyond for someone that's being lazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki (Post 1755834)
Explain why it's bull****. You and Frown will throw around accusations, but I've not seen either of you provide links to prove your points, instead you choose to talk out your ass.

Well since I don't have to provide real evidence when I'm feeling lazy and/or the point I'm trying to make is just so obvious, bro, I'll just throw this reddit link at you to show my contempt.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNe...onger_welcome/

But seriously, Huffington Post is clickbait by nature, as it is a media aggregator. It's job is to snatch and grab from other articles, condense them into easily readable chunks, and get potential readers to click on them with snazzy titles. They can't not be clickbait because it is literally their business model.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.707f6c0d4345

Here's a ****ing link from a non-**** source.

Frownland 10-11-2016 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki (Post 1755844)
That wasn't the point I was trying to make, the question was relating to examples of Trump's racism, and HuffPost have the evidence to prove that point. Whether it's agreeable or not, it's been laid out multiple times.

And when you use an unreliable source, as that article very very very very clearly demonstrates (since case by case is the best way to determine these things) it does NOT prove your point, because those points are not as strong as you assume them to be (I'm going with the theory that you didn't look at your own evidence).

Key 10-11-2016 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1755851)
And when you use an unreliable source, as that article very very very very clearly demonstrates (since case by case is the best way to determine these things) it does NOT prove your point, because those points are not as strong as you assume them to be (I'm going with the theory that you didn't look at your own evidence).

Fair enough.

Unsure if Bat realizes I have him on ignore and everything he says I can't see. It's actually nice to be honest.

Frownland 10-11-2016 12:47 PM

Echo chambers are for losers.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:19 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.