Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dukasaur wrote:You're completely wrong. I gave you a clear example of someone who I disagree with but whom I don't insult, because they present their opinion intelligently.
Ranting blowhards are fair game.
So I'm suppose to take your word for it, even though you literally just did what you said you don't so?
Again. "Some random blowhard" is ok to insult because you disagree with him. Authoritarian.
For the third and final time, I'm not insulting him because I disagree with him. Calling him a blowhard is not really an insult; it's an honest assessment. The guy is yelling when there's no aircraft on the runway for him to be yelling over. He could speak calmly and rationally and we would hear him just fine. So "blowhard" is an apt description borne out by the facts. I did call him a "jackass" and that, I grant, is an insult, but one which I feel is well deserved. He didn't form an opinion after reading the article. He formed his opinion, found a headline that agreed with him, and started spouting off. Then, and only then, he started actually reading the article, and was very surprised when it didn't confirm all of his biases, just some of them.
If he was an intelligent, thoughtful, well-informed individual, he could disagree with me all night and all day and I wouldn't feel it necessary to insult him.
Just as an aside, no idea what any of this has to do with authoritarianism.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Dude, I looked at both the articles you posted. Both clearly evaluated the possibility, and both unequivocally pronounced it to be probably false.
I'm not going to comment on isolated quotes of what other people may have said. Should a story quote people opinions on both sides? Usually, yes. On balance, the stories you pointed to both showed quality journalism. They examined a theory, consulted with experts, and made a fair and responsible summation. You gave two very good examples of responsible journalism, and somehow you're trying to say they prove the opposite.
Dude. The quotes from people are what I am talking about, and how both articles frame. There are more articles and more quotes out there from MSM personnel that believe the video is a hoax. These aren't random people. These are people that are giving you the news you apparently read. It's blatantly biased. You have two examples of two very bad pieces of journalism, by entertaining a crackpot conspiracy.
I don't know the people the quotes are from. Apparently by their title they are television personalities, so it's unsurprising that I don't know them since I only rarely watch television. I'll take your word for it that they are influential in some circles. I'm not going to condemn them for comments quoted by someone else, since those comments are out of context. For all I know, those may have been their initial reaction on hearing the story, before they had time to research it. Television news is often done in great haste as information comes in, corrections and updates have to be issued often. That's why people who care about the news put their faith in newspapers, and treat TV news as just a temporary fill-in until the newspapers carry the full story. So for all I know, those may have been their initial reactions and were corrected or retracted later. Quotes out of context mean little.
The actual stories, the articles that you provided links to, were good, responsible pieces of journalism that examined the evidence, consulted relevant experts, and fairly and honestly reported that the story was probably false. The articles demonstrate the exact opposite of what you want them to demonstrate.
