Social Media: Is Trump Right About Anti-Conservative Bias? You Bet He Is
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Social Media Bias: President Trump has criticized the major social media and web search sites, in particular Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter, for their anti-conservative bias. Is his critique valid? A controversial new report suggests the answer is yes.
X
It was just last weekend that a study by GovPredict, a Silicon Valley political data research firm, found that over the last 14 years Alphabet employees gave 90% of their political donations , or $15.5 million, to Democrats. Republicans took in a mere $1.6 million.
Now comes a new study from GovPredict showing nearly the identical results for Amazon. Since 2006, the study says, Amazon employees gave 90% of their politcal donations to Democratic political action committees and, once again, just 10% to Republican PACs.,
Alphabet, the parent of Google, has roughly 76,000 employees while Amazon has more than a half-million. But the number of employees giving the money were in the hundreds, presumably mostly executive and senior manager level.
In Amazon's case, as PJMedia described it, "A whoppping 310 employees contributed to Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, totaling $6610,805. Another 171 contributed to Barack Obama's campaigns, totaling $413,763. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) took third place, with $128,750 from 42 employees. Close behind her, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took in $106, 965 from 275 employees for his presidential campaign."
Preferring Socialist Over Republicans
Only one Republican candidate took in more than $50,000: Mitt Romney, who nabbed $62,400 in donations from 42 people. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, took in $39,000. And yes, Donald Trump did get some Amazon love: 42 employees gave him a grand total of $17,436.
Put another way, socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders raked in nearly half again as much as both Republican presidential nominees . So claims that the social media giants are politically neutral is a joke.
These are giant companies with highly politicized workforces that control most of the major access points to the global internet. Having a neutral, fair arbiter for possible disputes and for regulating use is absolutely vital.
Yet, neither company has a workforce that reflects America's political views.
As Trump recently claimed, "conservatives have been treated very unfairly" by Google and others and warned of an "antitrust situation." To show he means it, he's started tweeting with the hashtag #stopthebias.
Meanwhile, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch has already asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into possible antitrust violations on the part of Google. So the heat is on. A recent Media Research Center poll found 65% of conservatives believe the social media giants censor right-of-center views.
Repeated Bias
The fact is, Google, YouTube and Facebook have all shown repeated bias against conservative voices and web sites.
Google, for instance, used to attach fact-checks on conservative stories from leftist sites. It also tilted the results of searches towards left-wing politicians over conservatives. It even fired a computer tech, James Damore, merely for expressing a non-left opinion over the male-female wage gap.
Worse still, YouTube, a lucrative utility for many sites that seek to make money from their web presence, has "demonetized" conservative sites such as Prager University , whose informative and thought-provoking videos have nothing whatsoever to do with "alt-right" anything. Recent videos include such fare as "Why America Must Lead" and "Why Did America Fight the Korean War." For this, Prager U was kept from having ads on its videos.
Facebook, along with the rest of the far-left "mainstream" media, routinely shuns conservative stories on its news sites and aggressively limited "partisan" sites it doesn't like.
Social Media And Trump
Of course, there's Twitter, of which Trump is a master. It "shadow bans" those it doesn't like, limiting how many page views some sites receive without even telling them.
All of them work with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left group that aggressively declares right-of-center organizations as "hate groups." None of the major web giants, to our knowledge, works with a comparable conservative group such as, say, David Horowitz' Freedom Center.
It should be said, this is nothing new. The legacy media giants were perhaps just as biased as today's social media giants are today. But the reach the big city newspapers and the national newspaper chains was not nearly as great as today's social media.
A person today can tweet out a message, post a photo or a message on Instagram or YouTube, and be in millions of households within hours — the kind of instantaneous a reach that the old media moguls like Hearst and Pulitzer could only dream of.
That's why Trump's claims will ring true to many Americans. Even Americans who aren't conservative have a strong sense of fairness, and by any reasonable idea of fairness, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Twitter, YouTube and others discriminate against those they politically disagree with.
It's time for them to stop using their immense power to interfere in what John Stuart Mill called the marketplace of ideas, and let our democracy breathe.
Tags
Who is online
122 visitors
“Yet, neither company has a workforce that reflects America's political views.
As Trump recently claimed, "conservatives have been treated very unfairly" by Google and others and warned of an "antitrust situation." To show he means it, he's started tweeting with the hashtag #stopthebias.
Meanwhile, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch has already asked the Federal Trade Commission to look into possible antitrust violations on the part of Google. So the heat is on. A recent Media Research Center poll found 65% of conservatives believe the social media giants censor right-of-center views.
Repeated Bias
The fact is, Google, YouTube and Facebook have all shown repeated bias against conservative voices and web sites.”
It could simply be that google prioritizes facts rather than loony right-wing conspiracy theories.
By the way I hear that your buddy Alex Jones' loony website just got dropped from Paypal due to his hate speech. He can't scam the gullible using that medium anymore.
I remember like it was just yesterday when I heard the 7 words you can't say on TV bit by George Carlin. Interestingly, I didn't hear that bit on TV. All those media companies enforced their bias against filthy words by never allowing Carlin, or anyone else, to say them on their media platforms. Now this was hailed as a good thing by most conservatives. George Carlin could have been upset by their bias, but he never complained, he just commented on the phenomenon and accepted that he couldn't ever do that bit on live network TV.
Now we have media companies who do not want their media platforms used to disseminate hate, racism, bigotry, sexism and misogyny. The fact is, the vast majority of those pushing such hate and racism are those who consider themselves "conservatives" like Alex Jones and other empty talking heads. There is no difference between not allowing George Carlin to repeat the seven words on air and a media company blocking Alex Jones from using their platform to lie about the Sandy Hook massacre falsely accusing liberals and progressives of manufacturing or faking the murder of over 20 young children.
Right now, from conservative Russians bent on destroying western democracy to conservative evangelicals bent on destroying western liberals and progressives who support western democracy, many on the right think they can lie cheat and steal to get their message disseminated. The ends justify the means, or so they think. They are finding out that private media companies don't share their flawed beliefs.
For them, being an extreme partisan conservative company or media group who supports extreme partisan conservatives in the legislature, courts and administration is sensible. But if a liberal or progressive company or media group supports partisan liberals or progressives, conservatives scream bloody murder about liberals not being bi-partisan. If there is one contest many conservatives will never lose, it's that of being the biggest, the greatest, the most tremendous hypocrites on the planet. But to them, they don't see it, they are blinded by their faith which by definition demands they act hypocritically. Their faith demands they give preferential treatment to those of their own religion while discriminating against those of other faiths or beliefs, in a sense it demands they act hypocritically with two sets of rules, one for themselves and those of their faith and then one for everybody else.
A prime example of this was the recent ruling about conservative clinics in CA that fought the sensible and logical health clinic rule of posting all legal pregnancy options including abortion. They were private companies that were being asked to post general information that would help women make informed decisions on family planning but they refused claiming their clinics couldn't allow such innocuous informational messages that went against their faith. The courts ruling in their favor saying the clinics could not be forced to disseminate such messages had conservatives jumping for joy. But at the same time we hear those same conservatives proclaiming that private media companies must be forced to post or carry their conservative and religious messages even if they are filled with lies, misinformation and propaganda. Conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.
And we can add Media Bias Fact Check to the list of social media sites with a clear and obvious bias against conservatives. It’s great to see a decline in the stock values of these largest social media companies. No new regulations of them are needed but anti trust issues should be explored.
I love it, trumps says google is biased and up pops a an 'article' to support his claim despite it being a complete BS lie.
The seeded article is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
No it's not, it's an OPINION piece. You know....
Interesting that according to you above that an opinion can’t be the truth because it is an opinion yet also above you called an opinion, the very same one, a lie. The IBD editorial is accurate and the truth in my opinion.
Nobody forces you to use any site or even the internet, so create your own conserva-Google and a Facebook for Trump-loving TEAbags or quit yer bitchin'
No. I avoid google searches and you tube a much as possible, don’t have a twitter account and limit Facebook to following my nieces youth competition soccer team and nothing else. I’ve sold shares in funds too heavy in those companies stocks. I’m using my freedom of speech to complain about and fight against those social media sites and will independently do what ever I can on my personal time which isn’t much, working with sites MBFC gives bad reviews to like The Stream and Breitbart to help them and others damage or destroy that site in any way they can.
According to the coc use of the term teabags toward people over their political beliefs is forbidden 🚫.
[deleted]
I'm almost certain that they aren't suffering for your boycott, like Target didn't suffer when religious conservatives threatened to boycott it after their trans-friendly policy.
Actually Target did suffer considerable stock value loss as a direct result of their bathroom policy. Most major social media online stocks have recently declined. [deleted]
Sorry but nope. You need better sources.
Snopes is one of the biggest frauds of so called Fact Check sites with obvious biases. According to research about fact checkers it’s one of the worst. MBFC according to that research is the 2nd worst such site full of vindictive behavior and biased judgment against conservatives and Christians run by a man in the medical science field claiming to be a self annointed expert on media bias. I don’t need better sources. We need better and actually objective fact checkers.
Why is it that you believe that claims made by conservatives and Christians are always correct?
Because they give him the answers he wants to hear, completely unrelated to the truth in the matters.
I don't care about their political beliefs, but Snopes or Factcheck.com backs up their claims up with sources. It's not just an opinion or sourced from a partisan echo chamber.
I don't read Kos or HuffPo because they are partisan.
I don't remember saying that they did suffer. I ate at a C-F-A in the late 1990s and wasn't impressed. That was before I knew the owner was a religious bigot.
I like DailyKos because the users hold any claims made in a diary or in the comments to a very high standard. Of course it's a partisan site but it's a very good one for facts.
Say it ain't so? that shit happens there too?
Who'da thought?
/S
And there are few if any better sources to present news and opinion articles from than the heroic all American human rights group Alliance Defending Freedom. They are great Americans.
The sad irony is that if Trump was aware of this site, he’d include it in the list of social media sites he was talking about above.
Yes, he would.
You should stand up proudly and boycott this site. Do your part, Trump will be so proud of you.
This article, is (predictably), fake news.
1) Even if it WAS true, these companies are privately owned, they are under no obligation to cater to one particular political ideology or another. They can express bias all they want to, it's completely legal.
2) Trump has given conservatives a very bad name and their 'numbers' are decreasing so there are fewer of them ON social media. Besides, social media is a very progressive platform.
3) Maybe google would have more positive hits on donny if he wasn't a lying asshole......every..........fucking.......day.
4) Do a little research on how the google search engine works, then maybe you'll understand why donny isn't always getting 'glowing hit results'.
5) Trump whines about google because he wants them to list only good things about him. So like the media, anyone that doesn't kiss his ass and bend over backwards to make him look good, he attacks them. The problem isn't with google, it's with trump who is just a POS, and the google results reflect that quite accurately.
.
Trump is still trying to pass of the, "I am not the problem, it's everyone else that's the problem!!!". And as this article proves, there are actually people that buy it.
#sad
#deplorable
Trump is right. The social media and news talk sites on line are almost universally biased against Trump and against his supporters and especially against conservatives who happen to be Christian as well. It’s been great lately since this issue came to light that Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon, and Twitter have all lost some substantial value in their stock price and assets. That’s what I call good news.
ie: russian toadies
Telling the truth isn't being biased. You don't want to hear facts because you are deep in the conservative echo chamber of Fox News, RT, Breitbart and, The Stream and you want media sources that reinforce your currently held beliefs and those of Orange Julius Ceasar.
I’m into real news, not fake news like the sites endorsed by Media Bias Fact Check and those who give a crap what they think about anything.
that thumper college degree pays off every day
Your argument is a tu toque fallacy because you are trying to claim that I am as hypocritical as you are.
I get my news from the BBC/NPR, AP, UPI or occasionally McClatchy.
Are there any in the US that actually are credible?
Why would you get your information from a source that you freely admit has a partisan bias? I would rather read the unbiased truth than what their corporate sponsors or editorial board wants me to believe. If I have any doubts about the source I read the same news from multiple worldwide sources because worldwide sources tend not to have a reason to be biased in our domestic news.
They won't appear to be credible to you if you previously admit to having a conservative bias.
I only watch Rachel when I am bored. She is a pundit and not a news source. I don't watch Hannity or CNN except under duress.
Looks like you're refusing to answer my question. Why is that?
Trumpy blocked me on twitter, THAT is illegal.
Also... IBD is a far right wing OPINION website with mixed factual reporting. Nice try trying to pass this POS article off as factual. Might want to add "opinion" to the tags list.
Investors Business Daily is a weekday news paper about financial matters, business, and investing that like the Wall Street Journal and most newspapers happens to have an editorial and opinion page.
Wrong. And before you flag this? Remember, YOU brought it up.
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
History
Founded in 1984 by entrepreneur and stockbroker William O’Neil, Investors Business Daily (IBD) is a conservative American newspaper and website covering the stock market, international business, finance and economics. In March, 2016, IBD became a weekly publication that focuses more on digital operations. The publication continues to use the Investor’s Business Daily name as it continues to publish daily on its website. Although IBD mostly reports on economics and finance they also allow lobbyists and PR reps for right wing think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to write pseudo-scientific propaganda.
Funded by / Ownership
IBD is owned by Investors Business Daily Inc and is funded through advertising, subscriptions and investment product sales .
Analysis / Bias
In review, Investors Business Daily primarily reports on economics, markets and investing. They also report on politics, especially through their editorial section with a very strong right wing bias. There is moderate use of loaded language in their articles that significantly favors the right, such as this: Democratic Socialism: Who Knew That ‘Free’ Could Cost So Much? For the most part IBD sources their market information to credible mainstream and government websites, however they occasionally utilize factually mixed sources such as the Daily Signal.
Investors Business Daily strays from the consensus of science in regards to climate change and they have made outrageous and false claims, such as Stephen Hawking would be dead if he lived under England’s Government health care system. This is a false propaganda statement as Stephen Hawking is a citizen of the UK and lives there. Hawking claims the British Healthcare system saved his life and kept him alive to old age.
A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers. Here are a few of the many we found:
Overall, we would rate Investors Business Daily Right Biased based on right leaning economic and market positions. We would also give them a High factual rating on strictly investing and market news. However, editorially IBT is clearly a Questionable source with promotion of right wing conspiracy theories and numerous failed fact checks.
In sum, we rate them far right biased and Mixed for factual reporting. (6/14/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 8/14/2018)
Source:
Thus says the biased jackals at the left leaning and favoring anti Christian MBFC site. MBFC are the slovenly tramps of the internet that allows its unpaid volunteer checkers to defame other sites while disclaiming everything that is written on their site as applies to the real world. That site is for entertainment purposes only and we’ve all been entertained by their ludicrous presence here.
[Removed]
They list bias from the right and the left, had you actually been to the site, you would know that.
Sure they do. We all know that their bias is to the left and that one must go much further to the left there to get a left bias rating than to the right to get a right leaning rating. MBFC is simply a censorship tool used by the left here to silence and shut up certain conservative and religious viewpoint sources here. Nothing more. No one here on the right accepts that outfit or lends it any legitimacy what so ever. It is simply a tool here to be used by one side to limit content of the other for no valid or rational reason whatsoever. I don’t think that there is one conservative member here that accepts anything MBFC has to say about anything
oh really?
recognize that quote?
Yes. It was a measured response to the idea that all that above should apply to Christians, much like the way the MBFC site thinks about Christian beliefs and rates their sites as pseudoscience.
Who is, "we all"? Never even try to speak for me.
I’ll speak as I choose when I choose, your objections to the contrary notwithstanding.
so i suppose the seeder (and author) is against capitalism and letting companies run how they see fit ? seems like the seeder wants "equal outcomes" for everyone - which i hear is not what conservatives stand for....
I have always opposed the regulation of the internet. The last thing I want is for the big social media to become protected regulated monopolies. I want them unregulated but still subject to domestic anti trust laws.
Despite the numerous articles you've seeded which whine that big tech doesn't like hate speech, bigotry and other conservative traits.
By the way it's nice to see that PayPal dumped Info Wars. Hopefully they'll drop all the hate sites which the right wing uses to launder money.
Assuming that hate speech and bigotry are conservative traits is a blood libel form of hate speech directed at conservatives.
But isn't that exactly what you've been whining about here and in other seeds, that big tech isn't publishing the hate speech and bigoted views of conservatives? You've droned on endlessly about that so it seems rather absurd for you to deny it now.
you get it one way or the other - regulated or unregulated. which do you want again ? you want to control a private company so they cater to the conservative minded instead of letting a private company do what they want with their own company (setting their own rules/guidelines) ? I thought the mantra for the conservative minded was - let the market punish them ? now you want Big Brother Government to regulate them ?
They have no idea what they want when it comes to this.
Hate speech to the progressive left only applies when it comes from the right. When the progressive left does it, it is just free speech. Outrageous!
Hate speech is protected in then US, unlike other countries. The limit of free speech in the US is when it becomes a credible imminent threat to others.
Got any examples of hate speech from the left?
[deleted]
[deleted]
One only has to listen to people like Feinstein, Pelosi, and Waters for examples.
So, you have nothing other than a trolling comment.
If this were anything close to true you coild actually cite examples.
Guess not huh?
Again, you have nothing but a sweeping generalization....any fact to back up the hate speech?
The truth is not hate speech.
Accusing another member of trolling behavior in their comments is a direct violation of the coc.
Except you nor the other commentor have provided any examples or proof to back up your sweeping general statements.
When you provide "truth" we can see.
Let's see a few things already in the light of day, shall we?
1) If you actually read my comment I never accused the poster of anything. So, who is the one that posted a false accusation?
That would be you. And if I were a small minded person I would press for your comment to be ticketed for the very coc violation you waved at me without any proof
2) Another burst of light here for you...Moderators have already been here, I see that you and the other poster getting tickets and comments removed...kind of blows your maliciously injected unproven theory regarding the left and discredits your accusation a bit, no?
You used the words “trolling comment” in reply to Ed’s comment. Clearly there was no sign of anything even resembling trolling in his comment about your precious dear leaders.
All three have engaged in varying degrees of hate speech toward their domestic political opposition.
Love the drama about "my precious dear leaders".says more about you than anything else.
Then if it wasn't a trolling comment...where is the facts shown?
Why is it you chimed in and you also cannot show proof of hate speech by these people yet you post the same trolling comment in support?
You said I directed to his behavior when I only mentioned the comment. Why haven't you acknowledged your jump to accuse me without accepting those facts?
Will you be considering how a Christian should respond to these facts? We'll see shortly won't we?
Just as I suspected. You disappeared when the truth became evident
I simply don’t regard your comments and the truth having anything in common, thusI have no reason to apologize to you for anything or for any reason.
Of course you don't because truth has a way of making lies get ignored by the willing accomplice.
When the facts are laid out the discussion and even whole seeds are abandoned and even deleted....
Just can't stand when facts destroy your mission?
You made it pretty clear that your intentions and presence was to agitate and irritate liberals. Making threats of ruining companies'stocks....
I have a mission too.
[Removed]
Well Fox Nation is coming again and soon. In the meantime we will pressure and expose existing platforms regarding their biases whether you like it or not. And we will damage their stock value to send them a message.
We shall see.
... in about 45 days.
A red wave is what we will see.
Red tide maybe.
The red wave will be a goodbye wave to the right by the American voter
In your wildest dreams.
And you'll be taking an extended vacation again like you did in '08 and '12 ?
When Obama wiped the floor with Barbie of the boondocks.
And landslide Mitt to the dugouts?
I was heavily involved in the Tea Party in 2009 to 2012. No vacation. I was no more on vacation then than you are now.
Ahhhh. How conveniently you forget...
When you returned to NV after a few weeks post the embarrassing election results for you I noted your absence.
Your reply was that you had taken an extended vacation only...which I suspected to be untrue and you just confirmed it.
Why yes! I am on vacation...it's called "retirement" I earned enough to live in comfort for the rest of my wife's life. I don't have a need to run from my rhetoric by calling it a vacation.
Are you saying they don't take any social security or medicare to subsidize their income?
That's great!
I just don't work for other people anymore.
Lazy has nothing to do with my actions. I've known for some years now that accumulation was imperative to sustain my wife later and that's been accomplished.
When you know the outcome and timing of your future as I do what choices do you make after that?
Bucket list is completed and then some..my wife will never have to look at a can of cat food as a possible food source. Am I entitled to spend the rest in company of those I love and love me now?
Better yet, ask your father.
Cool?
So they are mooching eh?
Pretty sure an 88 and 80 year old can't work very hard.
I was never gone from NV for several weeks until I left it for good around 2015.
President Trump recognizes the far left bias in the media, social media, and so called media fact checkers like MBFC. He is right to call them all out on their hate filled bigoted bias against all things conservative and Christian.
You can call them out all day long.
What you can't do is prove them wrong.
So it gets called hate because the right can't lie their way out of it.
That site is nothing more than one hate filled bigot’s mentally challenged rankings bashing everyone he disagrees with with all sorts of negative characteristics and perjorative name calling designed to appeal to all the weak minded suckers eagerly lapping up his cultic kool aid. That anyone on earth listens to mr Van Zandt is a sad commentary on them. Having a site bad mouthed by him is a real badge of honor to all us red blooded American conservatives. The worse he rates something the more likely I’m going to use it because he did.
How convenient that you narrow your broad generalization of media and fact checkers to you anger at one person.
And with all that huffing and puffing of your opinion the points I brought still ring true...
The majority of the bs that spews from that site is the vindictive personal opinion of one man. His opinion is just that, his opinion and it will guide the actions of not a single conservative here. Just because he spews his bigoted and hate filled personal opinions on a faux site he operates doesn’t make it so.
Nice babble of your opinion of one man.
Now what about the general statement made..? We already have this idiot covered.
The ones you can't debunk without lying are also hate sites?
My opinion is every bit as valid as yours or his is. We all have them. I already seeded an article exposing the fraud of so called fact checking sites that showed MBFC as the 2nd most fraudulent of them all.
Yes it is. An opinion ia one thing, to make a statement that a segment is spreading hate speech without facts is not "opinion" now it's slander....a lie.
I'm sure somewhere in your version of Christianity there is a rule about false testimony isn't there?
Selective stance on sin is also not an option. Otherwise, one would not have a moral leg to stand on.
So, which is it? You are a Christian ALL the time, or only when it serves as a shield ? So far, ALL the time isn't looking good.
E.A What would you call a site that has members that constantly attack other members belittle, berate, make fun, abuse say halftruths about them and what they hold as their conviction, right or wrong?
Fox Nation, the right made an art of turning that site in to a lawless ghetto. Then they migrated to another famous site and did the same.
And if you want to get specific, if that member showed on a nearly daily basis that they have no problem posting half-truths, outright lies, deceptive sites, gets called out for it and continues to post such, takes suspensions because of this behavior and has openly admitted that they solely exist to offend liberals all the while claiming to be a Christian and posting lies.
What would be your actions be?
E.A Ahh I see so You " See only one side " is there a name for that?
E.A My Action would be what it has been for decades on the Internet and before that in IRC and before that in University of Buffalo Server Bulletin boards!
Do a search and verify it yourself so that I will not mislead you!
What draws you to the conclusion of being "one sided"?
Because I call out the lie? Because I use what has already been posted as a reference?
Here's the difference EA, I don't draw my conclusions from opinions not based in facts. I also don't claim to be a member of a group that adhere to a strict doctrine of truth, humanity, love, and compassion while ignoring those values and using that group membership as a shield thereby drawing other members to come for defense.
If you want to be a part of that hypocrisy that is of your choosing.
I don't have to cover myself, if I'm wrong then I admit that and learn, I don't abandon my comments because the truth just exposed my less than honest efforts.
My history is clear here and from the last site. I don't claim membership to a group unless one is considered in a group of same ideology, in which case I could be labled Liberal because of my compassion and empathy for others., I make truthful comments as a natural action not as a conscious effort, I don't have to "try" and tell the truth because anything else is not in my nature.
Which gets done plenty....and when you consistently find that person is not being truthful in their deeds while claiming membership to a group that holds honesty sacred do you remain quiet, or do you expose the lies for all to see?
I'm not on the wrong side of this EA. There is only one side to honesty. Which side do you prefer? I made my choice long before the internet, and I didn't need to belong to a particular group except an extremely open and honest family for that foundation.
E.A Good to hear, that is why I said " Do a Search and make sure " You and I first had a chat on NV about the " chooks " and the different breeds, I do not know if you recall that, that aside tho, while I have been attacked here for doing nothing more then posting articles of FACT and Science information and even when I posted about weather and Storms, did I see you say anything to stop those attacks?
E.A Rights so what LIES have you found that I said?
E.A You mean like " Speak you Mind "?
Have you heard that Saying " you catch more Flies with Honey/sugar then with vinegar "??
SO lets say someone is " Mistaken " and they " Believe " all those " mistakes to be " true " who is it that thinks what they think is a Lie?
So what is the best way to assist those person, by berating them, by ganging up on them? by driving them out?
None! That's what I like about you. The problem is you stepped right in the middle of an exchange I have with another member.
As I see I have made no suggestion or claim about your honesty.
No, and I am sorry you were attacked, but then again when have you seen me join general Science or health related topics on NT? So seeing it to come to your defense would be needed first.
Even when it comes to my polar opposites in ideology I have and still will intervene on that persons behalf if they are suffering undue attacks. There are a few of my polar opposites that I know would do the same and have. The majority on both sides of the spectrum will not and that is depressing.
When assisting one discovers these are not mistakes and the intention to deceive is deliberate with an admission that their sole purpose is to inflame their opposition the area of engagement changes.
No, I mean like deliberately lie.
E.A Where is --- Still === :-) See " Wold Pack "
But that aside I used Self as to make a point, and that is that people are attacked, with LITTLE if no provocation other then what they " Think " and that KEY Point here is " Think " one can not change what another thinks by Polemics and putting that person in the " corner " nor by making that person a " pariah " but, with time gaining a common ground, and then using FACTS to slowly replace " Theories " until both are on SOLID Ground!
Thank YOU for your Patience :-)
E.A Yes Absolutely do you think Propaganda is reliant on TRUTH? Or on ones ability to misinform and pressure others to accept what they might well NOT understand OR believe in?
E.A Yes so tell me what " Fanatic " thought they were Lying?
I understand the concept of "think" except in example both the seeder and the commenter did not "think" the left, and especially the popular left of the day communicated with "hate speech" they "knew" .
When pressed for their proof or even evidence, one disappeared and the seeder can't back up their accusation.
This is when you arrived and now the other two have disappeared leaving us to discuss philosophy.
As it is, both made bold statements that are fast becoming proof of lying. One being a supposed devout Christian has yet again used the Christian faith as a shield to cover them. When the deceiver is among you.
E.A LOL Isn't Philo Sophy Great, are we now glad it is still available FOR discussion?
Yes so what happened they could well Both now be " seriously " considering their past View, but putting them in the Corner, will do what?
There is quite a difference in your approach in conversing. When you "think" something, most can tell you are thinking and pondering a point.
This is not the case...what came out were conclusions. As you and I both know a conclusion is an end to thought and a decision has been made from real evidence.
They had zero evidence, just a prejudice. And willing to lie to spread that prejudice.
Any true Christians you know that will go to those lengths of deceit to inflame prejudice and hate?
E.A OK lets invite Philo Sophy back to continue here ::
Most people have their personality " Locked in " by the age of Seven ( 7 ), so discussions with then on issues that they have already told themselves are " Facts " will in most cases be like " water on a ducks back ".
In this cases the best way to get a point across is to find how " They Think on that topic " and then Change the methodology, a little like in SciFi a " Shield works on FAST objects but a Slow Arrow will get through "
And in Real Science The Faster the BULLET the less distance it will travel IN Water,, nice hey :-)
SO Lets take you hobby and Roosters, how many Alphas can you have in one place,?
But one can have up to say 10 roosters in one pen with little problems, how is that achieved?
E.A No, Because in the Bible and Jesus said " They will Hate YOU as they have Hatted me " so one can easily place self in that locale!
E.A An excellent example to that is what Jesus Christ had to do according to the Biblical text::
He spent over three ( 3 ) Years after his Baptism, gathering and training " Fishers of Man " knowing that in time he would need to hand over " earth affairs " to them, do you recall what happened?
………..
After His Resurrection, he found out that they all in FEAR abandoned the " Ministry " and went fishing, and they where not doing too well at that either, so in a " Metamorphosised body " he appeared to them after catching and cooking some fish and offering them a meal. He did not berate them, but at that point he knew he " had to do better for a choice "
……..
Read what happened with " a Hatter of the Followers of the one named Jesus Christ " and how far he went to capture and execute them!!!
……………..
Now tell me why would Jesus Christ, see that this Person was what he needed?
Even the simplist of creatures learns if they are backed in to a corner of their own making will cause them to consider their habits.
E.A I Love your " deflection " and it is " of their OWN making " but in this discussion they been placed in the corned by someone challenging what and how they THINK!
In specific to that I would assume from inexperience that removing all the hens would lessen the competitive nature.
Still not something I'd try without a whip, a chair, and some really thick clothes.
BTW...we had a neighbor in my childhood we called "Philo Sophie" she was a master of things wrapped or covered with philo that she generously shared with us children.
NewsTalkers...
E.A BINGO!!
So removing the Reason for the " competition " they then set their pecking order and it remains so until some drastic changes come about!
And Yes some have NO Idea how dangerous Roosters and even " Mad Chickens " can be and how much BLOOD they can draw!!
This is where our interpretations differ.
The statements weren't made as "I think..." They were made as a definate. "They do"
When one makes that response it would be expected that this conclusion would come with thought and proof.
Neither has been shown. Only prejudice built on a lie that they were all too willing to spread until called on it.
So, I ask again, what self declared Christian would sink to those depths to perpetuate prejudice and hatred while knowingly basing it with a lie?
E.A OK Lets back step::
I Use the word THINK as I have previously posted as the " FIXED mental attitude of an individual " as I stated about Age Seven,,,
You on the other hand use the word " Think " as the activity at time od speaking and OR Typing, see the difference here, same WORD, two people speaking the Same Language, but a different " View Point of a WORD " No imagine a WHOLE sentence , with that event occurring, and we have " World War in NT !!! "
E.A I brought up that to the Operators of the site, that that might well be the case!
Good! But I have the feeling I know what the response will be and some will be crying "foul" when they don't have the desired effect.
E.A I am sure they will as they are doing about appointments of JUDGES, they do not understand how " Impartiality " works there not on a Chat Forum, and with some not even in real life!
My brain, nor my ability to learn did not reach a capacity level at the age of seven. I was also taught that very point around the age of seven.
At seven one doesn't comprehend influence peddling.
E.A Same as the discussion you and I are having on the other seed and Philo Sophy, and how it is possible to disagree and still be civil and get an " education " in the process :-)
E.A one step back again::
I will add this about IQ, and I said that and you can search and might find me saying that a few decades back " IQ is when one has a Forty-four Gallon Drum, it has the Capacity, but how much does it CONTAIN " It might be " running on Empty "!
So then, when the " Methodology " is set, that has nothing to do with the VOLUMETRICS :-)