JesusKnowsYou
Active Member
I figured but I didn't want to assume anything.Which is why I put the "" there, to thus indicate I was pulling your leg.
I mean - those aged ecumenical anthropologists are a crazy bunch.
You can't lower you guard around them.
I also do not like the use of the word "Derangement" in that term - but I didn't coin it so I'm at a loss.Sorry, but that simply is clearly a bogus cover-up attempt in all likelihood, because of the word "Derangement". Your wording above sorta tells me that really do know that.
Even though I don't know where it started - those who talk about TDS focus on the fact that it is an extreme bias or even hatred.
Sure - that bias or hatred can cause people to do or say dumb things - but the term itself does not claim that the people who suffer from it are themselves dumb.
If - however - you believe that my use of the term breaks the Forum Rules - report me and we will see.
I do not believe that it does - but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
You jumped the gun here and didn't consider what I said in addition to this.I get this kind of nonsense back all the time with the time with some people here who are not able to counter evidence with facts, thus they blame the "messenger" (Wikipedia). Even if you thought you're correct, there are links that were provided there that you could have checked out, but you clearly didn't do that. Next time, if you can't come back with facts, maybe consider being honest with what you say, and sometimes saying nothing may be the best.
First off - this was my opinion. I was not attempting to "counter" anything - just share my opinion.
Also - I said immediately after sharing my opinion that,
"I would be willing to discuss any of its content as long as they were presented one at a time."
I am willing to talk about anything on this page - including the links - as long as you pick which claim you want to discuss and it is one at a time.
Does that sound like someone who is unwilling to check out the claims and offer counter evidence?
I am willing - I just don't want to make your argument for you or put any more time and effort into it then I deem necessary.
So - if you want to make the claim that the President is racist - give me an example backed with evidence - not a laundry list of claims.
And also don't expect me to do your work for you.
Sure - but when people complained about that one BBC reporter claiming that the President's comment towards those anti-American Congresswomen was racist (even though it wasn't) - didn't the network support the bias of their reporter?That largely depends largely on who's doing the reporting.
You can't exhibit a bias and claim to be a journalist. That's fact.But, again, you're resorting to using what's called "intellectual dishonesty", and I've seen way too much of that here to just let this pass without comment. Use facts, not bias; and if you can't, maybe it's best not to fabricate a response and remain silent. BBC has an excellent worldwide respect as a source of news, but it ain't perfect, that's for sure. Sure the heck knocks Fox "News" out of the water though.
Most of the shows on Fox News - like Tucker, Ingraham and Hannity - don't claim to be journalists.
Anyone who watches their shows knows that they are getting the opinion of the host about the facts.
News networks like CNN, MSNBC, CBS and the BBC tell their audience that they are unbiased - but they are anything but.
Basically - the message I would send to all these "journalists" would be the same one that you gave me,
"Use facts, not bias; and if you can't, maybe it's best not to fabricate a response and remain silent."
This is an opinion.And, in closing, Trump's racism is often very clear, and if you can't see that-- well, I'll just stop here.
Why not chose an example from that Wikipedia page you shared and we can talk about it?
I clearly stated that I was willing to talk about anything and everything on that Wikipedia page - just one at a time.Maybe think about this when you're in or after church tomorrow, btw, as well as dismissing things simply because you don't like the "messenger". IMO, it's a great time for me to meditate on what I've done wrong over the week and what I can do to improve, and I make more than my fair share of mistakes, let me tell ya!
I don't believe that Wikipedia is "non-partisan"- but I didn't "dismiss" anything.
When it comes to church and meditation - don't go there.
Especially after misrepresenting what I had said.
You too.Take care, and have a Most Blessed Lord's Day.