CDZ Is it time to create a new thread, "Honesty"?

[DandyDonovan]

It really is time for honesty, a forum which requires every post on every issue to provide probative evidence that what they posted is true, and the powers that be choose the standard they feel best supports honesty, to wit:

Legal Standards are those standards that are set forth in governmental laws. Ethical standards are based on the human principles of right and wrong. Something can be legal but not ethical.

There is no doubt that Ethical Standards hold the truth as good, and a lie bad. It is really that simple, that the Internet in general, and this message board in particular, has members who are honest and who are liars.

I do not and will not suggest censorship. I support allowing the White Nationalists to make their case overtly, and let Black Lives Matter do the same; let the anti Semites make their case, and the Jews make theirs; let the liberals and the conservatives, let the Democrats, let the Republicans, the Libertarians the Greens and the anarchists to speak their mind and explain how they would govern or be governed.

To what end? Prior to my coming here I belonged to the Hannity Forum. It was heavily moderated and even then there were debate zones within that were "refereed" to ensure honesty and proof of statements. The best outcome ever seen on them was an agreement to disagree. Never were minds changed despite the fact that there were clear winners. The left continued to believe what they believed and continued to argue. Some would probably say the same about the right. The division is too wide, and most likely cannot be bridged.

You raise a good point about the divide. However, I can not explain why it was so easy for me to change MY own mind on so many issues (including abortion) but the same facts that caused me to change my views have absolutely no effect on others.

That is One if the many reasons I have no respect or regard for them (my opponents.) They are impervious to the facts.

Well, when the Speaker of the House and other members of Congress do things like simply walk out of the room, or outright tell a law enforcement official that they do not believe the facts that they are being told when they are the ones creating laws to govern us, what do you expect average people to think about facts?

Please keep up, the trump administration has created a new term, alternative facts.

For the umpteenth time I will tell you that I do not approve of the Trump Administration lying either.

 

[Wyatt earp]

LOL you deny that MSNBC and CNN are Biased? What world do you live in?

WHEN are you people going to learn the difference between fact and bias? We all have to filter our information for bias. It is what intelligent people do. But if I want facts I go to the MSM which I know verifies its sources. I don't go there for opinions. I go there for the facts.

And yet you and others insisted Blasey Ford was telling the truth despite the lack of corroborating facts or witnesses and despite her own lies.
You also insisted in a thread you made that Kavanaugh was drunk and drugged at his testimony, and that his wife was on tranquillisers, and that he used her tranquillisers for his testimony.
None of this - ABSOLUTELY NONE - had any basis in anything other than your imagination.

I don't know if Dr. Ford was truthful, nor do I know if Judge Kavanaugh was truthful. However, in a trial the judge tells the jurors to use common sense in evaluating the testimony, as more or less credible.

I watched every minute of the testimony of both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, and concluded Dr. Ford was more credible than Judge Kavanaugh. I didn't watch or listen to the commentary by the talking heads on any source.

I formed my opinion based on the words they spoke, their body language and the emotions which permeated through their testimony. And, when Judge Kavanaough attacked the Democratic Party, the Clinton's and a conspiracy theory he lost me.

.

That you found someone telling demonstrable lies more ‘credible’ speaks only to your bias and partisanship, and certainly not truth or honesty.

In all honesty and sincerity, please go away; you contribute nothing but discord, and add to the divisive nature of today's politics.

Nope. You said you wanted honesty, but you couldn’t be further from the truth if you tried. Oh the irony!

Bump

 

[sartre play]

I did not watch ford truth or lies, am sick of the use of sexual misconduct for political purpose. That he would get the seat on the court was a done deal Be for a word was spoken. Pure bloody politics. Zero intent in getting the best person for the job.

 

[sartre play]

Sorry got sucked into this Ford thing,(its a done deal) LETS GO BACK TO THE BACK TO THE TOPIC. Trying to post with honesty.

 

[krichton]

Although, we all insert links from various sites; how can we be certain "they" are factual. The sources like Fox News, CNN, etc.

Although, we like to believe they are accurate and factual; you can't pass anything. Especially, some of these are not always "honest" as they say they say.

Sure, it's easy for Fox News to say they "report" accurate news/stories. That doesn't necessarily mean they are "honest".

News sources such as The New York Times and Washington Posts like to "report" their stories/news as "factual". But in reality, they at times distort it to the point, they make it so believable. People seem to find them somehow still "credible" sources. So much so, how can they call themselves an "honest" news source, when they omit and edit their "news" at any given time? How honest is that?

You can assume most msm news sources are more biased towards corporate interests sometimes but by and far, they are insanely more reliable than when someone posts information they got from a meme on social media or when someone only posts from highly partisan websites, which are essentially just personal web pages. But at least ppl aren't getting their news from Trump tweets anymore.

 

[Correll]

Although, we all insert links from various sites; how can we be certain "they" are factual. The sources like Fox News, CNN, etc.

Although, we like to believe they are accurate and factual; you can't pass anything. Especially, some of these are not always "honest" as they say they say.

Sure, it's easy for Fox News to say they "report" accurate news/stories. That doesn't necessarily mean they are "honest".

News sources such as The New York Times and Washington Posts like to "report" their stories/news as "factual". But in reality, they at times distort it to the point, they make it so believable. People seem to find them somehow still "credible" sources. So much so, how can they call themselves an "honest" news source, when they omit and edit their "news" at any given time? How honest is that?

You can assume most msm news sources are more biased towards corporate interests sometimes but by and far, they are insanely more reliable than when someone posts information they got from a meme on social media or when someone only posts from highly partisan websites, which are essentially just personal web pages. But at least ppl aren't getting their news from Trump tweets anymore.

The msm watched Trump state that "nazis are bad people" and reported to the world that he said, "nazis are very fine people".


That you think them reliable...

 

[sartre play]

By the number of posts you can tell honesty is not nearly as interesting a topic as personal people bashing.