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

[martybegan]

It isn't enough to "provide a link" IMO for factual support of your claim. They are all biased. When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased. I'll go to less prominent outlets or even foreign sources to corroborate a story. It is really difficult to get at the truth since everyone is on a hair trigger to shoot down the other side. You have to let the dust settle and check multiple sources and DON'T BELIEVE the talking heads on TV until you do.

You've already expressed your biases, IMO, by echoing long established but never proved memes. That said, I agree checking multiple sources is one necessary ingredient. However, primary sources are those which are the most convincing and enlightening in forming an opinion.

Interviews, speeches, tweets, documents and e-mails are most telling, most of this was available to hear and watch during Kavanaugh's job interview. Active listening skills were all that was necessary to come to a yes or no vote, by those of us who did not worry about being reelected in November, or in 2020.

And what long established but never proved memes are you attacking me about in this clean debate zone?

I didn't attack you, and this meme is well within your quote:

"When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased".

This quote is an opinion, based on a BIG LIE first issued by Limbaugh and echoed over and over again.

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

Of course not; I do not deny bias in the News Media.

To your point, my experience is MSNBC is a counter point to Fox; CNN is well balanced, though I rarely watch CNN, I prefer PBS and NPR on the issues of the day.

As I've stated before, primary sources are an important part of any news media, and the more primary sources, the more credible is the source, IMO.

The CNN website has gone completely 100% "Trump Sucks" so I would take some time to update your information on them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Every time I speak with you, you seem to pepper your posts with unsupported and often very offensive opinion, like, calling Trump a "man-child" or just calling people racist for no reason.

Can you do this, what you are calling for?

Let's discuss my use of man-child. You claim my comment is unsupported, and yet my comment is based completely on his behavior, it is much like a spoiled child, he demands attention, loyalty and every issue is all about him. Those are not characteristic of a leader or a mature individual. Based on my experience and education.

I'm not an easy target for bullies, thus like Trump, I'm a counter puncher. I'm not proud of calling the current iteration of conservatives callous, greedy and/or racist. It is based on their expressed ideology; I'm also concerned with fear and hate mongering, it does nothiing more than widen the divide among our diverse population, something I hoped would be limited in this thread, and in a new forum focused on honesty.

So, if you hate or fear black people, Jews or Muslims, conservatives or liberals, etc., tell us why and what in you life made you into the person you are today in holding this opinion.

 

[Auld Phart]

and sometimes memories are faulty.

Unless you have something to back up your supposition the non-interviewed witnesses were credible, it's inadmissible as anything but hearsay.

His buddy, and her bff, both stated they didn't recall
the actions she claimed.

and they were the only two known to be at the party.

Did any of them recall the date of the party?

Ford didn't.

what were they supposed to ask them?

"were you at a party with Miss Ford, Mr Judge, and Mr Kavanaugh sometime during the summer of 1981,1982, or 1983, and did anything unusual happen?"

(If I remember correctly, she wasn't all that sure about the year, either)

 

[well named]

For the record and other readers, this threads theme has zero to do with the Ford-Kavanaugh theatrics, per se; it is about honesty and the lack of it in too many posts, and within the Congress, the White House and the media.

[note: In the White House is not directed solely at Trump&Co., other Presidents, as well as members of Congress members of the media - MSM and all the other sources - which offer themselves as a source of news and too many posts can and are efforts to mislead the reader]

One thread which by rule requires an honest evaluation of, for example, wedge issues (abortion, the 2nd A., taxes, the definition of marriage, foreign and domestic policies, health care, etc.) seems to be a safe harbor for those who value truth and justice.

Of particular concern to me, are the BIG LIES and the memes which rebound around this message board and frustrates honest debate. BIG LIES are dishonest; I also believe not allowing the use of STFU and the funny button on a thread which requires honesty, those inclined to do so need to learn how to compose a sound argument and not simply want to garner attention from their side of the aisle.

This is my honest opinion. The reader is asked to respond with words if they agree or not, and explain why.

I think it might be more useful to frame your request around the idea of having some more rigorously defined standards of evidence and productive conversation, rather than around honesty. I agree with you that some people are knowingly dishonest, or at least disingenuous, but I don't think it's really possible to settle questions about people's motivations, whereas it is reasonably possible to define some objective standards for evidence and logical argumentation which could be fairly applied to most topics. That said, there's still also plenty of disagreements that can't be settled that way, and the "who is the arbiter?" problem is real, and is also a political topic in and of itself.

But I think the more obvious problem with your idea is just that the overwhelming majority of online politics forum participants aren't interested in (or maybe aren't even capable of) participating in the kind of discussion you are suggesting, and such a discussion also requires heavy and continuous moderation, which very few people are interested in (or even capable of) providing. If you got what you wanted, it would probably be a ghost town. That's not even intended to be an insult to posters here specifically, it's like that everywhere, as far as I can tell.

I think this is in a certain sense both a flaw and a feature of democracy: it's noisy, contentious, and dominated by people loudly proclaiming their own ignorance. Even more so now when basically every person in the US has the means by which to broadcast their likely-ill-informed opinions to thousands or millions of people with zero friction. But I think it might be one of those things where it's just the worst system except for all the others, as the saying goes There are more intelligent, nuanced, thoughtful conversations to be had, but you probably have to prepare the ground for them yourself or take them where you can find them. I doubt it's practical to coerce the conversations which do happen here to be more like what you want.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

How are you going to decide what is true? There aren’t any impartial news sites any more.

Plus, what is the point? Has anyone’s mind ever changed?

PBS and NPR are viable alternatives. Also, seek primary sources, but keep in mind that editing by the media - MSM & otherwise - can promote their agenda and not the source's.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the record and other readers, this threads theme has zero to do with the Ford-Kavanaugh theatrics, per se; it is about honesty and the lack of it in too many posts, and within the Congress, the White House and the media.

[note: In the White House is not directed solely at Trump&Co., other Presidents, as well as members of Congress members of the media - MSM and all the other sources - which offer themselves as a source of news and too many posts can and are efforts to mislead the reader]

One thread which by rule requires an honest evaluation of, for example, wedge issues (abortion, the 2nd A., taxes, the definition of marriage, foreign and domestic policies, health care, etc.) seems to be a safe harbor for those who value truth and justice.

Of particular concern to me, are the BIG LIES and the memes which rebound around this message board and frustrates honest debate. BIG LIES are dishonest; I also believe not allowing the use of STFU and the funny button on a thread which requires honesty, those inclined to do so need to learn how to compose a sound argument and not simply want to garner attention from their side of the aisle.

This is my honest opinion. The reader is asked to respond with words if they agree or not, and explain why.

I think it might be more useful to frame your request around the idea of having some more rigorously defined standards of evidence and productive conversation, rather than around honesty. I agree with you that some people are knowingly dishonest, or at least disingenuous, but I don't think it's really possible to settle questions about people's motivations, whereas it is reasonably possible to define some objective standards for evidence and logical argumentation which could be fairly applied to most topics. That said, there's still also plenty of disagreements that can't be settled that way, and the "who is the arbiter?" problem is real, and is also a political topic in and of itself.

But I think the more obvious problem with your idea is just that the overwhelming majority of online politics forum participants aren't interested in (or maybe aren't even capable of) participating in the kind of discussion you are suggesting, and such a discussion also requires heavy and continuous moderation, which very few people are interested in (or even capable of) providing. If you got what you wanted, it would probably be a ghost town. That's not even intended to be an insult to posters here specifically, it's like that everywhere, as far as I can tell.

I think this is in a certain sense both a flaw and a feature of democracy: it's noisy, contentious, and dominated by people loudly proclaiming their own ignorance. Even more so now when basically every person in the US has the means by which to broadcast their likely-ill-informed opinions to thousands or millions of people with zero friction. But I think it might be one of those things where it's just the worst system except for all the others, as the saying goes There are more intelligent, nuanced, thoughtful conversations to be had, but you probably have to prepare the ground for them yourself or take them where you can find them. I doubt it's practical to coerce the conversations which do happen here to be more like what you want.

Very well stated, and an honest evaluation of social media too, i.e. there is little social (behavior) in social media.

 

[Lewdog]

Was it ethical to lynch Kavanaugh on unfounded unproven obvious lies? Just curious?

Kavanaugh lost all credibility when he told the nation he was a virgin until he got married and that "the devil's triangle" was a drinking game involving quarters.

In a REAL court of law, when a person gets caught telling even the littlest lie, they lose credibility and anything they say beyond those lies is worthless.

The thing is you are elevating miniscule details into something that is far more concrete. Dates, times, locations, visual descriptions of what happened are what are challenged in a court environment. Not the recollections of who had sex when and of some guys drinking game.

You don't understand that lying about the little stuff means that if a person will lie about stuff that doesn't matter, means they will easily lie about stuff that truly does matter. It is common sense.

And what you don't understand is that these type of things can never be answered completely to prove either truth or lie.

On the other hand Ford's fibs were more material to her story, her fabricated "fear of flying" and the whole "escape door" thing.

Right.... You think the captain of the football and basketball team, valedictorian, and rich kid from Maryland that went to Yale and got drunk almost every weekend, was a virgin until he got married.

 

[martybegan]

Was it ethical to lynch Kavanaugh on unfounded unproven obvious lies? Just curious?

Kavanaugh lost all credibility when he told the nation he was a virgin until he got married and that "the devil's triangle" was a drinking game involving quarters.

In a REAL court of law, when a person gets caught telling even the littlest lie, they lose credibility and anything they say beyond those lies is worthless.

The thing is you are elevating miniscule details into something that is far more concrete. Dates, times, locations, visual descriptions of what happened are what are challenged in a court environment. Not the recollections of who had sex when and of some guys drinking game.

You don't understand that lying about the little stuff means that if a person will lie about stuff that doesn't matter, means they will easily lie about stuff that truly does matter. It is common sense.

And what you don't understand is that these type of things can never be answered completely to prove either truth or lie.

On the other hand Ford's fibs were more material to her story, her fabricated "fear of flying" and the whole "escape door" thing.

Right.... You think the captain of the football and basketball team, valedictorian, and rich kid from Maryland that went to Yale and got drunk almost every weekend, was a virgin until he got married.

Now who's talking about assumptions, and who's talking about fact?

You also include some nice projection in there.

 

[Tilly]

And what long established but never proved memes are you attacking me about in this clean debate zone?

I didn't attack you, and this meme is well within your quote:

"When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased".

This quote is an opinion, based on a BIG LIE first issued by Limbaugh and echoed over and over again.

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.

 

[Lewdog]

Kavanaugh lost all credibility when he told the nation he was a virgin until he got married and that "the devil's triangle" was a drinking game involving quarters.

In a REAL court of law, when a person gets caught telling even the littlest lie, they lose credibility and anything they say beyond those lies is worthless.

The thing is you are elevating miniscule details into something that is far more concrete. Dates, times, locations, visual descriptions of what happened are what are challenged in a court environment. Not the recollections of who had sex when and of some guys drinking game.

You don't understand that lying about the little stuff means that if a person will lie about stuff that doesn't matter, means they will easily lie about stuff that truly does matter. It is common sense.

And what you don't understand is that these type of things can never be answered completely to prove either truth or lie.

On the other hand Ford's fibs were more material to her story, her fabricated "fear of flying" and the whole "escape door" thing.

Right.... You think the captain of the football and basketball team, valedictorian, and rich kid from Maryland that went to Yale and got drunk almost every weekend, was a virgin until he got married.

Now who's talking about assumptions, and who's talking about fact?

You also include some nice projection in there.

There is nothing to assume here. He even had in his yearbook that he was part of a club that had sex with a girl from a nearby town.

 

[OldLady]

This is the clean zone, the truth always rises, falsehoods will fade away.

Post your values and principles, and how they would govern and how you would like to be governed is all that is asked.

Postscript: A lies can be challenged by the Mods, or another post which provides probative evidence that what was stated was a lie.

Values and principles are opinions especially when it comes to politics and, after all, this is a political forum. So I ask again, who is going to be "Truth-Sheriff."

What about reputable sources or one of the fact checker sites?

They are all biased tell half truths like MSM

So who tells the real truth, Bear? You?

What's that suppose to mean?

I sure as hell don't tell half truths to promote an ideology.

If verified factual reporting is not up to your standards, where do you get the truth? It means exactly what it says.

 

[martybegan]

The thing is you are elevating miniscule details into something that is far more concrete. Dates, times, locations, visual descriptions of what happened are what are challenged in a court environment. Not the recollections of who had sex when and of some guys drinking game.

You don't understand that lying about the little stuff means that if a person will lie about stuff that doesn't matter, means they will easily lie about stuff that truly does matter. It is common sense.

And what you don't understand is that these type of things can never be answered completely to prove either truth or lie.

On the other hand Ford's fibs were more material to her story, her fabricated "fear of flying" and the whole "escape door" thing.

Right.... You think the captain of the football and basketball team, valedictorian, and rich kid from Maryland that went to Yale and got drunk almost every weekend, was a virgin until he got married.

Now who's talking about assumptions, and who's talking about fact?

You also include some nice projection in there.

There is nothing to assume here. He even had in his yearbook that he was part of a club that had sex with a girl from a nearby town.

Again where is the hard evidence of this?

If this is a thread about the Truth, why not admit some truth, namely that it doesn't matter if this stuff is true or not, you just don't want BK on the Supreme Court.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It isn't enough to "provide a link" IMO for factual support of your claim. They are all biased. When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased. I'll go to less prominent outlets or even foreign sources to corroborate a story. It is really difficult to get at the truth since everyone is on a hair trigger to shoot down the other side. You have to let the dust settle and check multiple sources and DON'T BELIEVE the talking heads on TV until you do.

You've already expressed your biases, IMO, by echoing long established but never proved memes. That said, I agree checking multiple sources is one necessary ingredient. However, primary sources are those which are the most convincing and enlightening in forming an opinion.

Interviews, speeches, tweets, documents and e-mails are most telling, most of this was available to hear and watch during Kavanaugh's job interview. Active listening skills were all that was necessary to come to a yes or no vote, by those of us who did not worry about being reelected in November, or in 2020.

And what long established but never proved memes are you attacking me about in this clean debate zone?

I didn't attack you, and this meme is well within your quote:

"When I research things I rarely go to the major US news sources since they are very biased".

This quote is an opinion, based on a BIG LIE first issued by Limbaugh and echoed over and over again.

Media bias is A big lie? Are you "honestly" telling me that when you watch the major news outlets you don't see one sided biased reporting? Turn on any one of them and I include FOX since they are clearly biased in support of the President. None of them resemble an independent watchdog news agency. They are in full support or full attack on President Trump. If you are going to tout a forum called Honesty, start with yourself.

"Fake News" is a BIG LIE. It started by Limbaugh decades ago. A fact used to censor a source, and promote his show.

You are welcome to offer a rebuttal, my opinion is knowable a posteriori, via my experience. If you have other information on the fake news meme, please enlighten me.

BTW: The words bias and fake, are not synonyms.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

discussing mod actions


One of the essential elements of intellectual honesty is the ability to place oneself on the political spectrum. Pretending that far left or far right ideologies are somehow the only "honest" ones is the height of dishonesty.

Those who would censor honest and accurate views are part of the problem instead of part of the solution when it comes to fostering honest discourse.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The more partisan a poster, the less honest. Extreme leftists calling for "honesty" is just as silly as extreme righties doing the same.

Even if honesty were the goal, who would judge what is and is not honest, especially considering the lack of honesty among the judges?

Readers will independently evaluate what is a lie or a bias. It's really not that difficult when one reads without a bias to differentiate the truth, from a lie, a half-truth, a rumor or an innuendo.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How can we talk about honesty, here, if the accurate depiction of people's political views is considered "flaming"

One of the essential elements of intellectual honesty is the ability to place oneself on the political spectrum. Pretending that far left or far right ideologies are somehow the only "honest" ones is the height of dishonesty.

Those who would censor honest and accurate views are part of the problem instead of part of the solution when it comes to fostering honest discourse.

Good point in general; however one does not need to flame others by offering a political rebuttal. It's not wrong to say the other party is wrong, it is wrong to call them a libtard or a callous conservative.

First we must be able to be honest to ourselves. That is not easy. If you are a zolot, and always vote for zolots, even when you know what the zolots have advocated is against your principles, you are faced with a conundrum.

 

[Lewdog]

You don't understand that lying about the little stuff means that if a person will lie about stuff that doesn't matter, means they will easily lie about stuff that truly does matter. It is common sense.

And what you don't understand is that these type of things can never be answered completely to prove either truth or lie.

On the other hand Ford's fibs were more material to her story, her fabricated "fear of flying" and the whole "escape door" thing.

Right.... You think the captain of the football and basketball team, valedictorian, and rich kid from Maryland that went to Yale and got drunk almost every weekend, was a virgin until he got married.

Now who's talking about assumptions, and who's talking about fact?

You also include some nice projection in there.

There is nothing to assume here. He even had in his yearbook that he was part of a club that had sex with a girl from a nearby town.

Again where is the hard evidence of this?

If this is a thread about the Truth, why not admit some truth, namely that it doesn't matter if this stuff is true or not, you just don't want BK on the Supreme Court.

I most certainly care if it is the truth or not. We don't need a person that will lie under oath serving on the Supreme Court.

...and before you build a strawman, I said that Clinton should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

 

[martybegan]

And what you don't understand is that these type of things can never be answered completely to prove either truth or lie.

On the other hand Ford's fibs were more material to her story, her fabricated "fear of flying" and the whole "escape door" thing.

Right.... You think the captain of the football and basketball team, valedictorian, and rich kid from Maryland that went to Yale and got drunk almost every weekend, was a virgin until he got married.

Now who's talking about assumptions, and who's talking about fact?

You also include some nice projection in there.

There is nothing to assume here. He even had in his yearbook that he was part of a club that had sex with a girl from a nearby town.

Again where is the hard evidence of this?

If this is a thread about the Truth, why not admit some truth, namely that it doesn't matter if this stuff is true or not, you just don't want BK on the Supreme Court.

I most certainly care if it is the truth or not. We don't need a person that will lie under oath serving on the Supreme Court.

...and before you build a strawman, I said that Clinton should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

I strongly believe you are deluding yourself in this matter.

And of course you have proof of you saying that Clinton should have been tossed, contemporary proof.

 

[Lewdog]

Right.... You think the captain of the football and basketball team, valedictorian, and rich kid from Maryland that went to Yale and got drunk almost every weekend, was a virgin until he got married.

Now who's talking about assumptions, and who's talking about fact?

You also include some nice projection in there.

There is nothing to assume here. He even had in his yearbook that he was part of a club that had sex with a girl from a nearby town.

Again where is the hard evidence of this?

If this is a thread about the Truth, why not admit some truth, namely that it doesn't matter if this stuff is true or not, you just don't want BK on the Supreme Court.

I most certainly care if it is the truth or not. We don't need a person that will lie under oath serving on the Supreme Court.

...and before you build a strawman, I said that Clinton should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

I strongly believe you are deluding yourself in this matter.

And of course you have proof of you saying that Clinton should have been tossed, contemporary proof.

Proof? Look through any post you want on here. I've always said that from day one.

Kavanaugh and his buddies created a group and posted the group in their yearbook bragging about all of them sleeping with the same girl at a neighboring school and saying she was a slut. When Kavanaugh got caught on it, he said it was just guys that have "danced" with her. The only person being delusional here is you.

You don't care about the character, ethics, or moral fiber of an individual in government as long as they are a Republican and will more than likely vote or make decisions you agree with. It's called being a sell-out.

 

[martybegan]

Now who's talking about assumptions, and who's talking about fact?

You also include some nice projection in there.

There is nothing to assume here. He even had in his yearbook that he was part of a club that had sex with a girl from a nearby town.

Again where is the hard evidence of this?

If this is a thread about the Truth, why not admit some truth, namely that it doesn't matter if this stuff is true or not, you just don't want BK on the Supreme Court.

I most certainly care if it is the truth or not. We don't need a person that will lie under oath serving on the Supreme Court.

...and before you build a strawman, I said that Clinton should have been thrown out of office for lying under oath.

I strongly believe you are deluding yourself in this matter.

And of course you have proof of you saying that Clinton should have been tossed, contemporary proof.

Proof? Look through any post you want on here. I've always said that from day one.

Kavanaugh and his buddies created a group and posted the group in their yearbook bragging about all of them sleeping with the same girl at a neighboring school and saying she was a slut. When Kavanaugh got caught on it, he said it was just guys that have "danced" with her. The only person being delusional here is you.

You don't care about the character, ethics, or moral fiber of an individual in government as long as they are a Republican and will more than likely vote or make decisions you agree with. It's called being a sell-out.

You are constructing a situation based maybe on your own experiences at best, and on your hoped for outcome at worst. None of this would be admissible in court, and none of it has been corroborated to the exclusion of exculpatory testimony or interviews backing up BK.

I care about evidence, provable verifiable evidence. The kicker in all this is that BK was perfectly fine for the DC Circuit Court, the 2nd highest in the country, but all a sudden because he was taking over a "swing' seat" the dirt diggers dug some more, and cared less about the veracity of their claims.