• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

You guys keep sticking your head in the sand about censorship

 
 
 
L

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
51,600
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
http://blogs.channel4.com/lindsey-h...bomb-attacks-beirut-viewer-show-interest/5646

article said:
There are also practical issues – South Beirut, where last Thursday’s bombing occurred, is controlled by Hizbollah, who rarely let journalists film and never freely. There’s no way the hundreds of journalists who descended on Paris would have been permitted to flood a Hizbollah area for days on end. But that’s just a logistical issue, not your problem.
Click to expand...

It's so taken for granted that the press there is heavily censored that it rarely gets mentioned--and thus you guys pretend it's not going on.
 
Who is it that's been pretending that Lebanon doesn't censor the press? I don't recall that ever being mentioned.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Who is it that's been pretending that Lebanon doesn't censor the press? I don't recall that ever being mentioned.
Click to expand...
He must be referring to that old Laughing Dog thread "Lebanon Doesn't censor Jackshit bitches!".
Click to expand...

It could be he is just replaying his anti-liberal agenda. He really doesn't care that we don't know what is happening in Lebanon. He just wants us to hate Hezbolah a little more and give the Israel government some more of our tax money so when they get done with the Gaza extermination project they can move on without our objection AGAIN to Lebanon. Of course we will have difficulty getting news from Lebanon. The only place with tighter restrictions on truthful information...Washington D.C. or perhaps Putin's little operation in Moscow.
 
Tricked into clicking on another Israel-Palestine thread. I'll check back in 2025 to see if any real discussion is happening.
 
It's not so much about censorship as it is about opaqueness of Hezbollah and the consequent lack of information. What we get from paris is pictures, and human stories when every French journalist and a lot of international ones try to find every possible angle, and there is police that openly informs the public about the investigation and what went down. Of course Hezbollah is not going to give daily updates on their forensics or let reporters scurry around, so there is simply less to report.

That doesn't mean the civilians killed in Beirut were any less valuable than those in France, or that the Evil Western Media conspiracy is somehow trying to portray them as such. It's just a matter of not having as much details available.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Who is it that's been pretending that Lebanon doesn't censor the press? I don't recall that ever being mentioned.
Click to expand...

So you're not going to object the next time I point out that the images we are seeing are a terrorist stage show rather than reality?

Like that ambulance that Israel supposedly rocketed and you guys were so quick to believe what Hezbollah said?

(Never mind that the damage was inconsistent with any rocket out there and the "rocket" "damage" had rust around the edges in the high res shots.)
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Who is it that's been pretending that Lebanon doesn't censor the press? I don't recall that ever being mentioned.
Click to expand...

So you're not going to object the next time I point out that the images we are seeing are a terrorist stage show rather than reality?

Like that ambulance that Israel supposedly rocketed and you guys were so quick to believe what Hezbollah said?

(Never mind that the damage was inconsistent with any rocket out there and the "rocket" "damage" had rust around the edges in the high res shots.)
Click to expand...

You seem to have erroneously quoted my post while making your response. This kind of mistake conveys the impression of that what you're saying bears at least some minor relation to what I was saying and generates confusion as a result.

In the future, when quoting a post, you should make an effort to ensure that the one you quote is part of the same conversation as the response you write is.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Loren Pechtel said:
So you're not going to object the next time I point out that the images we are seeing are a terrorist stage show rather than reality?

Like that ambulance that Israel supposedly rocketed and you guys were so quick to believe what Hezbollah said?

(Never mind that the damage was inconsistent with any rocket out there and the "rocket" "damage" had rust around the edges in the high res shots.)
Click to expand...

You seem to have erroneously quoted my post while making your response. This kind of mistake conveys the impression of that what you're saying bears at least some minor relation to what I was saying and generates confusion as a result.

In the future, when quoting a post, you should make an effort to ensure that the one you quote is part of the same conversation as the response you write is.
Click to expand...

It is on target.
 
I don't know if "us guys" have our head in the sand, but if we do, that is preferable to having our heads up our asses.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Tom Sawyer said:
You seem to have erroneously quoted my post while making your response. This kind of mistake conveys the impression of that what you're saying bears at least some minor relation to what I was saying and generates confusion as a result.

In the future, when quoting a post, you should make an effort to ensure that the one you quote is part of the same conversation as the response you write is.
Click to expand...

It is on target.
Click to expand...

In what way? I mean, list out the progression between what I said and what you responded. You may have done the OP as a response to some other argument in some other thread which I hadn't paid attention to, but without that tie-in it just looks like meandering drivel to me. I'm about 90% sure it would still be meandering drivel with that tie-in, but at least I'd be able to parse together a glimmering of whatever the fuck it is you're trying to talk about, because that it completely unclear at the moment.
 
I am pretty confident that 'to rocket' is not a verb.

I have no clue what this thread is meant to be about. But if anyone here had said that someone 'rocketed' something, I would have Grammar Nazied them so hard, they would have been head spinning for a week.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Who is it that's been pretending that Lebanon doesn't censor the press? I don't recall that ever being mentioned.
Click to expand...

So you're not going to object the next time I point out that the images we are seeing are a terrorist stage show rather than reality?

Like that ambulance that Israel supposedly rocketed and you guys were so quick to believe what Hezbollah said?

(Never mind that the damage was inconsistent with any rocket out there and the "rocket" "damage" had rust around the edges in the high res shots.)
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight - you are still butthurt because people here did not automatically and unconditionally swallow your pro-Israel apologia? I would think you would be used to that by now.
 
bilby said:
I am pretty confident that 'to rocket' is not a verb.

I have no clue what this thread is meant to be about. But if anyone here had said that someone 'rocketed' something, I would have Grammar Nazied them so hard, they would have been head spinning for a week.
Click to expand...

Eh, if 'biweekly' can simultaneously mean 'twice a week' and 'once every two weeks' then I don't really care. If 'to rocket' isn't a verb that can mean 'to assault with rockets' then just redefine it. Evolving language ftw!
 
This thread appears to be a 'haystack fallacy' - an extension of the better known 'strawman', wherein not only are you arguing against a position not held by your opponent, but you are using an unevidenced rebuttal of an argument they didn't make, to discredit the argument they didn't make, in response to your claim that they claimed something, that they didn't, in fact, ever claim.

That's a LOT of straw. I hope nobody strikes a match.
 
bilby said:
I am pretty confident that 'to rocket' is not a verb.

I have no clue what this thread is meant to be about. But if anyone here had said that someone 'rocketed' something, I would have Grammar Nazied them so hard, they would have been head spinning for a week.
Click to expand...

Don't be such a hard ass. In the English language, any noun can be verbed. You just got grammared.

- - - Updated - - -

bilby said:
This thread appears to be a 'haystack fallacy' - an extension of the better known 'strawman', wherein not only are you arguing against a position not held by your opponent, but you are using an unevidenced rebuttal of an argument they didn't make, to discredit the argument they didn't make, in response to your claim that they claimed something, that they didn't, in fact, ever claim.

That's a LOT of straw. I hope nobody strikes a match.
Click to expand...

I believe this is labeled the "Limbaugh Paradox."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom