Europe submits voluntarily

[Bomb#20]

"No sane person would believe what the Daily Mail has to say." is just a more erudite way to say "La-La-La, I can't hear you."

NoYes, it's a way to say "Your assertion doesn't even rise to the level of evidence I would need to be bothered to check it; I shall assume it to be false until you present evidence sufficiently reliable to prompt me to investigate".

Fixed it for you.

To choose to assume something is false that is actually probably true is to prefer falsehood to truth as a means of protecting one's erroneous picture of reality from contact with it. It's not rational. It's Zaphod Beeblebrox's glasses. "Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have been specially designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. At the first hint of trouble, they turn totally black and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you."

The majority of Daily Mail content is 'spin'. Facts mixed with fictions, all presented in a way designed to trigger an emotional response, not to further the reader's understanding, or add to his knowledge, while staying (just) the right side of the various laws against defamation and fraud.

Sure, it includes facts, where they are convenient to the objective of influencing public opinion. But they aren't it's purpose, and as a source of facts it is therefore useless.

When you post about the advantages of nuclear power you include facts. But they aren't your purpose -- your objective is to influence your readers' opinions. Do you infer from this that you are therefore useless as a source of facts? I don't. You are an excellent source of facts. "Therefore"s, not so much.

If you need to check with a more reliable source (and you do), you might as well go straight to that source and skip the middleman.

But without the middleman alerting me that there was something worth investigating I wouldn't have known to go looking for a more reliable source. That France is alleviating its illegal immigrant problem by deliberately helping illegal immigrants move along to England is information Google didn't volunteer. I had to ask Google; they referred me to The Telegraph. It took the Daily Mail volunteering the information to TSwizzle, and TSwizzle volunteering it to me, to prompt me to seek out the more reliable source. Middlemen are underrated.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The majority of Daily Mail content is 'spin'. Facts mixed with fictions, all presented in a way designed to trigger an emotional response, not to further the reader's understanding, or add to his knowledge, while staying (just) the right side of the various laws against defamation and fraud.

Sure, it includes facts, where they are convenient to the objective of influencing public opinion. But they aren't it's purpose, and as a source of facts it is therefore useless.

When you post about the advantages of nuclear power you include facts. But they aren't your purpose -- your objective is to influence your readers' opinions. Do you infer from this that you are therefore useless as a source of facts? I don't. You are an excellent source of facts. "Therefore"s, not so much.

It's also important not to keep quiet about facts that make stories more nuanced. Daily Mail routinely leave out important facts if it muddies the moral outrage they are gunning for. Pretty much every story on Sweden and the Swedish problem with Muslim immigrants have left out crucial and important information. Some are so skewed that it's straight up lying. Just the facts in the story being accurate doesn't mean the story isn't lies.

It's not just the Daily Mail. It's all tabloids. Sweden has low murder rates. Which means that when the murder rate goes up or down by just a few people it can DOUBLE THE MURDER RATE IN JUST ONE YEAR. That'll be the headline. I remember when Gothemburg doubled the murder rate in just one year, and the next year Malmö doubled it as well. They just neglected to mention that the murder rate was halved the coming years. It somehow failed to make a headline. The statistically gifted will see this for what it is, statistical variance, which is normal and acceptable. But tabloids don't give a shit about that.

The Daily Mail is pure poison. You're not going to get enlightened by reading it. It'll only cloud your judgement.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Worth noting about Muslim immigration to Sweden is that Sweden prohibits refugees in Sweden to work. While they are processed. Processing of refugees takes minimum 2 years, sometimes as much as 8 years. They're given housing in weird places in rentals where they have zero responsibility for their housing, nor an incentive to take care of it. They are given a small allowance that doesn't allow for any excesses. If they have kids they have even less options.

Just sitting on ones ass for years on end isn't healthy for anyone. It's important for people to be allowed to work. If refugees are entrepeneurialy minded their only option is to become a criminal. There's a reason the Swedish maffia today almost completely consists of ex-refugees. The reason Malmö is such a shit hole is because that's where Sweden put all the refugees from the Balkan wars. It took 20 years for it to dig itself out of it's hole. Only in the last couple of years is Malmö becoming a decent place to live.

My point about this is that focusing on the religion of the refugees to Sweden is a red herring. The Somali refugees to Sweden has been a complete disaster. The same group of refugees who moved to USA have been one of the more successful immigrant groups to USA.

Sweden is rife with White Savior complexes and Racism of Low expectations. It's endemic. Our refugee policies are an absolute disaster. In spite of all these absolutely idiotic policies around immigration nearly all our refugees are law abiding, get jobs when the are allowed to work and are stand up guys. But that won't make any Daily Mail headlines.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's also important not to keep quiet about facts that make stories more nuanced. Daily Mail routinely leave out important facts if it muddies the moral outrage they are gunning for.

Could you point out any important facts missing from the Daily Mail article I linked to ?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's also important not to keep quiet about facts that make stories more nuanced. Daily Mail routinely leave out important facts if it muddies the moral outrage they are gunning for.

Could you point out any important facts missing from the Daily Mail article I linked to ?

In this thread in the beginning you posted a bunch of DM articles. I demonstrated how they were all wrong and you somehow decided that DM's alternative facts were correct. I'm going to assume you haven't changed. So what's the point pointing out your errors?

 

[angelo]

It's also important not to keep quiet about facts that make stories more nuanced. Daily Mail routinely leave out important facts if it muddies the moral outrage they are gunning for.

Could you point out any important facts missing from the Daily Mail article I linked to ?

In this thread in the beginning you posted a bunch of DM articles. I demonstrated how they were all wrong and you somehow decided that DM's alternative facts were correct. I'm going to assume you haven't changed. So what's the point pointing out your errors?

In other words, you can't point out any errors!

 

[Jokodo]

In this thread in the beginning you posted a bunch of DM articles. I demonstrated how they were all wrong and you somehow decided that DM's alternative facts were correct. I'm going to assume you haven't changed. So what's the point pointing out your errors?

In other words, you can't point out any errors!

Well, presenting 2000 people over the course of as if it were a large number is misleading even if factually correct.

The United Kingdom has just shy of 67 million inhabitants. At a rate of 2000 per five months, it'll take a full 140 years before boat people make up a measly one percent of its population.

 

[bilby]

In this thread in the beginning you posted a bunch of DM articles. I demonstrated how they were all wrong and you somehow decided that DM's alternative facts were correct. I'm going to assume you haven't changed. So what's the point pointing out your errors?

In other words, you can't be bothered to point out any errors because you know I will just ignore your corrections. Again!

FTFY.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In this thread in the beginning you posted a bunch of DM articles. I demonstrated how they were all wrong and you somehow decided that DM's alternative facts were correct. I'm going to assume you haven't changed. So what's the point pointing out your errors?

In other words, you can't point out any errors!

He's saying he already pointed out the errors and you stuck your fingers in your ears.

There's no point in looking for more errors when you haven't addressed the first bunch.

 

[angelo]

In this thread in the beginning you posted a bunch of DM articles. I demonstrated how they were all wrong and you somehow decided that DM's alternative facts were correct. I'm going to assume you haven't changed. So what's the point pointing out your errors?

In other words, you can't be bothered to point out any errors because you know I will just ignore your corrections. Again!

FTFY.

I simply asked to point out the errors. Obviously you and your comrade in arms can't point to any errors because there are none!

 

[Bomb#20]

When you post about the advantages of nuclear power you include facts. But they aren't your purpose -- your objective is to influence your readers' opinions. Do you infer from this that you are therefore useless as a source of facts? I don't. You are an excellent source of facts. "Therefore"s, not so much.

It's also important not to keep quiet about facts that make stories more nuanced. Daily Mail routinely leave out important facts if it muddies the moral outrage they are gunning for.

So what important fact that would have made the story more nuanced did the Daily Mail leave out in this case, that would have muddied the moral outrage over France deliberately helping its illegal immigrants become England's illegal immigrants? Has England been helping its illegal immigrants illegally enter France?

The Daily Mail is pure poison. You're not going to get enlightened by reading it. It'll only cloud your judgement.

Why are you telling me? I don't read the Daily Mail. This isn't an argument about the merits of reading the Daily Mail. This is an argument about the merits of deliberately blinding oneself to facts whenever the route those facts took on their way to you ever passed through the Daily Mail. Are you one of those folks who think the medical community should just flush down the toilet everything mankind learned from the unethical medical experiments conducted in the 1940s by doctors committing war crimes against prisoners from the countries Imperial Japan had conquered?

In other words, you can't point out any errors!

Well, presenting 2000 people over the course of as if it were a large number is misleading even if factually correct.

The United Kingdom has just shy of 67 million inhabitants. At a rate of 2000 per five months, it'll take a full 140 years before boat people make up a measly one percent of its population.

You don't appear to be doing the math correctly. In 140 years most of this year's boat people will be dead and not contributing to a measly one percent of its population. So you must be also counting the children and great^N grandchildren of boat people. In that case, the number will come out the way you say only if you assume boat people will have the same number of descendants as natives. I.e., you don't appear to be doing the math correctly.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's also important not to keep quiet about facts that make stories more nuanced. Daily Mail routinely leave out important facts if it muddies the moral outrage they are gunning for.

Could you point out any important facts missing from the Daily Mail article I linked to ?

In this thread in the beginning you posted a bunch of DM articles. I demonstrated how they were all wrong and you somehow decided that DM's alternative facts were correct. I'm going to assume you haven't changed. So what's the point pointing out your errors?

In other words, you can't be bothered to point out any errors because you know I will just ignore your corrections. Again!

FTFY.

In this thread in the beginning you posted a bunch of DM articles. I demonstrated how they were all wrong and you somehow decided that DM's alternative facts were correct. I'm going to assume you haven't changed. So what's the point pointing out your errors?

In other words, you can't point out any errors!

He's saying he already pointed out the errors and you stuck your fingers in your ears.

There's no point in looking for more errors when you haven't addressed the first bunch.

Um, sorry to be Captain Obvious here, but did either of you two spend a second convincing yourselves you have a reason to think angelo's alleged practice of ignoring corrections and sticking his fingers in his ears when errors are pointed out constitutes a substantive justification for DrZoidberg's point-blank refusal to back up his allegation of missing important facts in the article, when he was challenged to do so by the guy who posted it: TSwizzle? Are you perhaps in possession of non-public information showing that angelo and TSwizzle are actually the same poster?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Daily Mail is pure poison. You're not going to get enlightened by reading it. It'll only cloud your judgement.

Why are you telling me? I don't read the Daily Mail. This isn't an argument about the merits of reading the Daily Mail. This is an argument about the merits of deliberately blinding oneself to facts whenever the route those facts took on their way to you ever passed through the Daily Mail. Are you one of those folks who think the medical community should just flush down the toilet everything mankind learned from the unethical medical experiments conducted in the 1940s by doctors committing war crimes against prisoners from the countries Imperial Japan had conquered?

Its the wrong metaphor. It'd more like the medical community flushing down the toilet the medical advice coming from the Bible or African witchdoctors. Because its not helping the patients. Its just made up shit relying on placebo and self delusion of the patient/victim.

 

[Bomb#20]

Its just made up <expletive deleted> relying on placebo and self delusion of the patient/victim.

Just the facts in the story being accurate doesn't mean the story isn't lies.

What smart fellows they must be then, to have figured out how to just make up all those accurate facts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Its just made up <expletive deleted> relying on placebo and self delusion of the patient/victim.

Just the facts in the story being accurate doesn't mean the story isn't lies.

What smart fellows they must be then, to have figured out how to just make up all those accurate facts.

Or you can't be arsed to look up what a tabloid is. It'll require minimal work. It's not a great secret. It's not intelligence from my part. It's just laziness on your part. Trusting a tabloid article is like trusting that the Bible is true.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tabloid

 

[Ford]

We're approaching the five year anniversary of this post, and last time I checked, radical Islam has still not turned Europe into a caliphate.

 

[Bomb#20]

Its just made up ...
Just the facts in the story being accurate ...

What smart fellows they must be then, to have figured out how to just make up all those accurate facts.

Or you can't be arsed to look up what a tabloid is. It'll require minimal work. It's not a great secret. It's not intelligence from my part. It's just laziness on your part.

Dude, you contradicted yourself. You can't get out of that just by making stuff up about me. And the fact that you have no compunctions about making stuff up about me means when you condemn the Daily Fail for making stuff up, you're a hypocrite. You should go work for the DM -- you're every bit as awful a journalist as they are. And you're the one who admitted they had accurate facts.

Trusting a tabloid article is like trusting that the Bible is true.

Quote me trusting the DM.

 

[repoman]

We're approaching the five year anniversary of this post, and last time I checked, radical Islam has still not turned Europe into a caliphate.

Sea level rise has also not YET inundated ports and low lying coastal areas.

Enoch Powell abides.

 

[TSwizzle]

Dozens more migrants/refugees/asylum seekers or whatever they are called rescued;

Dozens more migrants have today been picked up crossing the English Channel in five boats - taking the total to arrive this year past a record 2,000. Around 70 refugees were taken into the Port of Dover in Kent this morning following a rescue mission involving the Border Force vessels Hunter and Seeker. Two migrants, intercepted by the HMC Speedwell, had attempted to make the dangerous crossing from France in a fibreglass canoe.

DailyMail

 

[Trausti]

Enoch Powell was right.