Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: The irony here is that we've been hearing a lot lately about how the snooty liberal hippies shriek people down and belittle their views instead of engaging them in a debate and explaining their views yet here we are with full evidence and accurate use of maths and definitions but still the right-wing side of the debate refuses to acknowledge the truth of any point made. I'm beginning to think liberal arrogance had less of an effect on people's swing towards conservative views than has been made out. The first line of the article is "Migration added 239,000 to Britain’s population last year " was that a lie?
Wymsey Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Thinking of sending this thread to Dr. G: Medical Examiner. Some quite brain dead suggestions on here.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: The irony here is that we've been hearing a lot lately about how the snooty liberal hippies shriek people down and belittle their views instead of engaging them in a debate and explaining their views yet here we are with full evidence and accurate use of maths and definitions but still the right-wing side of the debate refuses to acknowledge the truth of any point made. I'm beginning to think liberal arrogance had less of an effect on people's swing towards conservative views than has been made out. I think the shrieking might just trying to be listened to. It's exasperation. The other irony is, they think they're ignored.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 5 minutes ago, Barky said: Of course it's a lie. Immigration means people coming into the country. They said 20% more people had come into the country year on year. That's not true, so it was a lie. They missed out the word net. They provided all the facts and figures. No reasonable person would call that a lie.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 5 minutes ago, Webbo said: The first line of the article is "Migration added 239,000 to Britain’s population last year " was that a lie? Yep, it was Net Migration.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Facecloth said: Yep, it was Net Migration. But it did add 239,000 to the population. i.e. the population was 239,000 larger than it was the year before, that's what net migration means.
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: The first line of the article is "Migration added 239,000 to Britain’s population last year " was that a lie? no, that wasn't a lie. The headline was. As in the large shouty text that will be read by people who aren't going to bother buying the paper and reading the smaller text of the article that clarifies what this blatant misuse of the word "immigration" actually meant before having a chat over the water-cooler about how "20% more people are coming into the country don't ya know". That's what the lie was and that's the sort of thing that people are concerned about. Just now, Webbo said: They missed out the word net. They provided all the facts and figures. No reasonable person would call that a lie. Please stop talking down at me and calling me unreasonable instead of engaging me in a debate and clearly explaining your view.
Strokes Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Facecloth said: Yep, it was Net Migration. No actually, migration on its own is correct in that sentence.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: They missed out the word net. They provided all the facts and figures. No reasonable person would call that a lie. No reasonable person would still be defending the Daily Mail when faced with all this evidence of their lying, but there you go.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Strokes said: No actually, migration on its own is correct in that sentence. Carl answered it better anyway.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said: no, that wasn't a lie. The headline was. As in the large shouty text that will be read by people who aren't going to bother buying the paper and reading the smaller text of the article that clarifies what this blatant misuse of the word "immigration" actually meant before having a chat over the water-cooler about how "20% more people are coming into the country don't ya know". That's what the lie was and that's the sort of thing that people are concerned about. Please stop talking down at me and calling me unreasonable instead of engaging me in a debate and clearly explaining your view. You're being pedantic, and it's a bit desperate. Move on.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 Just now, Webbo said: You're being pedantic, and it's a bit desperate. Move on. It's not pedantic he's just right, that's why you want him to move on.
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: You're being pedantic, and it's a bit desperate. Move on. Oh no I'm being sneered at and belittled. Must. Vote. Corbyn.
leicsmac Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 hour ago, FireFox said: This thread has gotten so ridiculous. Exaggeration or lies, it doesn't matter. The question is if these newspapers are spreading hate, do people believe they are spreading hate, and do companies funding them want to continue to be associated with them? Group W campaigns to stop funding X. Group W believes company Y does X. Company Z funds company Y. Group W wants company Z to stop funding company Y. Company Z stops funding company Y. Company Z doesn't want to be associated with funding X. Even if company Y doesn't necessarily do X, group W and many people believe so. Company Z respects this group and these people's opinion. Company Z doesn't want their public image harmed. Et cetera. What is the problem? That "company Y" happens to be part of the media? Are media companies not still part of "the free market"? This isn't suppressing freedom of speech. It would be the same as people campaigning for a newspaper to stop running a certain shoe company's ads because this shoe company uses Chinese sweatshops, and people don't agree with the use of these sweatshops. Would this shoe company's freedom of speech be in danger? Because a newspaper stops putting in their ads because the newspaper doesn't want to be associated with sweatshops? 1 hour ago, leicsmac said: Quoted for truth. Can people actually address this point rather than a back and forth about which paper lied about what? This, right here, has happened to business in the past, is happening now and is why the campaign is ok, regardless of intent. Anytime you good people are ready. I'm a patient individual.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 4 minutes ago, Facecloth said: It's not pedantic he's just right, that's why you want him to move on. You've chosen to ignore this then? 7 minutes ago, Webbo said: But it did add 239,000 to the population. i.e. the population was 239,000 larger than it was the year before, that's what net migration means.
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: You've chosen to ignore this then? And you've apparently chosen to ignore my point about the headline reaching people who don't read the article as well as Leicsmac's request directly above your post. Do as I say, huh?
Strokes Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Anytime you good people are ready. I'm a patient individual. I think daily mail readers should stop buying lego, as it is supporting the continued hatred and prejudice of them by acknowledging this campaign. Hit them where it hurts. i don't read any newspapers so I won't have to disappoint my son.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said: And you've apparently chosen to ignore my point about the headline reaching people who don't read the article as well as Leicsmac's request directly above your post. Do as I say, huh? It was clear to anyone who wasn't looking to be offended what it meant. It was posted as an example of a lie and it wasn't. If that's your only argument I win.
FireFox Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Anytime you good people are ready. I'm a patient individual. Been waiting since the 4th reply to this topic... On 11/12/2016 at 11:40, leicsmac said: If certain companies want to pull out of advertising in the press because they think their bottom line is going to be harmed through negative publicity, then that's up to them and the press involved should perhaps start looking for other companies willing to pay them for advertising space.
Webbo Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 On 12/11/2016 at 17:40, leicsmac said: If certain companies want to pull out of advertising in the press because they think their bottom line is going to be harmed through negative publicity, then that's up to them and the press involved should perhaps start looking for other companies willing to pay them for advertising space. There's no limit to the amount of pages a paper can have. If there were people queuing up to advertise in their paper they'd just add extra pages. Alternative sources don't just appear from thin air. Has that satisfied your point?
FireFox Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 1 minute ago, Strokes said: I think daily mail readers should stop buying lego, as it is supporting the continued hatred and prejudice of them by acknowledging this campaign. Hit them where it hurts. i don't read any newspapers so I won't have to disappoint my son. If supporters of the Daily Mail don't want to fund Lego and other companies that outright disagree with the Daily Mail, then they are allowed to do so. They are allowed to campaign about it too if they want.
leicsmac Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: I think daily mail readers should stop buying lego, as it is supporting the continued hatred and prejudice of them by acknowledging this campaign. Hit them where it hurts. i don't read any newspapers so I won't have to disappoint my son. I think that is perfectly acceptable. Would you say that the action by the lobby groups is acceptable for the same reason? 2 minutes ago, FireFox said: Been waiting since the 4th reply to this topic... Yes. Me too. Though I have got some roundabout answers between here and there.
Strokes Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 7 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Anytime you good people are ready. I'm a patient individual. Sorry that previous reply wasn't meant to quote this. my reply to the shoe shop thing is, no it's not the same. The shoe shop isn't delivering news, a message or any information. So of course it's not affecting freedom of speech.
Jimothy Posted 13 November 2016 Posted 13 November 2016 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: It was clear to anyone who wasn't looking to be offended what it meant. It was posted as an example of a lie and it wasn't. If that's your only argument I win. People might not be looking to be offending, they might be looking for story that backs up their view point. That headline would do that. And I didn't ignore I quoted Strokes and referred to Carl's post.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.