thats right folks, some more master dodging and a john oliver video, while calling the democratically elected president an "authoritarian leader" is all we can expect from another one of fenderps meltdowns

oh boy

heres what propaganda looks like:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/mar/02/jason-isaac/jason-isaac-makes-mostly-false-claim-abortion-lead/

Someone makes a factual statement predicated on his personal belief in the abortion debate: That abortion is the leading cause of death for black americans. This is true if you accept that fetuses are people.
Then an ostensibly neutral "fact checker" rates this "mostly false" while acknowledging that his math and comparison are accurate on the numbers, but disagrees with his definition of life, and declares that because fetuses are not people, he's wrong.
A 'fact checker' that rates its 'factual' claim solely on a subjective opinion of a highly disputed and controversial definition of life, presented as an authoritative statement of fact.

til: forcing your channels to produce must-run segments to further the president's agenda to delegitimise critical media is not propaganda, but checking facts and using the definitions of america law and the CDC somehow is, because it hurts religious fundamentalists' feelings... whataboutisms and cult 'logic'...

This post was edited by fender on Apr 2 2018 05:20pm

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

you're arguing yourself. Based on the FACT that the "fact" contained a subjective term as a metric in it's "fact" it is mostly false. You can't base objective FACTS on "facts".

While it may be in line with politifact's liberal lean I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The statistic was meant to be a debated statement made for effect, "mostly false" seems like the most effective label they have, although "too subjective to have any meaning" may be a better one.

Fetuses are not persons, this isn't a simple disagreement over definition, this is about adhering to the legal definitions of personhood which hasn't been officially granted to the unborn. They may be considered persons some day but they are not right now.

You are wrong.

This post was edited by duffman316 on Apr 3 2018 09:48am

yes. it is.

Legal definitions aren't binding in study methdology. Good methodology and legal definitions often go hand in hand, but that's because legal scrutiny often creates the most objective definitions. That relationship shouldn't be confused however. When someone uses a subjective term and bases their study on it to try and create an objective fact the issue is the definition and the effect that has on the methodology.

By your logic i could change a legal definition for just about anything and the research community would then be bound to follow suit. It's not dissimilar to the Jordan Peterson situation in academia, or Bret Weinstein.

Now im 100% sure youre trolling as a Dem on purpose




Replace unborn with hispanic black or heretic

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Apr 3 2018 10:08am

Just to clarify: some Preterm birth babies can survive. So, just by going with what you have said, those Preterm birth babies don't have personhood because they havn't been "born yet"? Dangerous statement imo

This post was edited by JohnMiller92 on Apr 3 2018 10:08am

as they should should they not? it wouldn't necessarily invalidate any of the previous research