Psicó O'Rozco

[Spurtacular]

After you pivoted to social contracts, I mentioned that what a social contract looks like is fairly opinionated, thus asking you what does your social contract with trans people look like. I'm pretty sure it's different from other people.

The social contract is a bedrock for liberals, tbh. Without it, you wouldn't be able to justify most of your . I can't say I'm surprised that it suddenly is not so solid when it goes against you.

[ElNono]

The social contract is a bedrock for liberals, tbh. Without it, you wouldn't be able to justify most of your . I can't say I'm surprised that it suddenly is not so solid when it goes against you.

I'll take your admission that the social contract generally splits across party lines, as I indicated previously, means we agree that it's a fairly personal and opinionated matter.

I'll stick with the code of ethics for journalists, that looks fairly straightforward and non-partisan.

[Spurtacular]

I'll take your admission that the social contract generally splits across party lines, as I indicated previously, means we agree that it's a fairly personal and opinionated matter.

I'll stick with the code of ethics for journalists, that looks fairly straightforward and non-partisan.

So, the line splits for liberals on telling the truth in the news. I'll take that admission.

[Spurtacular]

I'll stick with the code of ethics for journalists, that looks fairly straightforward and non-partisan.

The code that you've already been shown has been violated

Not speaking for the voiceless. Clearly a breach of ethics....

[ElNono]

The code that you've already been shown has been violated

Not speaking for the voiceless. Clearly a breach of ethics....

We're going in circles, tbh... we already crossed that bridge and your claim that time was of the essence is clearly not there.

Speaking for the voiceless would mean something if there was any hint of heavy handed suppression of the news, which in this case clearly was not the case (the journalist decided when to release).

So we avoid going in circles again, yes, news articles have been delayed for a number of reasons in the past too, including reaching out to the affected party.

Anything else you want to review on this discussion?

[ElNono]

So, the line splits for liberals on telling the truth in the news. I'll take that admission.

I don't think that's how it works, I do think opinion is certainly biased. When we get to 'morals and social contracts' we're certainly in opinion territory.

Somebody claiming water is not wet is well, certifiably not true, that's when we're dealing with facts.

[Spurtacular]

We're going in circles, tbh... we already crossed that bridge and your claim that time was of the essence is clearly not there.

Speaking for the voiceless would mean something if there was any hint of heavy handed suppression of the news, which in this case clearly was not the case (the journalist decided when to release).

So we avoid going in circles again, yes, news articles have been delayed for a number of reasons in the past too, including reaching out to the affected party.

Anything else you want to review on this discussion?

We did cross that bridge. You're effectively doubling down on "nuh uh!"

[Spurtacular]

I don't think that's how it works, I do think opinion is certainly biased. When we get to 'morals and social contracts' we're certainly in opinion territory.

Somebody claiming water is not wet is well, certifiably not true, that's when we're dealing with facts.

So, the social contract is just a bull concept when it needs to be.

[ElNono]

We did cross that bridge. You're effectively doubling down on "nuh uh!"

You're lack of argument is duly noted.

[ElNono]

So, the social contract is just a bull concept when it needs to be.

Not all opinions are bull , IMO. I respect yours even if I don't agree with it.

[Spurtacular]

You're lack of argument is duly noted.

Not all opinions are bull , IMO. I respect yours even if I don't agree with it.

Fill in the blank.

1. If the Reuters is not telling the real news, that would make them _____ news.

[ElNono]

Fill in the blank.

1. If the Reuters is not telling the real news, that would make them _____ news.

'not'

[ElNono]

Not that it makes any difference, but IIRC, he wasn't working for Reuters at the time.

[Spurtacular]

'not'

Correct.

Another acceptable answer would be 'fake'.

[Spurtacular]

Not that it makes any difference, but IIRC, he wasn't working for Reuters at the time.

Agreed. He's not a viable journalist either way.

[ElNono]

Correct.

Another acceptable answer would be 'fake'.

how could it be fake news if there's no news, that's illogical.

The news was actually released once they reached out to the parties and confirmed the veracity of it.

Nothing wrong or fake with that.

[Spurtacular]

how could it be fake news if there's no news, that's illogical.

The news was actually released once they reached out to the parties and confirmed the veracity of it.

Nothing wrong or fake with that.

Lying by omission is not a thing now

Come on now. You got a solid streak of obtuseness going now, tbh.

[ElNono]

Lying by omission is not a thing now

Come on now. You got a solid streak of obtuseness going now, tbh.

Except that you would have to prove their lied by omission. There's no such thing here, seeing they actually did publish the story, so where's the omission?

They just didn't publish it when you thought they should've, which is entirely your opinion. Unless you have some sort of evidence that this was done with any intent of malice, it's really a baseless conspiracy.

[Spurtacular]

Except that you would have to prove their lied by omission. There's no such thing here, seeing they actually did publish the story, so where's the omission?

They just didn't publish it when you thought they should've, which is entirely your opinion. Unless you have some sort of evidence that this was done with any intent of malice, it's really a baseless conspiracy.

I don't have to prove it. He admitted it. Try to keep up.

[ElNono]

I don't have to prove it. He admitted it. Try to keep up.

He admitted to delaying the story to get Beto's viewpoint. He didn't admit omitting anything.

Of course it's up to you to defend your own position that he lied by omission. What did he omit?

[Spurtacular]

He admitted to delaying the story to get Beto's viewpoint. He didn't admit omitting anything.

Of course it's up to you to defend your own position that he lied by omission. What did he omit?

He let the electorate be uninformed. There was an omission. Coming clean after the fact doesn't erase that. This isn't hard stuff, dude. You struggle.

[Psychopav Chump]

He let the electorate be uninformed.

So, it's suddenly the media's job to inform people?

[AaronY]

I don't know why that's supposed to be funny.

Of course you don't

[LaSíSí]

I have not spent a decade crying about the claim that Barack Obama was an Obama birther because this is literally the first time I've ever heard anyone claim something so ridiculous.

You automatically assume it's ridiculous b/c you've made up your mind on this. You'll search it out if you want to find out.

[A. Ocasio-Cortez]

show ur s

I'm going to sue you for toxic masculinity.