To Publish It Prove It, Unproven Opinions Get Labeled As Unverified Or Questionable Source
And what exactly would be wrong with people being informed right there on what they read that they are reading either documented or proven sources, or sources that can't provide proof?
Our country would be a whole lot smarter and well informed if people had to acknowledge when they were arguing unproven sources...and yes, Hannity would be an unproven source with most of the garbage he peddles. He is an opinion purveyor, not a reporter that researches and reports that which has sources and proof...and the fact that millions of people take his crap as the gospel says a lot about the value of beliefs versus facts.
woodguru wrote:
And what exactly would be wrong with people being informed right there on what they read that they are reading either documented or proven sources, or sources that can't provide proof?
Our country would be a whole lot smarter and well informed if people had to acknowledge when they were arguing unproven sources...and yes, Hannity would be an unproven source with most of the garbage he peddles. He is an opinion purveyor, not a reporter that researches and reports that which has sources and proof...and the fact that millions of people take his crap as the gospel says a lot about the value of beliefs versus facts.
And what exactly would be wrong with people being ... (
show quote)
A newspaper has news stories and an editorial and op-Ed page and they are clearly labeled. The same should be true of broadcast and social media. No one is owed a platform to lie or instigate violence.
Kevyn wrote:
A newspaper has news stories and an editorial and op-Ed page and they are clearly labeled. The same should be true of broadcast and social media. No one is owed a platform to lie or instigate violence.
Kevyboy - be careful. That might put CNN & MSNBC out of business.
woodguru wrote:
And what exactly would be wrong with people being informed right there on what they read that they are reading either documented or proven sources, or sources that can't provide proof?
Because freedom includes things you might disagree with (in your minuscule opinion - unproven).
woodguru wrote:
And what exactly would be wrong with people being informed right there on what they read that they are reading either documented or proven sources, or sources that can't provide proof?
Our country would be a whole lot smarter and well informed if people had to acknowledge when they were arguing unproven sources...and yes, Hannity would be an unproven source with most of the garbage he peddles. He is an opinion purveyor, not a reporter that researches and reports that which has sources and proof...and the fact that millions of people take his crap as the gospel says a lot about the value of beliefs versus facts.
And what exactly would be wrong with people being ... (
show quote)
What is an "unproven opinion"?
Opinions are views or judgments formed about something that are not necessarily based on facts...they are a belief or feeling.
Maybe you mean "fact"?? Something which actually exists or has occurred - a reality - and can be proven beyond a doubt....such as "There are seven days in a week."
Just about every news source has an "Opinion" section where people offer up their own personal ideas based on what they observe in life and how they feel about those observations.
On forums like OPP, opinions are expressed everywhere, mostly prefaced with words like "I think..." or "I believe..." (but certainly not always do opinions begin with those words!). Groups of people can share an opinion. For instance, Biden's supporters are of the opinion that he will make a great President.
So I don't understand what the point of your topic is because the term "unproven opinions" doesn't make any sense.
woodguru wrote:
And what exactly would be wrong with people being informed right there on what they read that they are reading either documented or proven sources, or sources that can't provide proof?
Our country would be a whole lot smarter and well informed if people had to acknowledge when they were arguing unproven sources...and yes, Hannity would be an unproven source with most of the garbage he peddles. He is an opinion purveyor, not a reporter that researches and reports that which has sources and proof...and the fact that millions of people take his crap as the gospel says a lot about the value of beliefs versus facts.
And what exactly would be wrong with people being ... (
show quote)
I've caught people on this site referencing posts on another site as proof......................................posts which they themselves wrote. You know, the old "it's true, because I done said it's true".
woodguru wrote:
And what exactly would be wrong with people being informed right there on what they read that they are reading either documented or proven sources, or sources that can't provide proof?
Our country would be a whole lot smarter and well informed if people had to acknowledge when they were arguing unproven sources...and yes, Hannity would be an unproven source with most of the garbage he peddles. He is an opinion purveyor, not a reporter that researches and reports that which has sources and proof...and the fact that millions of people take his crap as the gospel says a lot about the value of beliefs versus facts.
And what exactly would be wrong with people being ... (
show quote)
Yes, like all the claims that Trump said all Mexicans are rapist and murderers, that he banned Muslims from the US, that he said there are good Neon**i's and good w***e s*********ts, that he threatened Ukraine, etc, etc.
This a fun forum filled with funny guys!!
Kevyn wrote:
A newspaper has news stories and an editorial and op-Ed page and they are clearly labeled. The same should be true of broadcast and social media. No one is owed a platform to lie or instigate violence.
Why? You do it all the time here on OPP.
You've posted about people who wear red hats deserve to be sucker punched multiple times.
Besides all that, you people have poked, prodded, and sent a constant barrage of provocation out to those who disagree with your viewpoints.
Folks can only be provoked so much before they finally react, and you know this.
While the DC thing was an over the top travesty, it's simpler than that for you folks.
A guy like you, say. You run your mouth with all kinds of vile stuff for years. Finally someone gets enough of it, and swells your eye shut.
Well, then you go all melodramatic, claim victimhood, and generally act like a dirtbag because you got the reaction you wanted in the first place after much effort on your part.
As for your friend woodgoo here, he wants any, and all conservative voices silenced.
He is an arrogant fool who feels empowered now, yet won't look a man in the eye and speak as he does. Kinda like you.
Kevyn wrote:
A newspaper has news stories and an editorial and op-Ed page and they are clearly labeled. The same should be true of broadcast and social media. No one is owed a platform to lie or instigate violence.
Tell that to CNN, MSNBC, etc.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.