Huffington Post writer terminated after article about Hillary's health issues - Polidicks

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50972705]So what about Trump's tax returns?[/QUOTE] Absolutely the same thing. [QUOTE=Sableye;50974775]why dont we talk about chemtrails, because its bogus and purposfully distracting[/QUOTE] We can talk about chemtrails, make a thread for it. The mass debate was pretty handy for keeping discussions tame though

[QUOTE=Sally;50974900]We can talk about chemtrails, make a thread for it. The mass debate was pretty handy for keeping discussions tame though[/QUOTE] He wasn't [I]actually[/I] suggesting that we discuss chemtrails or flat earth theories - because there's no need to go beyond "No", "NO" and "Are you retarded???". Likewise there's no reason to discuss whether Hillary Clinton's health is literally in shambles; entertaining baseless conspiracy theories is only giving them legitimacy and attention they don't deserve.

[QUOTE=Sally;50974900]Absolutely the same thing. [/QUOTE] Trump not releasing his tax information is objectively true though, the articles they pulled were built on outright lies. Look, to you and everyone else in this thread who disagrees with HuffPo in this case: Make your choice. Either they are a legitimate outfit that has a duty towards journalistic integrity and should protect themselves by refusing to publish badly researched articles, *or* they should run any piece of tabloid trash that crosses their virtual desk simply by virtue of the fact that it makes Clinton look bad.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50975032]Trump not releasing his tax information is objectively true though, the articles they pulled were built on outright lies. Look, to you and everyone else in this thread who disagrees with HuffPo in this case: Make your choice. Either they are a legitimate outfit that has a duty towards journalistic integrity and should protect themselves by refusing to publish badly researched articles, *or* they should run any piece of tabloid trash that crosses their virtual desk simply by virtue of the fact that it makes Clinton look bad.[/QUOTE] Can it not be both? They were right in this case to fire the guy because he's an idiot but I feel that HuffPo are biased and not reliable 100% of the time. Then again, I haven't found an American news source that is reliable most of the time besides international companies and maybe C-Span. Ya'll need to get your shit together.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50975112]Can it not be both? They were right in this case to fire the guy because he's an idiot but I feel that HuffPo are biased and not reliable 100% of the time. Then again, I haven't found an American news source that is reliable most of the time besides international companies and maybe C-Span. Ya'll need to get your shit together.[/QUOTE] It can't be both in this case. I don't think anyone would argue against HuffPo having a left slant but people are clearly buying into Zero Hedges narrative that this was done to protect Clinton and not, you know, because the articles were trash.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50975148]It can't be both in this case. I don't think anyone would argue against HuffPo having a left slant but people are clearly buying into Zero Hedges narrative that this was done to protect Clinton and not, you know, because the articles were trash.[/QUOTE] Not surprised that people are doing that, a lot of people will believe anything if it smears Clinton... or if it smears Trump. She doesn't even need protection since these claims about her health are bouncing off her like nothing and going after a candidate's health is a low, low blow.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50974982]He wasn't [I]actually[/I] suggesting that we discuss chemtrails or flat earth theories - because there's no need to go beyond "No", "NO" and "Are you retarded???". Likewise there's no reason to discuss whether Hillary Clinton's health is literally in shambles; entertaining baseless conspiracy theories is only giving them legitimacy and attention they don't deserve.[/QUOTE] I like having discussions about wacky things I guess, because I wouldn't disregard any topic no matter what thoughts immediately come up. With that said, I understand what he is meaning now. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50975032]Trump not releasing his tax information is objectively true though, the articles they pulled were built on outright lies. Look, to you and everyone else in this thread who disagrees with HuffPo in this case: Make your choice. Either they are a legitimate outfit that has a duty towards journalistic integrity and should protect themselves by refusing to publish badly researched articles, *or* they should run any piece of tabloid trash that crosses their virtual desk simply by virtue of the fact that it makes Clinton look bad.[/QUOTE] When I said the exact same thing, I mean I want both to be investigated

[QUOTE=Sally;50975267] When I said the exact same thing, I mean I want both to be investigated[/QUOTE] We don't have to investigate Clinton’s health, we know she is fine. We certainly don't need bloggers lying to our faces and calling a flashlight an adrenaline pen. That's not investigating; that is bad journalism. Do you not see how totally disingenuous it is to compare her health which really shouldn't be at question to the observeable fact that Trump has yet to release his tax documents?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50975291]We don't have to investigate Clinton’s health, we know she is fine. [/QUOTE] I find that statement strange, considering how much is at stake I really don't think the public would be made aware if there was a problem with her health. Can you explain Hillary's tongue? That doesn't seem fine to me.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;50975488]I find that statement strange, considering how much is at stake I really don't think the public would be made aware if there was a problem with her health.[/QUOTE] In what part of my post could you possibly decipher that I don't think it's in the publics best interest to know if there was a problem with her health. [QUOTE=th0rianite;50975488]Can you explain Hillary's tongue? That doesn't seem fine to me.[/QUOTE] It's not cancer.

[QUOTE=th0rianite;50975488]I find that statement strange, considering how much is at stake I really don't think the public would be made aware if there was a problem with her health. Can you explain Hillary's tongue? That doesn't seem fine to me.[/QUOTE] Maybe she has [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_tongue"]geographic tongue[/URL]? There are plenty of explanations beyond oral cancer. Besides, she's provided more than enough information about her health to satisfy any reasonable individual. Attacking her health is scraping the bottom of the barrel. There are valid criticisms of Clinton. Her health isn't really one of them.

It would have been a great opportunity to dispel those rumors. Now it all makes it seem more sketchy than it initially was. Good job, HuffPo. [QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50971500][QUOTE=Durandal;50971493]I don't see why huffpo is allowed and never understood why it was an allowable sorce[/QUOTE] How can that rotten piece of shit be allowed but not Daily Mail or RT?[/QUOTE] Because Breitbart and RT/Sputnik are literally the Big Bad Wolf.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;50973183]They're both corrupt scumbags, but Trump's economic plans are consistently predicted to be absolutely awful for the economy, and he's consistently shown to be ignorant on most everything. Yeah, people can't know how to do everything and shouldn't be expected to either, but he's also consistently picking idiots for his campaign staff. Why on earth would you bet on the idiot?[/QUOTE] because the idiot is incompetent and will probably either be impeached or not surmount to anything because he gets blocked every corner of the way, while the other one is dangerously competent at her corruption, and could set us back more then 10 to 15 years on anti corruption laws. she has given speeches for wallstreet lobbyists on the wolfpack foundation for crying out loud... the only thing that could mean is shes either telling them how to avoid regulations, or how she will prevent and stop these needed changes from being implemented If her intentions are not clear by then then i dont know.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50975872]In what part of my post could you possibly decipher that I don't think it's in the publics best interest to know if there was a problem with her health. [/QUOTE] I didn't mean to suggest that was your thinking, simply that you can't really say we KNOW she's fine as we do not know. It would obviously be in the best interest of the public to be made aware, but I just can't see either candidate admitting anything if there were a problem. That wouldn't be in their best interest.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50974982]He wasn't [I]actually[/I] suggesting that we discuss chemtrails or flat earth theories - because [B]there's no need to go beyond "No", "NO" and "Are you retarded???"[/B]. Likewise there's no reason to discuss whether Hillary Clinton's health is literally in shambles; entertaining baseless conspiracy theories is only giving them legitimacy and attention they don't deserve.[/QUOTE] Sure there is. Nothing is gained if nothing is questioned- Questioning things like chemtrails is perfectly valid because the concept can be easily refuted. If you just go "What are you, retarded???" then the ignorant will remain ignorant. Chemtrails aren't a thing and you can prove it, but there's no reason to be allergic to discussion of things of that nature.

[QUOTE=phygon;50977290]Sure there is. Nothing is gained if nothing is questioned- Questioning things like chemtrails is perfectly valid because the concept can be easily refuted. If you just go "What are you, retarded???" then the ignorant will remain ignorant. Chemtrails aren't a thing and you can prove it, but there's no reason to be allergic to discussion of things of that nature.[/QUOTE] Everything that is clearly false should be able to be proven clearly false. Even if a concept is bonkers, if its not (yet) falsifiable it should be at least entertained as a vague possibility of some degree. and be debatable, if not only in how unlikely it is. Example; Im an atheist, i don't believe in god, but i understand that i cannot disprove god. therefore i accept that when i die, there is a very small possibility that i will be proven wrong in my beliefs and Mictlantecuhtli, god of death will demand a fertility trial in order for me to obtain the afterlife with my ancestors in the great mountain of Tenochtitlan.

[QUOTE=phygon;50977290]Sure there is. Nothing is gained if nothing is questioned- Questioning things like chemtrails is perfectly valid because the concept can be easily refuted. If you just go "What are you, retarded???" then the ignorant will remain ignorant. Chemtrails aren't a thing and you can prove it, but there's no reason to be allergic to discussion of things of that nature.[/QUOTE] Have you ever discussed with these people? If they were susceptible to evidence and logic, they wouldn't believe in chemtrails or flat earth theory in the first place. As an example, Huffpost running an article debunking Hillary's supposed health issues would be dismissed because they're "Hillary shills". Hillary apparently has both seizures and tongue cancer (judging by a "hole" on her tongue in a screengrab that really wasn't apparent when I watched the actual video clip it was taken from, but of course that was probably edited out by CNN or whatever), but she's also running a campaign and shows no obvious signs of poor health. Also, there's no evidence that she has either -"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". If the fact that her health check showed that she was in pretty good health (and the fact that she's running a campaign, doing debates etc.) doesn't convince you that she isn't literally dying before our eyes, there's no evidence that anyone could procure that would convince you otherwise, because you're being unreasonable. I can't debate people whose viewpoints have no basis in reality. Or, at least, I'm not gonna waste my time doing so.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50977365]Have you ever discussed with these people? If they were susceptible to evidence and logic, they wouldn't believe in chemtrails or flat earth theory in the first place. As an example, Huffpost running an article debunking Hillary's supposed health issues would be dismissed because they're "Hillary shills". Hillary apparently has both seizures and tongue cancer (judging by a "hole" on her tongue in a screengrab that really wasn't apparent when I watched the actual video clip it was taken from, but of course that was probably edited out by CNN or whatever), but she's also running a campaign and shows no obvious signs of poor health. Also, there's no evidence that she has either -"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". If the fact that her health check showed that she was in pretty good health (and the fact that she's running a campaign, doing debates etc.) doesn't convince you that she isn't literally dying before our eyes, there's no evidence that anyone could procure that would convince you otherwise, because you're being unreasonable. I can't debate people whose viewpoints have no basis in reality. Or, at least, I'm not gonna waste my time doing so.[/QUOTE] "I deem these people dumb because some vocal ones are, therefore their opinion should not be reasoned with" Atheists used to be considered mentally disabled, and they would wheel in people in restraints with a mental disability that would then state all sorts of 'provocative' things. and that was then considered what an atheists was... Its not that people are not willing to waste their time that is the problem, [B]its that they go out of their way to discourage OTHERS from 'wasting their time'[/B]

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50977417]"I deem these people dumb because some vocal ones are, therefore their opinion should not be reasoned with" Atheists used to be considered mentally disabled, and they would wheel in people in restraints with a mental disability that would then state all sorts of 'provocative' things. and that was then considered what an atheists was... Its not that people are not willing to waste their time that is the problem, [B]its that they go out of their way to discourage OTHERS from 'wasting their time'[/B][/QUOTE] The difference between being an atheist and believing that Hillary is dying from tongue cancer and seizures is pretty stark. Atheism hinges on the fact that it's impossible to (dis)prove that God exists, and that there's no evidence that he does. The conspiracy surrounding Hillary's health is related to the fact that people believe Hillary has health issues regardless of the fact that there's no evidence to suggest she does. They're quite literally almost opposite analogues. I don't care about what you spend your time on, if you want to entertain retarded, baseless notions - sure, go ahead. Personally I consider my time slightly more precious; I hope you can respect that.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50977439]The difference between being an atheist and believing that Hillary is dying from tongue cancer and seizures is pretty stark. Atheism hinges on the fact that it's impossible to (dis)prove that God exists, and that there's no evidence that he does. The conspiracy surrounding Hillary's health is related to the fact that people believe Hillary has health issues regardless of the fact that there's no evidence to suggest she does. They're quite literally almost opposite analogues. I don't care about what you spend your time on, if you want to entertain retarded, baseless notions - sure, go ahead. Personally I consider my time slightly more precious; I hope you can respect that.[/QUOTE] A reasonable comment. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50974982]He wasn't actually suggesting that we discuss chemtrails or flat earth theories - because there's no need to go beyond "No", "NO" and "Are you retarded???". Likewise there's no reason to discuss whether Hillary Clinton's health is literally in shambles; entertaining baseless conspiracy theories is only giving them legitimacy and attention they don't deserve.[/QUOTE] A dogmatic knee jerk reaction. I hope you get it now.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50977453]A reasonable comment. A dogmatic knee jerk reaction. I hope you get it now.[/QUOTE] Surely you need to apply a filter to information. If its Trump saying "Hillary is ill in poor health" then odds are its bs and the burden of proof if on them. You could spend your entire life disproving and dismissing bs theories and statements. I can do it now Garry is a plant by the EU to make kids get addicted to games so their parents are dissapointed with them and are easier prey to reactionary right wing politicians who are more likely to be euroskeptics so the EU will fail and all of the EU officials can short shares from businesses which relied on the EU so they can all get rich from the collapse. If every news outlet had to write about it and take it seriously it'd be a shit show, odds are some people might just believe it. So once you've finished writing up a through and well sourced rebuttal to my theory above please move onto my next theory. Trump is a plant by Mexico to build anti mexican sentiment to unify all the mexicans to form into mega-mexican, rather like the power rangers. The mega-mexican will then retake texas and use the land to plant trees which will drain all the water from the rio grande to make it easier to swim across so mexicans can occupy the USA and out breed them by 2108. Sure these are hyperbole but there is no proof for the health thing (bar slow motion videos from nobodies on youtube, watch anybody laugh in slow motion you'll get the same thing) and its clearly propaganda. Why should any media outlet risk its reputation by making themself a mouthpiece for bs.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50977453]A reasonable comment. A dogmatic knee jerk reaction. I hope you get it now.[/QUOTE] I basically said the same thing, just nicer. My first comment said that there's no reason to discuss claims with no evidence, my last post said there's no reason to discuss claims without evidence. Sure, in the latter I pointed out the obvious fact that there's no evidence, but beyond that they were basically the same post.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50977365]Have you ever discussed with these people? If they were susceptible to evidence and logic, they wouldn't believe in chemtrails or flat earth theory in the first place. As an example, Huffpost running an article debunking Hillary's supposed health issues would be dismissed because they're "Hillary shills". Hillary apparently has both seizures and tongue cancer (judging by a "hole" on her tongue in a screengrab that really wasn't apparent when I watched the actual video clip it was taken from, but of course that was probably edited out by CNN or whatever), but she's also running a campaign and shows no obvious signs of poor health. Also, there's no evidence that she has either -"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". If the fact that her health check showed that she was in pretty good health (and the fact that she's running a campaign, doing debates etc.) doesn't convince you that she isn't literally dying before our eyes, there's no evidence that anyone could procure that would convince you otherwise, because you're being unreasonable. [B]I can't debate people whose viewpoints have no basis in reality. Or, at least, I'm not gonna waste my time doing so[/B].[/QUOTE] You know that I'm not saying that she's dying, right? I'm just saying that questioning her health doesn't inherently make someone stupid, and it does deserve an answer- in this case, her clean bill of health that proves that she's not dying. [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50977501]I basically said the same thing, just nicer. My first comment said that there's no reason to discuss claims with no evidence, my last post said there's no reason to discuss claims without evidence. Sure, in the latter I pointed out the obvious fact that there's no evidence, but beyond that they were basically the same post.[/QUOTE] In the first comment quoted, you layed out your opinion- in the second, you said that the proper response was to call people questioning whether or not there were chemtrails retarded and to immediately dismiss them.

[QUOTE=phygon;50977512]You know that I'm not saying that she's dying, right? I'm just saying that questioning her health doesn't inherently make someone stupid, and it does deserve an answer- in this case, her clean bill of health that proves that she's not dying. [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] In the first comment quoted, you layed out your opinion- in the second, you said that the proper response was to call people questioning whether or not there were chemtrails retarded and to immediately dismiss them.[/QUOTE] First as in chronology, not as quoted. People who believe in chemtrails or flat earth theory are probably immune to evidence and logic - they may not be clinically retarded, but probably colloquially so. Maybe these people aren't stupid, but their critical thinking skills are probably lacking. My first post (you know, the one where I posed the question of retardation) was made under the assumption that Clinton's bill of health was well-known to these so-called skeptics, and that most reasonable people would dismiss the laughable "evidence" of her having seizures and tongue cancer. People still thinking these claims have legitimacy, being aware of those things, probably aren't worth the time of your day. Which is what I said in that post. Edit: It should be obvious to you that you're not part of the group of people I'm attacking in my post. I do, however, believe you're wasting your time debating them.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50977501]I basically said the same thing, just nicer. My first comment said that there's no reason to discuss claims with no evidence, my last post said there's no reason to discuss claims without evidence. Sure, in the latter I pointed out the obvious fact that there's no evidence, but beyond that they were basically the same post.[/QUOTE] This issue is satisfactorily answered by phygon, the first post said you wont enact the labor of debating them the second post you said no one should enact the labor of debating them

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50977642]This issue is satisfactorily answered by phygon, the first post said you wont enact the labor of debating them the second post you said no one should enact the labor of debating them[/QUOTE] What are we even debating? Yes, I think it's a waste of time debating these people, because it's the verbal equivalent of running your head against a wall repeatedly. I already wrote that I don't care what you do, but as I wrote in my original post, sites like Huffpo shouldn't give these people attention - it only gives legitimacy to their theories, and HuffPo wouldn't be able to disprove these claims because they simply aren't rooted in the real world. Now, what part do you take issue with? That I'm not being nice to the conspiracy theorists, or that you think I'm somehow rude for advicing against wasting your time?

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50976895]It would have been a great opportunity to dispel those rumors. Now it all makes it seem more sketchy than it initially was. Good job, HuffPo.[/QUOTE] The rumors should already be dispelled. Nothing sketchy here at all. [QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50976895]Because Breitbart and RT/Sputnik are literally the Big Bad Wolf.[/QUOTE] Well I mean RT/Sputnik is state-sponsored propaganda but I guess if you agree with what they say that means more than the truth. [QUOTE=th0rianite;50977218]I didn't mean to suggest that was your thinking, simply that you can't really say we KNOW she's fine as we do not know. It would obviously be in the best interest of the public to be made aware, but I just can't see either candidate admitting anything if there were a problem. That wouldn't be in their best interest.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't take Clinton at her word. I do, until given evidence otherwise, trust her doctor's sworn statement. It's the closest thing to fact we have and everything else is rampant speculation based on blurry videos where 13 different people reach 13 different diagnoses. [QUOTE=phygon;50977290]Sure there is. Nothing is gained if nothing is questioned- Questioning things like chemtrails is perfectly valid because the concept can be easily refuted. If you just go "What are you, retarded???" then the ignorant will remain ignorant. Chemtrails aren't a thing and you can prove it, but there's no reason to be allergic to discussion of things of that nature.[/QUOTE] Sure in an informal setting whatever but should a news outlet really be covering conspiracy theories like that and presenting them as news? Chemtrails is a funny meme but not really releavant. Let's say HuffPo ran a story about how Putin is backing Trump, with literally no evidence, and made several off the wall claims. Would that be okay? Keep in mind that they aren't being a "devils advocate", they are absolutely serious about pushing the narrative that Trump was handpicked by Putin. Because in my world that isn't okay. Journalists deal with facts and outside the occasional well-labeled editorial have no business creating or propagating conspiracy theories. There are establishments for people who want to do that, but it isn't a news org.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50978098] Sure in an informal setting whatever but should a news outlet really be covering conspiracy theories like that and presenting them as news? Chemtrails is a funny meme but not really releavant. Let's say HuffPo ran a story about how Putin is backing Trump, with literally no evidence, and made several off the wall claims. Would that be okay? Keep in mind that they aren't being a "devils advocate", they are absolutely serious about pushing the narrative that Trump was handpicked by Putin. [/QUOTE] When I made my first post defending the author, I didn't know that it was an actual conspiracy that she was literally dying "right the now". I agree that that doesn't belong on news sites. Perhaps an article showing both sides of the "issue" would have been better and wouldn't have resulted in his firing.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50978098]Well I mean RT/Sputnik is state-sponsored propaganda but I guess if you agree with what they say that means more than the truth.[/QUOTE] HuffPOS is as much of a liberal propaganda as Breitbart is alt-right. Neither should be allowed, but I guess there's some source-favoritism around here. Daily Mail and RT shouldn't be banned, I have seen people bitching at an OP for posting a news story solely for the fact that the source is RT even if it isn't something pro-Russian or anti-American. It's fucking retarded and cringy. Oh, a famous charismatic singer died? Fuck you the source is RT, ban that sick filth, that will surely show him.