Guards at Trump prison camp for children ordered to stop them from hugging - Polidicks

Trump supporters are basically cockroaches with some cognitive functions, but I respect them for having the drive to praise their daddy.

I'm kinda amazed they possess enough brain cells to string that many words together in a semi-coherent fashion.

Would you prefer the East-West model or the North-South model? The former worked in Germany, but America's culturally more inclined towards the latter... but then, the latter solution has never worked. Oh well, something to ponder while you decide if this is the hill you want to die on.

They seem to think having an opinion automatically confers them respect, no matter how terrible or absurd

The only opinions I voiced in this thread was saying that the article is seemingly bias and the first half of it reads like a hit piece and that although I disagree with Trump's new idea of keeping all these children separated from their family it's not as bad as everybody is making it out to be and is nowhere near levels of a concentration camp and even Japanese internment camps during WW2. I then asked for a better alternative method that could be done, and Firgof Umbra replied with "immediate deportation" which I agreed with. But now suddenly I'm a fascist. I'm brain dead. And that I'm a special snowflake and my opinions don't belong here where even in the rules it states: Facepunch is accepting of differing opinions. Please don't report people for "flaming / trolling " just because you disagree with them. You will be banned for flippant reports. The overall aim of our moderation policy is to promote discussion in a manner that is balanced and fair to all. If you have issues with how this is conducted, please feel free to contact me via PM. I've done nothing but show respect to everybody I've replied in this thread and I'm being attacked without even having said too much.

Border Patrol ‘Very Uncomfortable’ With Word ‘Cages,’ But Admits It’s Accurate

That's within the allowable range so long as it is seen to have a high rate of factual reporting. It does. What's your point?

"May require further investigation" is my point. Don't get wrong no major news source has no bias what-soever when it comes to their writers, and just because it's within the allowable range doesn't mean that it can't be brought up is my point.

Except it cant when the factual reporting his high. The only thing higher than that rank is very high, which is reserved for basically census reports.

I care less whether a story is biased and more when the story is factual.

Well at least you admit it.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

You can bring it up. You just need to justify why you're bringing it up. Why do you feel the news as being reported is incorrect from this site which is known to report the news with a high degree of accuracy and which avoids presenting significant political bias?

Bias: Left-Center I never said that any information from the article is null and void because of this, I'm saying that because it has a left-center bias and despite the factual reporting being high it still warrants skepticism and you can't take everything from the article as the word of God. It even says on the screencap, "These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation."

Why does it warrant skepticism? Aren't you just claiming 'you should disbelieve this article on its merits despite it coming from a usually good source because uh... left'? What is your evidence that it warrants skepticism in this particular case?

I never said disbelieve the article everything coming from it is false. I said it could be exaggerated for example: They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. It all goes back to what I said and that is all of this might be over-exaggerated coming from a left-center bias source. Not to mention the poll further down below has some interesting results. https://i.gyazo.com/9f5fc5f79b723d9cc56dd6d669f77df0.png

OK. Show that it's being over-exaggerated then - what is giving you reason to believe it's exaggerated other than an inherent distrust in left-center sources? They're not the only ones reporting this news - other outlets which are similarly within that spectrum which are also good sources for news are also reporting what this article's reporting. Who gives a crap about internet polls that weren't scientifically conducted? What is this supposed to add to your argument? You sound like you're saying we should distrust it because you saw we should distrust it because 'we're liberals so we're biased to like news sources on our side of the spectrum but hold on a moment guys because you might be getting swindled - I will now provide no evidence to demonstrate that you are being swindled'.

Considering your past arguments, why would it matter, and why would you point it out so specifically as: And further more the article is from LA Times which according to the rules of this board with the media fact checker website that's linked in the rules of the board. The source of the article has a left-center bias. "And furthermore" what? It's left-center, not heavy-left, and the factual reporting is high, which you're not refuting, so why bring it up if not to insinuate that the slightly-left bias somehow makes the article null? You're choosing to be skeptical about it because it doesn't correlate your arguments, or because it has a bias just left-of-center. Which is it?

The facts are just too biased for you for them to be your facts I guess By the way that's not how facts work

How about the fact almost the entire article is just an anecdote from one former employee who worked at one of the plenty of other shelters out there.

How about the fact that multiple people have gained access to and verified his account of said shelter. How does that in any way demean or discredit his claim?

'Prison-like' migrant youth shelter is understaffed, unequipped for Trump's 'zero tolerance' policy, insider says I think it's fair to be skeptic about what one insider says about one of the plenty of other facilities out there rather then having a full investigative journalist report on the situation. But if you want to believe everything this guy says go ahead.

If you want to not read anything I write, feel free to stop trying to substantiate your position with increasingly weak, non-evidence-based, arguments.

Give me backings and evidence that go to support this Antar Davidson's claim. Burden of proof lies on you.

"burden of proof is on you, yes I know this article exists but it's too left leaning for me to care what it says, I'll wait til Dave Rubin says what I should think"

I’m saying the article is entirely grounded in the fact that this one insider at the facility and his anecdote are all true. Reminder anecdotes are the lowest forms of evidence and in today’s world where “fake news” is becoming more and more of a problem I’m the stupid one for not believing in this one dude from a left center bias news article. If high factual reporting is anecdotes then I can’t even imagine what medium to low would be.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/15/620254326/doctors-warn-about-dangers-of-child-separations The concerned pediatricians contacted Colleen Kraft, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and she flew to Texas and visited a shelter for migrant children in the Rio Grande Valley. There, she saw a young girl in tears. "She couldn't have been more than 2 years old," Kraft says. "Just crying and pounding and having a huge, huge temper tantrum. This child was just screaming, and nobody could help her. And we know why she was crying. She didn't have her mother. She didn't have her parent who could soothe her and take care of her."

If the basis of you're entire argument is the source is a biased but highly factual, it really sounds like you don't have an argument. Not to mention I asked you questions to the original argument and got nothing.

As someone who used to work in a jail and dealt with a wide verity of conditions and inmates - Awaiting trial, convicted, mentally ill, criminally insane, ICE detained, etc. Just because you get basic needs met such as food, water, exercise, games, and rec. Does not mean conditions are favorable...You have to understand many of the people who are being detained at young kids, some pre-teen/teenager stages too. The point being is they are being held without any trial - they haven't been advised to any rights they may or may not have. While I'm 100 percent for combating illegal immigration, this is not the way to do it. Looking at the entire scope of this situation, it isn't like hundreds of thousands are coming in waves. These are a few thousand kids, this is not worth the financial resources and the damage to our countries reputation. We are ripping families apart and traumatizing children. It angers me that the republican part is suppose to be the part of family values and so forth but can justify this treatment. This just isn't the way to do things, you have to think of the impact this is having on the children and families. Imagine if someone came up to you, separated you from your family, and put you in a detention center. How would you feel? If you are going to send the parents back to their home country, the least you can do is reunite them with their parents so the family can go back home together.

Oh, so you're just going to start throwing away first hand accounts en masse because they're anecdotes. Even as the lowest form of evidence, they are evidence until proven to be inaccurate. Nobody's called what he said inaccurate. There's several people who have gone into these facilities and found conditions similar to or identical to what he described. Are you next going to state that multiple accounts which align on multiple data points are therefore manufactured because fake news deep state interests?