 |
| |
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
OK guys, this one has to be incredible. I had to run a thread for it. It has to do with Sava's post on the Miami riots.
Basically, Harry Tuttle claimed, backed by a CNN article, that the police in Miami was right in molesting the protesters, during a FTAA summit.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/11...ests/index.html
My argument against this was:
1. The CNN article quoted a US official who said they were commited to progressing nicely on the topic of agricultural subsidies. I found this dubious, since in a WTO summit this fall, Third World countries left discussions earlier as a protest against Europe and America's unwillingness to loosen their position. I even remember hearing Western officials, before the summit, saying that they would be making concessions on this topic. So obviously, it turned out to be a lie, if the Third World diplomats were pissed to the point of leaving prematurely. Some analysts even claimed that this was a major crisis in the history of the WTO. So if what the US official was saying is true, there must have been some drastic change in the US policy over the last few months.
"All right", said I, "let's see what Latin America officials had to say about this". Seems I had been too naive, because the CNN piece didn't bother asking two or three to verify the statement of the PR guy. What kind of crap journalism is this??? How could have journalism ever been about quoting someone without asking his counterparts' point of view? We call this "Press Release", not journalism.
This was my first point: either the article is bad journalism, or either the bias was done on purpose. But Harry Tuttle failed to see such an obvious point and accused me of changing the discussion's topic.
Now, let's see a quote from said article:
quote:
Backed by armored personnel carriers, officers in riot gear pushed demonstrators about 300 yards away from the Bayfront Park Amphitheater.
Inside, ministers from 34 countries were trying to hammer out a proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, a free-trade zone that would stretch across the Western Hemisphere from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego. |
Forgoing that the free-trade zone would not include Cuba, we have here a nice case of a junk, literary enhancement of what could have been simply dubbed as "Americas". Poetry is not for anyone, it seems.
Then, the article went on, describing the demonstrators' will to vandalize and attack, depicting in detail their arsenal: slings, bottles full of urine, and pepper spray.
It ends up quoting the chief of police, who obviously wants to look like his men had been moderate. It also fails to provide any demonstrator's point of view. I suppose that is journalism, relaying official discourses?
BTW, everyone who has participated in a demo knows that some journalists get a pass to follow the police, while others just melt in the crowd. Oddly enough, the latter usually have their cameras seized and often get arrested along with demonstrators, while it is not the case of the first group. Might it be that journalists who do not relay solely the police point of view are not appreciated by the authorities? As if wearing flashy orange and having a camera is not clear enough to show you're not throwing rocks.
What I know, however, is that the said officer has not been so much mild-intented, judging from other quotes forgotten by CNN.
I gave a link to a definitely left-wing source, that has at least the benefit of offering another point of view, and some nice quotes from the police itself:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...e/index_np.html
The problem is, you have to watch a 30 seconds pro-ecologic advertisement or subscribe to the site in order to see it. Seems like watching an ad on Fox or on CNN is not a problem for anyone, but Harry Tuttle decided that the communist ad was a proof of bias and thus rendered useless an article he wouldn't even read.
So, communist ads are a proof of bias, but free-market banners are not.
OK, from now on I'll be quicker. So as to demonstrate that the police had no qualms about lying, I told him about my personal experience, in which a crowd I was part of was encircled and arrested. Someone near me had been carrying a plastic bottle for water. Notwithstanding that he didn't have any fluid, the police handcuffed the guy, seized the bottle and claimed its goal was to make a Molotov cocktail.
I don't expect Harry Tuttle to be a brilliant mind, but still this quote regarding this course of event is simply idiotic to the point of being embarassing:
quote:
And yeah, containers that hold liquid can hold gasoline. |
Just to make sure everyone gets it, here is a cite from Wikipedia explaining basic rules underlying Molotov cocktail functions:
quote:
The weapon is used by lighting the rag and throwing the bottle at the target. The bottle shatters on impact, spilling the burning liquid over the target |
Harry, has it ever come to your mind that plastic bottles don't shatter?
And guess the story that was ran in the newspaper on the following day? "A demonstrator had even brought a Molotov cocktail!" The article also talked about armed demonstrators. But a quick glance at what was seized by the police showed that there were about one or two daggers (which you might be carrying for many reasons anyway), and tons of little, pocket sized SWISS KNIVES.
Now, we call this an obvious case of journalism lie and evidence falsification by the police.
Which goes back to the CNN article: If you don't ask the demonstrators' point of view, chances are that grossly barbaric lies such as these can make it to an article. And no, there is no instance of CNN double checking any of the police claims. They quote the police and make it pass as if it was the truth.
Which leads me to this final thought: from the time I witnessed these sad events, I lost great faith in our democracy system and started to understand the angry protesters violent motives: they are destroying windows out of despair and powerlesness, not because they are brainwashed lefties (ok, maybe a bit of both but nothing that can justify such oppression).
And to end things in beauty, a quote from Harry Tuttle that will stand the test of time as a symbol of brilliant reasoning and clever humanist avant-garde:
quote:
Democracy has nothing to do with rights or free speech |
Thanks, Harry. This has become my sig!
(talk about a cathartic quote from storytelling expert, "Aritotle"!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
and there are are stupid right wingers |
I certainly hope your not talking about me, fakeboris.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harry Tuttle
|
 |
of the Hoople Heads
Mar 2003
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
1. The CNN article quoted a US official who said they were commited to progressing nicely on the topic of agricultural subsidies. I found this dubious, since in a WTO summit this fall, Third World countries left discussions earlier as a protest against Europe and America's unwillingness to loosen their position. I even remember hearing Western officials, before the summit, saying that they would be making concessions on this topic. So obviously, it turned out to be a lie, if the Third World diplomats were pissed to the point of leaving prematurely. Some analysts even claimed that this was a major crisis in the history of the WTO. So if what the US official was saying is true, there must have been some drastic change in the US policy over the last few months.
"All right", said I, "let's see what Latin America officials had to say about this". Seems I had been too naive, because the CNN piece didn't bother asking two or three to verify the statement of the PR guy. What kind of crap journalism is this??? How could have journalism ever been about quoting someone without asking his counterparts' point of view? We call this "Press Release", not journalism.
This was my first point: either the article is bad journalism, or either the bias was done on purpose. But Harry Tuttle failed to see such an obvious point and accused me of changing the discussion's topic. |
Actually you did try to change the subject. The thread that Sava started and the topic we were all on had nothing to do with the actual issues being discussed at the WTO article. The thread, and article, are about supposed police brutality during the talks.
You decided to jump in and start running your mouth about agricultural subsidies, something that no one was commenting on. Here's the thread for reference:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...30&pagenumber=1
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The problem is, you have to watch a 30 seconds pro-ecologic advertisement or subscribe to the site in order to see it. Seems like watching an ad on Fox or on CNN is not a problem for anyone, but Harry Tuttle decided that the communist ad was a proof of bias and thus rendered useless an article he wouldn't even read.
So, communist ads are a proof of bias, but free-market banners are not. |
I used a widely known and middle-of-the-road news source. You used a biased anti-wto article from a webbased magazine. An article that we couldn't even read because you need to subscribe to their website. It is bias. In fact, that is the definition of biased. Are you having a problem understanding the language again???
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Someone near me had been carrying a plastic bottle for water. Notwithstanding that he didn't have any fluid, the police handcuffed the guy, seized the bottle and claimed its goal was to make a Molotov cocktail. I don't expect Harry Tuttle to be a brilliant mind, but still this quote regarding this course of event is simply idiotic to the point of being embarassing:
|
Flammable liquid can be contained in a glass or plastic bottle. Plastic melts when burned and flammable liquid tends to EXPLODE when lit in an enclosed environment. Did you not pass chemistry in high school???
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Which leads me to this final thought: from the time I witnessed these sad events, I lost great faith in our democracy system and started to understand the angry protesters violent motives: they are destroying windows out of despair and powerlesness, not because they are brainwashed lefties (ok, maybe a bit of both but nothing that can justify such oppression).
|
Despair???!?!?!?!?! My god, you are a moron! Those people out there live in the greatest country in the world! They have more freedom than any other citizens on Earth! You think they were so distraught that they started BREAKING THINGS!?!?
AND NO, democracy is a form of government. Rights and free speech are seperate.
de·moc·ra·cy
1) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2) A political or social unit that has such a government.
3) The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4) Majority rule.
In a democracy the people can vote to deny free speech. They can vote for a dictator. They can vote to exclude a portion of the populace! It is a form of government, not a declararion of rights!
If you want to attack someone on this board I suggest you get your goddamn facts straight before you do it. I will tear you a new one everytime you illiterate ass.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
actually, oncle boris, you're wrong.
nalgene bottles are plastic. throw one off the top of a building at least 150 feet high, with some liquid in it, and it will shatter.
counterexample to your claim. you are therefore wrong. qed.
|
Forgoing that the guys didn't have any flammable fluid on him, the fact remains that the guy was on the street, not on top of a dungeon, screwing with a princess of something.
So, to the benefit of everyone, I have just tried recreating the environment of the demo to make an empirical experiment. I took a plastic spring water (just like the guy had) bottle filled with fluid, and put a cloth on its end. I went out on the street and tried several things: throwing it as high in the air as I can, hurling it at my feet to the macimum of my force , throwing it forward (just like you would throw a real one on a bunch of policemen).
I did that a few dozen times until my arm and my hand hurt (the temperature was cold). The bottle didn't splatter.
Now I'm sure you're laughing your ass out, because I responded seriously to your useless troll. So be it, I don't mind.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Actually you did try to change the subject. The thread that Sava started and the topic we were all on had nothing to do with the actual issues being discussed at the WTO article. The thread, and article, are about supposed police brutality during the talks.
|
Yes. And it is the article that YOU posted that had a few line about agricultural subsidies. Now, I won't accuse you of changing the topic, because I really don't mind you posting this CNN article.
My point was to prove the bias of your article, so as to question its objectivity, and thus the veracity of the facts it had brought to the discussion. In fact, I even gave a mini conclusion halfway through my post to resume my argument, which was: "beware! possible bias".
Not only I took the time to say it might be biased, I also took the time to explain WHY. That is not thread hijacking.
That is argument sub-specification, as in there can never be any wrong in specifying the fact necessary to prove the argument that is necessary to bring the fact that is needed to... (and so on).
As a student of philosophy, I had always thought the few minutes the teacher spent on explaining this in basic classes useless. Now I can understand them better.
quote:
I used a widely known and middle-of-the-road news source. You used a biased anti-wto article from a webbased magazine. An article that we couldn't even read because you need to subscribe to their website. It is bias. In fact, that is the definition of biased. Are you having a problem understanding the language again??? |
Now, I didn't claim it wasn't biased. I only defended the necessity to read article from both biases, left and right, to have a better understanding of the facts. "Widely known and middle of the road"? Then what? Pravda was widely known and middle of the road. Goebbels' radio stations were.
In fact, I'd expect a "middle of the road source" to have some bias in the form of commercial imperatives. Not criticizing their owner's interests being the first. Making short, undetailed and analysis lacking stories that are only meant to be resumes being the second. Not being too harsh on advertisers being the third.
Again, you don't have to subscribe to read the leftist article. You just have to watch an ad to get a one-day pass to all of their content. Look better, the option is there.
And still, I wonder why you would believe ideologic incentives to be worse than financial ones. CNN's financial interests, while probably not a sufficient proof to claim they are lying, surely lack the sincerity of the left solidarity drive.
quote:
Flammable liquid can be contained in a glass or plastic bottle. Plastic melts when burned and flammable liquid tends to EXPLODE when lit in an enclosed environment. Did you not pass chemistry in high school??? |
You can read my previous post about my experiments.
Now, please consider that the principle of a Molotov cocktail is that the cloth is lit on the part outside and above of the bottle. Therefore, it won't melt the plastic as the heat goes up. Also, the point of such a rudimentary weapon is not for the fire to light the fluid inside, but rather for the fluid to spread over a surface and/or human, as to burn a building or a person.
In fact, the cloth has to be thightly inserted in the overture of the bottle, thus preventing the fire from passing inside, and also preventing it from being separated from the bottle, when it is thrown, either by the wind or acceleration.
And then, still consider that the person didn't have flammable fluids on him and that he had been drinking water with the bottle.
Take my word for it. Everyone who saw the scene didn't think it could even have happened
quote:
Despair???!?!?!?!?! My god, you are a moron! Those people out there live in the greatest country in the world! They have more freedom than any other citizens on Earth! You think they were so distraught that they started BREAKING THINGS!?!? |
And the police has been known to protect this so-called freedom.
http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_police
By the way, many rankings done by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN place the US behind Canada and most of EU concerning privacy rights, civil liberties, and freedom of speach.
Is the US the greatest country in the world? The most powerful, without question. But it doesn't even rank in the top ten in the UN classification, who sum up such things as wealth, wealth redistribution, justice, education and literacy, etc.
quote:
AND NO, democracy is a form of government. Rights and free speech are seperate. |
False. The premise behind giving everyone the right to vote is that they are all equal. Which means that you stop being democratic the moment citizens are treated arbitrarily and unfairly (thus in a manner supposing they are unequal). This is plain logical coherency. Democracy also supposes free flow of information, simply because transparency is needed for the people to make their own choice. Denial of free speech is also a denial of this transparency.
Governments are composed of two things:
1. Modus potandi, i.e. the way power is handled
2. Modus operandi, i.e. the conditions needed for this power to be operative in conformity to its premise. (example: you can't call yourself communist if the means of production are privately owned).
And no, I am not illiterate. I'll have to assume your comment about this was some brilliant literary figure beyond my comprehension.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-12-2003 15:14
... 
Hold on a little bit, I need to do some stretching before I begin... 
|