Saying that the press isn't biased against conservatives is still wrong and stupid.
Saying that the press isn't biased against conservatives is still wrong and stupid.I've lost count of how many things you've dismissed as 'obviously ridiculous' that are factually correct.
For example unless something has changed you most recently declared, in opposition to clear SCOTUS precedent, that Trump has unlimited authority to fire Comey even when that would otherwise be a crime and then dismissed the obvious logical implications of that as ridiculous.
Simply put you're far too invested in your personal partisanship to evaluate things rationally. Then again, it kind of goes without saying that creationists aren't known for being rational.
Saying that the press isn't biased against conservatives is still wrong and stupid.
Saying that the press isn't biased against conservatives is still wrong and stupid.
I'll be happy to hear some actual information. You just saying so doesn't make it so. Your arrogance is astounding.I'm sure it seems that way to you but that's because, like I said, you are unable to accept information that tells you things you don't want to hear.
Do you also think science textbooks are biased against creationists?
I'll be happy to hear some actual information. You just saying so doesn't make it so. Your arrogance is astounding.
Is that the information that I'm scared of?You literally just dismissed the null hypothesis as not just wrong but ridiculous without providing any actual information and then had the temerity to accuse other people of arrogance.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. The burden is on you to prove that the media is biased, not the other way around.
Is that the information that I'm scared of?*
Haha, I'll caution you against going down this road because madness lies at the end. There's a 40+ page thread somewhere with like 5 different people attempting to explain evolution to him and the whole time he is just desperately flailing to the point that he starts refusing to even state what evidence he would accept that would prove evolution was correct.
It's seriously bananas.
The traditional press (the non Fox, Breitbart, Salon, Vox) is biased towards factual reporting. Now it's true, facts and reality are the opposite of conservative beliefs so I'm sure to you they seem biased. But if you actually start taking those prescribed antipsychotics there's a chance you'll dip into reality often enough to realize how wrong you are. Yes, I understand it's lonely without the voices, but when you learn to interact with people in the real world in a reasonable fashion they'll talk back and you won't be so lonely.Saying that the press isn't biased against conservatives is still wrong and stupid.
So they are biased.The traditional press (the non Fox, Breitbart, Salon, Vox) is biased towards factual reporting. Now it's true, facts and reality are the opposite of conservative beliefs so I'm sure to you they seem biased.
The pope? Not accepting evolution requires independent thought. Don't pretend you have it because you buy into what you've been told. You couldn't defend it. And I couldn't care less what a pope says.lol, that sounds painful. Did anyone give him the most important evidence of all: the pope said evolution is real!
I wonder how many creationists were converted when that came out. You'd think most of them, considering to believe in such nonsense today you'd need a weak personality and strong inclination toward lack of independent thought, replacing it almost entirely with the thought and words from some chosen set of authority figures. Who better to tell them what to think than the pope?
The pope? Not accepting evolution requires independent thought. Don't pretend you have it because you buy into what you've been told. You couldn't defend it. And I couldn't care less what a pope says.
So they are biased.
So they are biased.
He literally just admitted that he considers factual reporting to be liberal bias.That's your takeaway?
Do you prefer stories that tell you things you want to hear or that tell you actual true things?
Science does not equal neo-Darwinian theory.Ahahahahahaha so it's true! Thanks for the laugh.
Some of us know how science works (and some of us even practice it ) so we don't need to be told what to think -- we can see objective observable reality for ourselves.
I don't have time to waste on this with you -- gotta do some science here at work.
Man, who would have thought? Creationists alongside modern scientific marvels such as computers, space travel, relativity and quantum mechanics! What a joke. Though I suppose there will always be a segment of the population incapable of learning anything.
Your point admitted to bias and you attempted to explain it.He literally just admitted that he considers factual reporting to be liberal bias.
He literally just admitted that he considers factual reporting to be liberal bias.
Your point admitted to bias and you attempted to explain it.
Science does not equal neo-Darwinian theory.*
When you try and explain bias you are admitting that its there. I do not accept his characterization, at all.That's your takeaway?
Science does not equal neo-Darwinian theory.
If Hitler says murder is wrong it is still wrong. My grades have nothing to do with the factuality of that statement. You should know that Mr. Science.Says the guy who clearly doesn't know a thing about science. You must have been a real straight-D type of student.
Ok, serious question. Are you fucking retarded?When you try and explain bias you are admitting that its there. I do not accept his characterization, at all.
When you try and explain bias you are admitting that its there. I do not accept his characterization, at all.