Whatever happened to honesty?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
I wouldn't suspect someone like you to recognize honesty, Scott.
Generally speaking, I'd agree. Speaking of which, could you cite the source of what you just quoted ;-)?
Can't refute the facts, so attack the source.
With a prisoner who uses an alias and a neocon rag?
(Q) is a prisoner?
In a way although I was referring to someone else.
(Q) needs to sit back at some time and decide exactly what it means that he considers it necessary to malign people and points of view he disagrees with by aligning himself with such people.
It is necessary for religious proponents such as yourself and DH to be exposed for your maligned beliefs in a militant cult.
Surely, if you're going to sit there spouting nonsense about how your holy book promotes war as the one and only answer to perceived disagreements, no one is ever going to take you seriously?
You have linked to:
1. The thread I started concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, a thread that spanned more then 2000 posts and included people who have been discussing the issue for years, including a mechanical engineer named Tony/Anthony Szamboti who has published peer reviewed papers on the subject, before it was shut down by Stryder.
2. My formal debate with Uno Hoo on the same subject.
3. My proposal to create the aforementioned debate.
4. The thread I created regarding the 9/11 pentagon attack, which was only given 3 days of life before it too was shut down by Stryder.
I would argue that, far from staining my name, those threads speak volumes of my wish to reveal the truth even when it's difficult to do so.
Who?
S.A.M. said:
Makes sense. The issue at present, is the veracity of claims, such as the one you got from sourcewatch.
Sourcewatch is a wiki which documents the groups and individuals who shape public agenda.
Unlike other wikis however, you have to reference every opinion you have on it.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
Its bipartisan and merely presents the vested interests of individuals and organisations from all colours of the spectrum.
Another similar, but partisan website is rightweb. However it gives similar [though much more detailed information] on groups and individuals on the right side of the political spectrum.
I've been looking for a similar objective one for the left side but so far, no luck.
I think such media efforts are essential to assess the viewpoints in the light of vested interest. I suppose you could consider it another effort to maintain honesty in discourse, in what appears to be a steadily declining moral world.
Funny thing when you are being honest about things around here you usually get jumped on and called out for being racist, homophobic, etc.
A lot of people don't want to hear the truth and a lot of people are too scared to say the truth because of how others react.
A lot of people don't want to hear the truth and a lot of people are too scared to say the truth because of how others react.
Would you rather they were dishonest and pretended that you were not being homophobic when you made statements about gays being allowed to adopt? Being honest is not without consiequences you know. Its to your credit that you can rise above your concerns, but its people who hold opinions like that who make decisions that disenfranchised gays have no control over. Now that you know some gay people, perhaps you have some idea how traumatic this is for them.
So being honest is good if you do it, but you bitch when you get some honesty from others?
A lot of people pretend what they say is honest, when it isn't.