I don't know, but it definitely seems like it. OTOH, it seems like journalists really care about the truth and bend over backwards to fact check things.

So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by the press?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I don’t know, but it definitely seems like it.

So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by Vladimir Putin?

Where are you getting this, "seems like" he lies and "seems like" journalists care about truth and fact checking? Exactly the same number of "lies" have been produced for each in this conversation. I mean, I did link to a fake news story from the NYT but that doesn't count because I didn't break into their offices and find a signed confession.

You set an impossibly high standard for proof in the one case, but "seems like" is enough in the other, you're operating off pure vibes, or more accurately, your own bias and preconceptions, with zero critical thought.

But sure, I stand corrected, they didn't "lie" in those cases (since basically nobody ever lies, by your absurd standard), they just published blatant falsehoods at just the right time to advance their interests, then suddenly realized their "mistakes" as soon as what they wanted to happen happened.

~~Jesus loves me~~ The media is reliable, this I know, for the ~~Bible~~ media tells me so. Blind faith rivaling any Bible-thumper.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by Vladimir Putin?

I never made any claims about Putin. You, however, did make claims about the media. Back up your claims.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I have. I just can't meet an impossible standard of evidence that you're obviously selectively applying in order to exclude evidence that you want to pretend doesn't exist.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

An impossible standard of evidence? You think proving someone lied is impossible? And yet, despite knowing you can't prove it, you want to throw around accusations that someone lied.

In that case, you're a liar. I don't need to prove it, because proving someone lied is impossible. I can just say you lied and then call it done.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

And there's the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false, but also that I had knowledge and intent that it was false. Short of a signed confession, you cannot call me a liar, because it's impossible for you to read my mind. Perhaps I thought there was proof when there wasn't. Isn't that what you're saying is true of the media, for example, with the fake news story the NYT put out? If anyone's a liar here, it's you, for accusing me of lying when you can't meet your own standard of evidence for making that claim.

There's no point in reasoning with you any more than there is in reasoning with any other religious fanatic operating on blind faith and refusing to apply reason, skepticism, and critical thinking. You've simply chosen a worse God to worship.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

And there's the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false

No, your new standard is "vibes". You have "vibes" that the media lies, so you get to call them liars. I'm appyling the same logic to what you say, liar.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

No, I presented plenty of evidence. The problem is that you consider anything short of 100% to mean 0% (only when it comes to the media, ofc). Like, you're expecting me to be able to prove it in a court of law, but obviously there are a lot of things that are true where the evidence doesn't meet that standard. Even in a court setting, there are situations where they'd be concerned with standards like "more likely than not" or "reasonable cause to believe" rather than the standard you're applying of, "beyond any reasonable doubt," for example, if I shot someone in self defense, I wouldn't have to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" that they were trying to kill me, only that I had probable cause to believe that was the case. "Beyond any reasonable doubt" is only the standard for a conviction because the state's monopoly on violence creates a special danger for abuse, and because the state has special abilities and privileges that allow it to conduct investigations, beyond what a private citizen could. To hold private citizens to that standard as a requirement for their beliefs to be considered rational is completely and utterly insane.

I definitely have good reason to believe that the media lies, and I have presented plenty of evidence and arguments to that effect. What I can't do is present evidence like a signed confession, which obviously would never exist regardless of whether they're lying or not. If you want to come back down to earth, stop having blind faith in the media, and actually engage with the evidence I have presented, then we can have a discussion. I highly doubt that you have any interest in doing so, in fact, I'm sure that if I had presented the signed confession you're demanding, you'd dismiss it, move the goalposts, and say it was just an isolated incident. Because you prefer the comfort of your faith over facing the reality the evidence shows.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You didn't present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That's part of lying, and I don't dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You've presented no evidence to support that.

So, based on your rules, I can say you're a liar, because you've said some things that are not true, so I'm just going to assume that you know they're untrue and you're lying.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

That's so obviously a double standard. Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying, which means I'm telling the truth. Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I. The only possible way you can get to me being a liar is if you apply a more favorable standard to the media, and switch to a more unfavorable standard with me. It's literally the textbook definition of a double standard.

Your bias is so obvious, and it's also really fucking stupid. These people are not your friends. You're no different from people who go around stanning billionaires, against all sense and reason.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 minutes ago

Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying

And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.

Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I

Apply my rules and we don't know if the media is lying, but there's no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it's unreasonable to say they're lying. As for you, who knows.

Your bias is so obvious

My bias? You're the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.