BBC to set up team to debunk 'fake news' stories

[Centurius]

2 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

Agree to disagree on the transparency.  But no religions condone killing?  Then what do these verses mean?  This isn't a personal opinion, these are literal verses. Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them is pretty damn conclusive. So is Strike off their heads and fingers. 

 

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

 

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

 

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." 

 

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

 

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"

 

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." 

 

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

 

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

 

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..."

 

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" 

 

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

 

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

 

There are plenty more.  There's also plenty of juicy stuff in the old testament as well. 

Just because it is written, it isn't necessarily still practised by the religion. The bible is full of violent passages but people aren't arguing Christianity is a violent religion either.

[AresKrieger]

Anyway fuck the BBC, they like many other news organizations dug their own graves, if people don't believe you why would they think your fight against fake news in genuine

[ace_cheaply]

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

 

 

I was asking what message you are trying to convey.  What you are doing is deflecting.  It is like mentioning that Trump indicated a propensity to commit acts of sexual assault on women ("... I don't even wait") and his response is:  'Look at Bill Clinton's indiscretions, he is much worse.'

 

Ivan distinctly said he is worse than other politicians and lawyers so no matter how you paint it, all you are doing is indicating how bad Trump is;  unless you direct your argument to an end.

 

I don't think any US president, or president elect, has told so many outright lies in the public spectrum as Trump has done already.  He is has not even started his term yet.

 

I would post sources, but I don't feel like posting 100+ sources.

And your sources, should they include politifact and the like, would take every thing he says in the worst possible light, including jokes, sarcasm, hyperbole, and obvious political rhetoric.   Should they have gone after any politician with the same amount of fervor as they did Trump, or held everything in the most negative possible connotations, over course they would have much worse media coverage than they already do.   What lies has trump told that are any where near as impactful as "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?"  Trump calling CNN Fake news is one of those lies that all of the left biased media will claim when anyone with a brain knows it's true.  Just like if trump says the media didn't care about hacking before the election, they'll call it a lie...when you get hilarious headlines like this:

 

 

[Marinatall_Ironside]

2 hours ago, Memories4K said:

Gender wage gap (in this context) is a myth, don't meme yourself.
This is called an EARNINGS GAP, women don't EARN as much as men.
It's not women not being paid the same wage for the same qualifications, work, hours, etc.

Don't forget too that men work more hours than women. I'm a man and if I decided to work part time or 35 hours as a full-time employee (35 being the standard definition of full-time), there's no excuse to be paid the same amount as women are right now. So in this case, I've got two or more options laid out on the table.

 

I can either:

1. Work more hours to rake in more cash (more than 35 hours and work overtime and get paid if possible)
2. Pursue a higher-paying job in the same company to work similar hours.
3. Get a degree and get an even-higher paying job at a different company.
   1. Like getting a Ph.D in the medical field and working as a cardiologist or a heart surgeon and not a pediatrician (First two pays way more than the latter as far as I know).

Also with white-collar jobs in mind, here in America, they're usually exempt from overtime pay laws (which I think should change, especially for both men and women working as waiters at restaurants), unlike blue-collar jobs (skilled/unskilled manual labor) where it is required by law that anyone working overtime get paid. 

[ace_cheaply]

4 minutes ago, Centurius said:

Just because it is written, it isn't necessarily still practised by the religion. The bible is full of violent passages but people aren't arguing Christianity is a violent religion either.

Did you not read this 

 

7 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

 

There are plenty more.  There's also plenty of juicy stuff in the old testament as well. 

Yes, the bible (the old testament), has some really hideous stuff in at as well.  Which is why saying no religion calls for killing is an idiotic lie.  Furthermore, IT IS PRACTICED BY THE RELIGION.  Go ask the gays in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia if islamic religion doesn't call for the killing of innocents.  Or one of the several islamic terrorist groups that practice the religion.  Or one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe in the penalty of death for apostates according to pew research. 

[Memories4K]

5 hours ago, ace_cheaply said:

Agree to disagree on the transparency.  But no religions condone killing?  Then what do these verses mean?  This isn't a personal opinion, these are literal verses. Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them is pretty damn conclusive. So is Strike off their heads and fingers. 

 

No, no, no, that's not what i meant.
I meant you can't really call out media for lying when it's really just people saying Islam doesn't condone killing.
Any idiot can understand that ideologies have supported violence before.
I'm saying that someone saying "I don't think religions condone killing" is not in the same realm as the Obama administration lying about their healthcare plan.
I don't disagree with either of the things you've said about religion and transparency, i'm saying it's not really media or those in power lying-lying.
 

 

5 hours ago, JurunceNK said:

-snip-

No yeah that was all included  hahaha

[ace_cheaply]

1 minute ago, Memories4K said:

No, no, no, that's not what i meant.
I meant you can't really call out media for lying when it's really just people saying Islam doesn't condone killing.
Any idiot can understand that ideologies have supported violence before.
I'm saying that someone saying "I don't think religions condone killing" is in the same realm as the Obama administration lying about their healthcare plan.
I don't disagree with either of the things you've said about religion and transparency, i'm saying it's not really media or those in power lying-lying.
 

It wasn't calling out the media, it was calling out Obama himself who said that no religion condones killing innocents, and that islam has nothing to do with terrorism.  That, in my opinion is an outright lie.  

[Memories4K]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

It wasn't calling out the media, it was calling out Obama himself who said that no religion condones killing innocents, and that islam has nothing to do with terrorism.  That, in my opinion is an outright lie.  

Well ok but what i mean is that it's akin to Obama saying that ketchup is the best BBQ sauce.
You kinda know he's wrong but it's not especially scandalous, is what i mean.
It's more like he's a joke for saying that, not really that it matters that he said it because it doesn't really impact anything.
If you want to talk about Islam's link to terrorist organizations, terrorism attacks around the globe, and Obama's/The-Left's ignorance towards the regressive cultural influence of Islam then sure but Obama making a blank statement that "no religions support killing" isn't really to do with that, that could be to stand in solidarity with peaceful religious practitioners (which i know isn't true) by going with "Only TRUE Muslims don't throw gay people off of roofs" as a way to socially-disempower that kind of regressive influence.
It's semantics i'm arguing, really, but it's not really lying is what i'm getting at when the intention is based on morality and values.
 

[ace_cheaply]

3 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Well ok but what i mean is that it's akin to Obama saying that ketchup is the best BBQ sauce.
You kinda know he's wrong but it's not especially scandalous, is what i mean.
It's more like he's a joke for saying that, not really that it matters that he said it because it doesn't really impact anything.
If you want to talk about Islam's link to terrorist organizations, terrorism attacks around the globe, and Obama's/The-Left's ignorance towards the regressive cultural influence of Islam then sure but Obama making a blank statement that "no religions support killing" isn't really to do with that, that could be to stand in solidarity with peaceful religious practitioners (which i know isn't true) by going with "Only TRUE Muslims don't throw gay people off of roofs" as a way to socially-disempower that kind of regressive influence.
It's semantics i'm arguing, really, but it's not really lying is what i'm getting at when the intention is based on morality and values.
 

You're technically correct, and I've been told that's the best kind of correct.

[stconquest]

25 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

And your sources, should they include politifact and the like, would take every thing he says in the worst possible light, including jokes, sarcasm, hyperbole, and obvious political rhetoric.   Should they have gone after any politician with the same amount of fervor as they did Trump, or held everything in the most negative possible connotations, over course they would have much worse media coverage than they already do.   What lies has trump told that are any where near as impactful as "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?"  Trump calling CNN Fake news is one of those lies that all of the left biased media will claim when anyone with a brain knows it's true.  Just like if trump says the media didn't care about hacking before the election, they'll call it a lie...when you get hilarious headlines like this:

 

Sources for what?  That post I made?  The sources were:  You, me, and Ivan.  I did say I would not post sources of the lying and untruthful statements made by Trump... because you have to be a "special" person to believe Trump is relatively honest to the public in any way. 

 

You can go back to the 90s with Trump if you want, or right up to today and the same is evident:  He is a piece of turd example of human.

 

'I have a piece of paper here that proves I am worth 10 billion dollars.'

[ace_cheaply]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Sources for what?  That post I made?  The sources were:  You, me, and Ivan.  I did say I would not post sources of the lying and untruthful statements made by Trump... because you have to be a "special" person to believe Trump is relatively honest to the public in any way. 

 

You can go back to the 90s with Trump if you want, or right up to today and the same is evident:  He is a piece of turd example of human.

 

'I have a piece of paper here that proves I am worth 10 billion dollars.'

These sources, obviously:

39 minutes ago, stconquest said:

 

I would post sources, but I don't feel like posting 100+ sources.

[Misanthrope]

On 1/14/2017 at 1:33 PM, Centurius said:

Just because it is written, it isn't necessarily still practised by the religion. 

That's the entire point of religion. The difference is just degrees of power the Clergy have over society and policy making.

 

i.e. In the west, they have little (Tough with all Democrat bible nuts now that might change) On the middle east, it's no different than the middle ages with the Clergy and the Government officials being the same people following the same insane principles written on the "holy" texts.

On 1/14/2017 at 1:56 PM, Memories4K said:

Well ok but what i mean is that it's akin to Obama saying that ketchup is the best BBQ sauce.
You kinda know he's wrong but it's not especially scandalous, is what i mean.
It's more like he's a joke for saying that, not really that it matters that he said it because it doesn't really impact anything.
If you want to talk about Islam's link to terrorist organizations, terrorism attacks around the globe, and Obama's/The-Left's ignorance towards the regressive cultural influence of Islam then sure but Obama making a blank statement that "no religions support killing" isn't really to do with that, that could be to stand in solidarity with peaceful religious practitioners (which i know isn't true) by going with "Only TRUE Muslims don't throw gay people off of roofs" as a way to socially-disempower that kind of regressive influence.
It's semantics i'm arguing, really, but it's not really lying is what i'm getting at when the intention is based on morality and values.

The problem with Religion isn't the people. It's Clergy. The more you have secular governments and the more secular they are, the least problems with Religion you will have.

 

This fully respects people's right to worship and believe what they want but removes the power from the clergy to influence policy and thus meddle with the lives of others through their intolerance and hatred. Once you reduce Clergy to what they should be: inconsequential fucking stupid talking heads begging for money for their bullshit moralizing, then Religions just fucking die and countries become atheistic for the most part and tolerant of each other.

 

But once you decide "yeah let's allow Religion into politics and law making" then it starts with simple stuff like "Let's teach creationism" or "Let's oppose gay marriage" but it ends with homosexuals being thrown off buildings, women not being allowed to drive or show their faces in public, etc.

[stconquest]

22 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That's the entire point of religion. The difference is just degrees of power the Clergy have over society and policy making.

 

i.e. In the west, they have little (Tough with all Democrat bible nuts now that might change) On the middle east, it's no different than the middle ages with the Clergy and the Government officials being the same people following the same insane principles written on the "holy" texts.

The culture of war was a prominent social component at the time that a lot of these religions were developed.  There are no good guys in war and religions will reflect that.  The religious power grab is for dominance; to make the rules.

 

You did not just ignore the very relevant religious right wing did you?  Yes, the US government is made up of nearly 100% Christians.  The Reps seem to be more crazy religious though.

 

-Abortion = Murder  <<until a life is capable of living outside the womb, it is effectively a parasite

 

-Marriage is for one man and one woman.  <<change the definition to include homosexual couples... seems simple, economically.

 

-The bible is akin to science textbooks.  <<c'mon.

 

Just because Islamic theocracies can be terribly harmful to the world, does not mean that we here in North America are free from our own crazies.  Go go zombie Jesus!

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

 

Again, yes, younger women (IN TOTAL) make more money than younger men do (IN TOTAL) but just like the overall gender wage gap, this is an earnings gap and men are not being paid less and/or hired less because of their gender.

Ever hear of something called affirmative action?  It's pretty much never pro-male.

[Memories4K]

20 hours ago, stconquest said:

The culture of war was a prominent social component at the time that a lot of these religions were developed.  There are no good guys in war and religions will reflect that.  The religious power grab is for dominance; to make the rules.

 

You did not just ignore the very relevant religious right wing did you?  Yes, the US government is made up of nearly 100% Christians.  The Reps seem to be more crazy religious though.

 

-Abortion = Murder  <<until a life is capable of living outside the womb, it is effectively a parasite

 

-Marriage is for one man and one woman.  <<change the definition to include homosexual couples... seems simple, economically.

 

-The bible is akin to science textbooks.  <<c'mon.

 

Just because Islamic theocracies can be terribly harmful to the world, does not mean that we here in North America are free from our own crazies.  Go go zombie Jesus!

I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact the Religious Right's intolerance and hypocrisy is what pushed me to the left in the first place, but you're not really disagreeing with anything he said hahaha it's a culture war and some cultures are more inferior to other ones.

I don't see the religious right over executing gay people or throwing them off roofs, religious authoritarians here in the West are nowhere near as extreme

 

20 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Ever hear of something called affirmative action?  It's pretty much never pro-male.

And?
I'm not a fan of affirmative action, i see the hypocrisy in it, but that doesn't make what i said any less true.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Translation : " We get to decide what You need to listen "

[Orangeator]

5 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

And?
I'm not a fan of affirmative action, i see the hypocrisy in it, but that doesn't make what i said any less true.

Affirmative action is the worst thing to ever be proposed. It is racist and sexists in and of itself.

[Misanthrope]

20 hours ago, stconquest said:

The culture of war was a prominent social component at the time that a lot of these religions were developed. 

Secular reasons for war exits sure, but we're talking about religious ones don't change the subject, or if you do don't expect me to respond.

 

20 hours ago, Memories4K said:

I don't see the religious right over executing gay people or throwing them off roofs, religious authoritarians here in the West are nowhere near as extreme

They don't have nowhere near the extreme amounts of powers though. The hatred and desire to control others it's there though.

[vanished]

5 hours ago, CoeGunnell said:

 

[snip]

Please update your post in accordance with the tech news guidelines:

Quote

• Original input [missing]
• Link to source [check]
• Quote from source [missing]
• Proper title [check]
• Images [optional]

 

[Shoob]

Are they going to debunk themselves?

[stconquest]

30 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact the Religious Right's intolerance and hypocrisy is what pushed me to the left in the first place, but you're not really disagreeing with anything he said hahaha it's a culture war and some cultures are more inferior to other ones.

I don't see the religious right over executing gay people or throwing them off roofs, religious authoritarians here in the West are nowhere near as extreme

I was not disagreeing with @Misanthrope.  I was just wondering why he would mention the religious left (a.k.a. moderate, passive...mostly) and not include a much more intrusive religious right. 

 

I too, am turned away from the right simply because of their push towards religious rule.  I try not to be polarized, but as soon as they mention god/the bible my flags go up.  It adds up after a while.

 

As for executions, they are too busy filling their prisons.  Dead people don't make them money.

19 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Secular reasons for war exits sure, but we're talking about religious ones don't change the subject, or if you do don't expect me to respond.

I was not changing the subject.  I was being critical of your idea that the left is what will change the affect of religion in policy for the USA, when the right is actively affecting policy solely based on religion.

 

I mentioned war because religions will sometimes be used to motivate soldiers to fight for a cause (god), and some religions had this in mind as they were developed.  It is part of the tribe mentality.  You will find passages that elude to a human "ability" to inflict harm on others in these texts because of this...and other reasons of course.

 

I don't ever expect you to respond.  If you do, fine. 

[slightlyjaded]

Just now, Pandalf said:

Are they going to debunk themselves?

I suspect not.

 

This looks more like a PR stunt, than a serious initiative. They have to be shown to be doing something, and by being very public about it, they give more weight to their own new stories, and the slant they themselves put upon their reporting. It also gives them a very quiet backdoor to apoligise for any story they get blatantly wrong without having to air a retraction on their news service that they actually want people to watch.

[Murdoch]

4 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Great stuff. I have a suggestion BBC: Start with some of the ones you've published, like anything involving the gender pay gap.

They've done a fair bit of this already...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37198653

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38385259

 

Despite claims to the contrary, and yelps of "left-wing bias", it's hard written into the BBC's DNA that is must report the news in a balanced way.

[stconquest]

Why do you guys think there is this giant push to discredit any attempt to verify news stories?  Verifying news stories, and even correcting false stories reported in error, is the status quo for many news outlets; the reputable ones anyways. 

 

Corporate news is more often guilty of omitting relevant stories because of business interests, not making fake news.

 

I think the crazies are using the internet to a very unwelcome affect.  It was bad enough with just the corporate news shilling, now we have full blown crazy to deal with as well.  

[Teddy07]

5 hours ago, Sky Daddy said:

I just want a news station dedicated to uplifting/good news instead of the hate/fear mongering media we get fed now.

That is why i blocked all news sites regarding my country. No need to make me angry everytime i read a story.

 

I am really much happier without the news. I just watch foreign news now because it doesnt mentally affect me.