Current affairs: biased OP

[Rozi]

am I the only one that likes his threads just cause they make me laugh hysterically?

[The Don]

It's almost impossible to get a completly unbiased source from the media and we shouldn't become a dictatorship and not allow opinions to be posted. I don't want the forum to end up like Kim Jong-il's palace.

[beth]

am I the only one that likes his threads just cause they make me laugh hysterically?

the ones about tony blair always get me going.

[Catzsy]

While I obviously don't always agree with dan, he is generally the only person posting threads in there. If you are worried about biased OPs, perhaps you could post the same news with a less biased viewpoint. Either way, all the threads are going to end with 'LEAVE THE EU, SEXUAL LIBERTY IS ERODING OUR CULTURE' etc etc but there really isn't any way to deal with that apart from ignoring it or doing what FlyingJesus has been doing so well lately and pick out the obvious flaws in said arguments.

Agree, but conversely over zealous & quite oppressive posting where perhaps the posts area often quite subjective and personal against the other posters as opposed to being objective and sticking to the subject/subjects not the person can also put members off posting there. I know of at least two who have stopped and I do quite a lot of the time. Just a personal opinion though. There is always bias in the media though whatever publication.

[Casanova]

thank god we've got the media bit sorted :rolleyes:... I'M AWARE.
I'm simply stating that using more trashier rags like daily mail and the star won't get you anywhere.

PS: It really is off putting to post, I normally stop myself from posting because it would just end with me ripping Dan to shreds.
It's total bull.

[GommeInc]

Dreadful idea. Not being rude, but use your brain when reading threads in the forums - especially when reading media related articles. Of course a thread creator is going to have bias, it is their thread about their interests. They're not going to outline counter arguments and opposite views when the reader is big enough and smart enough to do it themselves. To create an incredibly lame rule about this hinders discussion, something HxF have been slowly moving away from and it would be a shame for them to create more pointless rules that hinder teen-related discussions.

You're ad lib to post threads yourself. Dan usually starts off the discussion, and the rest is up for you - most of the time they're enlightenin. You shouldn't expect to be spoon fed information and expect all discussions to be one-sided. Besides, half the point of open discussion is to counter-argue points. If you can't do that, then forum browsing isn't for you :/

/My two pence on the thought

[Casanova]

But if dan wants to create a passionate discussion on his topic, he should outlay both... it's rule 101 of debate.
We have modern studies in scotland, you get taught that in first year? Don't england do such a thing?

Personally I wouldn't have minded but Dan's posts really do rile me because they're just a fancier way to be offensive. instead of dan saying "I ******* HATE HOMO'S COS I HAVE ISSUES" he would say "I feel in our day and age we could learn from our society of past. they had a better understanding of culture and boundaries and people held back more. I feel that for myself it's totally outrageous gay men "INSERT NORMAL ACTIVITY" when it wouldn't have happened in the fifties. Being a conservationalist I feel we could do better to... "INSERT STUPID THING HERE".

It's unfair to read through a post like that.

At least make the first paragraph on the basics. what the post is about.
THEN GO INTO YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST VIEWS.

[Chippiewill]

But if dan wants to create a passionate discussion on his topic, he should outlay both... it's rule 101 of debate.

Yes, in debating the first thing you do is undermine your own argument.

[Casanova]

Yes, in debating the first thing you do is undermine your own argument.

You might notice I veryyyyyyyy rarely start debates/current affairs?
I accept my behaviour is questionable so I take that on board.

now run along.

[GommeInc]

But if dan wants to create a passionate discussion on his topic, he should outlay both... it's rule 101 of debate.
We have modern studies in scotland, you get taught that in first year? Don't england do such a thing?

Personally I wouldn't have minded but Dan's posts really do rile me because they're just a fancier way to be offensive. instead of dan saying "I ******* HATE HOMO'S COS I HAVE ISSUES" he would say "I feel in our day and age we could learn from our society of past. they had a better understanding of culture and boundaries and people held back more. I feel that for myself it's totally outrageous gay men "INSERT NORMAL ACTIVITY" when it wouldn't have happened in the fifties. Being a conservationalist I feel we could do better to... "INSERT STUPID THING HERE".

It's unfair to read through a post like that.

At least make the first paragraph on the basics. what the post is about.
THEN GO INTO YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST VIEWS.

Most schools I know of have open discussions about certain topics. Instead of being told the figures, facts and other information, you discover for yourself what you think is right or wrong. Using a forum is about the battle of opinions and views, rather than a school debating club

I wouldn't say they're offensive, as he does attempt to back up claims. In a real discussion you wouldn't be so formal as Dan is, but if he wants to play that game then you just post your views and post information to back it up, like you would at school, college and university. You do not need to post strictly informative and factual information, but make a believable case which many may and will agree on It's better to be like that than actually be rude to someone without making a believable argument or case

Besides, your idea of having everyone posting current affairs provide lots of information may hinder discussion, as I'm fairly sure people would get a bit bored of finding out all relative bits of information before posting a topic, when we're all capable of finding counter-arguments and articles on a view. If Dan or anyone else posts a radical view, post why it isn't I know of many times the Daily Mail has contradicted itself with one argument seeming radical, and another article posting an entirely different view. The Daily Mail is like the Bible (though not to be taken that seriously), it's riddled with contradictions, concepts, and views which can easily be disproven by either using other Daily Mail articles, or articles from other papers and even statistical websites.

Or you could do what is very simple, use your experience and state why x isn't necessarily true or worthy of much care It's what I do at least. If a view is so extreme, it would be noticable in real-life. If it isn't, then it can't be that important.