Match Thread: Ukraine vs Russia.

[Letters]

FullFact is one of the most notorious "charities" online.

When I pointed out the way Jimmy Dore lied in one of his videos you accused me of "shooting the messenger". Aren't you doing the same thing here?
For the record, I think it's pretty reasonable to do that - if you believe a source to be routinely unreliable and can give examples (which you haven't done here, by the way) then it's fairly reasonable to point that out.
But you're getting too bogged down with the source here, I can provide multiple other sources which say the same thing.
And you're getting too bogged down with the specifics of this case. It's not true that I didn't read it, but I didn't read every last word.
The relevant part for this conversation is the judge's ruling on coming directly:

In short it is the respondents’ contention that Article 31 allows the refugee no element of choice as to where he should claim asylum. He must claim it where first he may: only
considerations of continuing safety would justify impunity for further travel. 18. For my part I would reject this argument. Rather I am persuaded by the
applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s executive committee (ExCom), and the
writings of well respected academics and commentators (most notably Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, Atle Grahl-Madsen, Professor James Hathaway and Dr Paul
Weis), that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum. I conclude that any merely short term stopover en
route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the Article, and that the main touchstones by which exclusion from protection should be judged are
the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reasons for delaying there (even a substantial delay in an unsafe third country would be reasonable were the time
spent trying to acquire the means of travelling on), and whether or not the refugee sought or found there protection de jure or de facto from the persecution they were
fleeing

So...

those who defend it are quick to remind us rules are there to be broken. Like the judge in this case.

The judge in this case goes on to quote the UNHCR's own guidelines which agrees with his interpretation of the law

[Niall_Quinn]

Interesting video on the Russian economy.

Stays pretty fact-based for the most part, doesn't really veer off into opinion (provocative title aside) and explained a few things I didn't know about, like how the Oligarchs got their hands on the USSR's money after it collapsed.

Quite a clever report that makes western criminality, enacted through gangster organisations like the IMF, appear to be the only solution (if only the stupid victim would embrace the poison). Why do you think Russia became the phantom menace when Putin took power? I disagree with the 3/10 for Russian industry, mainly because that's beyond ridiculously stupid an misleading. There's so much more to Russia than oil. And three words were conspicuously absent throughout. China. India. Gold.

Besides. China is funding a buy now, pay later war effort. So there's no need to worry too much about ongoing financing.

[Niall_Quinn]

When I pointed out the way Jimmy Dore lied in one of his videos you accused me of "shooting the messenger". Aren't you doing the same thing here?
For the record, I think it's pretty reasonable to do that - if you believe a source to be routinely unreliable and can give examples (which you haven't done here, by the way) then it's fairly reasonable to point that out.
But you're getting too bogged down with the source here, I can provide multiple other sources which say the same thing.
And you're getting too bogged down with the specifics of this case. It's not true that I didn't read it, but I didn't read every last word.
The relevant part for this conversation is the judge's ruling on coming directly:



So...



The judge in this case goes on to quote the UNHCR's own guidelines which agrees with his interpretation of the law

Still amazes me why you can't just pose an argument based in truth and you feel the need to blatantly lie to make your point. I gave very specific examples of how only a fool would accept Full"fact" as a reliable arbiter. But I guess you do what you do.

I guess Dore's rather obvious observations upset you? Any human being can get with what he's saying. What's left might dig around the "fact" checkers for diversion from the intent. Jimmy once said something that's technically wrong - therefore his calls for a decent living wage for human beings is bullshit! And his observations about warmongers and their dupes can be diluted to sting a little less. Yeah, Dore's the bad guy. FullFact is where you'll find the truth. Full scrutiny for Jimmy. A free pass for the socially concerned and virtuous corporations. Makes a whole lot of sense if you have enough to hide.

Again, it's why a routinely ask you if you are genuinely a Christian.

Yeah, yeah. You didn't read it but BOOM - thanks for your ruling on the details and sorry for getting "bogged down" in doing the job you should have done before presenting your copy/ paste "research". Come on now Letters, taking the high ground from a ditch? I said you blindly follow authority and here you are proving it. You think it's me with the problem because I won't poke my own eyes out with a stick and get with the utopia?

[Letters]

Still amazes me why you can't just pose an argument based in truth and you feel the need to blatantly lie to make your point. I gave very specific examples of how only a fool would accept Full"fact" as a reliable arbiter.

Well, you didn't, did you? You made a load of assertions, backed up by nothing, you linked to their own page where they list their donors - why would they make that public if there is anything nefarious going on? The only "specific" thing you said is: "Biden is NOT handing out crack pipes, etc, etc."
I found something about that on Snopes - and a commentary of it on Sky News Australia which I know is an incredibly biased source.
I couldn't find anything on fullfact about it, but if there's something I missed then let me know.
Where's your "specific example"? You only gave one, and I can't even see anything about that on fullfact. So how is that relevant?

And you dodged the issue - which is "shooting the messenger". You grumble when I do it, but here you're doing it yourself. And as I said, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at whether a source is biased or lying, just don't complain when I do it.

I guess Dore's rather obvious observations upset you?

The fact he deliberately misrepresented an article by cherry picking from it and, at one point, deliberately misquoting from it upset me.
Doesn't it upset you that he presented an article and by doing the above made it look like it said the exact opposite of what it actually said?
Isn't that the sort of thing you rail against? Don't you care that Dore did it?
And no, that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong, but it does mean you shouldn't take everything he says at face value. If you don't then fine.
I never said he was the "bad guy", but he's not the good guy either. He is biased, as we all are, he might be making videos which pander to his audience for the clicks. And no, no free pass for anyone, scrutiny for everyone. As I said on this particular issue I happened to post a link from fullfact but I found multiple other sources which agreed with them, and I looked up the judge's ruling which fullfact referenced and found it to be accurate.

You didn't read it but BOOM

Well yeah, BOOM. I read the relevant parts. I don't care if these blokes were criminals, we aren't talking about the specifics of this case. This conversation is about "coming directly" and what Article 31 really means - does it mean that refugees HAVE to claim refuge in the first country they come to. You could certainly read it that way. But here's a judge - you know, a person whose literal job it is to make rulings about stuff like that - saying that he doesn't agree it means that. Is that not relevant to this conversation?

I said you blindly follow authority and here you are proving it.

Well. The authority in this case is a judge. So yeah, I mean we're talking about the law. If a judge isn't a relevant authority to be looking to here then who the hell is?

[Letters]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60850209

That'll sort it out

[Mac76]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60850209

That'll sort it out

[Niall_Quinn]

Well, you didn't, did you? You made a load of assertions, backed up by nothing, you linked to their own page where they list their donors - why would they make that public if there is anything nefarious going on? The only "specific" thing you said is: "Biden is NOT handing out crack pipes, etc, etc."
I found something about that on Snopes - and a commentary of it on Sky News Australia which I know is an incredibly biased source.
I couldn't find anything on fullfact about it, but if there's something I missed then let me know.
Where's your "specific example"? You only gave one, and I can't even see anything about that on fullfact. So how is that relevant?

And you dodged the issue - which is "shooting the messenger". You grumble when I do it, but here you're doing it yourself. And as I said, I don't think it's unreasonable to look at whether a source is biased or lying, just don't complain when I do it.


The fact he deliberately misrepresented an article by cherry picking from it and, at one point, deliberately misquoting from it upset me.
Doesn't it upset you that he presented an article and by doing the above made it look like it said the exact opposite of what it actually said?
Isn't that the sort of thing you rail against? Don't you care that Dore did it?
And no, that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong, but it does mean you shouldn't take everything he says at face value. If you don't then fine.
I never said he was the "bad guy", but he's not the good guy either. He is biased, as we all are, he might be making videos which pander to his audience for the clicks. And no, no free pass for anyone, scrutiny for everyone. As I said on this particular issue I happened to post a link from fullfact but I found multiple other sources which agreed with them, and I looked up the judge's ruling which fullfact referenced and found it to be accurate.


Well yeah, BOOM. I read the relevant parts. I don't care if these blokes were criminals, we aren't talking about the specifics of this case. This conversation is about "coming directly" and what Article 31 really means - does it mean that refugees HAVE to claim refuge in the first country they come to. You could certainly read it that way. But here's a judge - you know, a person whose literal job it is to make rulings about stuff like that - saying that he doesn't agree it means that. Is that not relevant to this conversation?


Well. The authority in this case is a judge. So yeah, I mean we're talking about the law. If a judge isn't a relevant authority to be looking to here then who the hell is?

We aren't talking about the specifics of the case? Oh, okay. If we're not examining the facts of the case then I guess there's no need to question the ruling, we just take it at face value based on the authority of the judge. Thanks, you made my argument for me.

[Niall_Quinn]

Saint Zelenskyy and his facist regime are having a hard time keeping their masks in place. Seems like the Ukraine love-in is running out of steam as people start to realise just how horrific the regime is. Will lessons be learned? No. Will the same thing happen the next time the west supports terrorists and Nazis? Yes.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Saint Zelenskyy and his facist regime are having a hard time keeping their masks in place. Seems like the Ukraine love-in is running out of steam as people start to realise just how horrific the regime is. Will lessons be learned? No. Will the same thing happen the next time the west supports terrorists and Nazis? Yes.

If ever there was a post that said nothing at all. This is it.

[Niall_Quinn]

If ever there was a post that said nothing at all. This is it.

Use your imagination. Or a history book.

It's like Bush said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, 'Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.'"

So. What's your opinion on global warming?