|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 30, 2019 11:15:33 GMT -5
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2019 11:40:54 GMT -5
Aren't journalists supposed to mention sources or evidence when they accuse people of running a scam?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 30, 2019 12:54:20 GMT -5
Aren't journalists supposed to mention sources or evidence when they accuse people of running a scam?
He did mention his source: The New York Times. The Times article mentioned more sources.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 8:17:58 GMT -5
Aren't journalists supposed to mention sources or evidence when they accuse people of running a scam?
He did mention his source: The New York Times. The Times article mentioned more sources.
Bob
"The fires aren’t an epochal event. According to the New York Times, the Brazilian agency tracking fires by satellite reports that, at this point in the year, it’s the highest number of fires since 2010, which isn’t thousands of years ago — indeed, not even a decade ago."
No mention of a scam. Where is his evidence that people are making money off of saying that the Amazonas rainforest is on fire?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 31, 2019 12:07:21 GMT -5
He did mention his source: The New York Times. The Times article mentioned more sources. "The fires aren’t an epochal event. According to the New York Times, the Brazilian agency tracking fires by satellite reports that, at this point in the year, it’s the highest number of fires since 2010, which isn’t thousands of years ago — indeed, not even a decade ago."No mention of a scam. Fires in the Amazon happen every year. Why now all of a sudden are they making a big thing over it? Where is his evidence that people are making money off of saying that the Amazonas rainforest is on fire? [/quote] As ususal, you quote selectively. Here is another definition of "scam": " Definition of scam (Entry 1 of 2) : a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation an insurance scam scam verb scammed; scamming Definition of scam (Entry 2 of 2) transitive verb 1 : deceive, defraud 2 : to obtain (something, such as money) by a scam" Macron is in the lead with this scam ("deceptive and fraudulent"). Macron is in trouble politically. What better way to distract attention from his domestic problems than to get people concerned about a foreign "crisis" in the Amazon? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 12:17:19 GMT -5
What intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain has Macron engaged in?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 12:21:28 GMT -5
Macron is in the lead with this scam ("deceptive and fraudulent"). Macron is in trouble politically. What better way to distract attention from his domestic problems than to get people concerned about a foreign "crisis" in the Amazon? Politicians do this all the time, though, including the current President of Brazil who has claimed that the fires were being laid by international organizations and socialist saboteurs. How does that meet the legal definition of fraud?
Also, why doesn't the article cite any evidence that a crime has taken place?
It seems that this would be relevant information.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Aug 31, 2019 13:33:51 GMT -5
Macron is in the lead with this scam ("deceptive and fraudulent"). Macron is in trouble politically. What better way to distract attention from his domestic problems than to get people concerned about a foreign "crisis" in the Amazon? Politicians do this all the time, though, including the current President of Brazil who has claimed that the fires were being laid by international organizations and socialist saboteurs. How does that meet the legal definition of fraud?
Also, why doesn't the article cite any evidence that a crime has taken place?
It seems that this would be relevant information.
Of course the article doesn't mention that politicians are committing fraud. That's common knowledge and is taken for granted.
BTW, your comment about the President of Brazil is a Circumstantial ad Hominem. The actions of the President of Brazil do not disprove the claim that European leaders are committing a fraud when it comes to the Amazon.
You even admit that "politicians do this all the time."
What we have here is white politicians from wealthy countries telling a country where people are poorer have darker skin that they can't try to make more money by running their own country the way they want to.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 9:01:53 GMT -5
The actions of the President of Brazil do not disprove the claim that European leaders are committing a fraud when it comes to the Amazon. Just as the actions of Macron do not disprove that the Amazon rainforest is being burned and deforested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 9:04:15 GMT -5
What we have here is white politicians from wealthy countries telling a country where people are poorer have darker skin that they can't try to make more money by running their own country the way they want to. Yes, it would be terrible for crony capitalists if they made less money out of burning down the Earth's forests and worsening the speed and effects of climate change.
I suppose it would be even more "terrible" for people who don't believe in climate change.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 11:43:34 GMT -5
What we have here is white politicians from wealthy countries telling a country where people are poorer have darker skin that they can't try to make more money by running their own country the way they want to. Yes, it would be terrible for crony capitalists if they made less money out of burning down the Earth's forests and worsening the speed and effects of climate change.
I suppose it would be even more "terrible" for people who don't believe in climate change.
Sure. Never mind that poverty-stricken people of color in Brazil are now able to earn a living. The rich white people have to keep them down and in their place. Racism Rules, right?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 21:56:50 GMT -5
Yes, it would be terrible for crony capitalists if they made less money out of burning down the Earth's forests and worsening the speed and effects of climate change.
I suppose it would be even more "terrible" for people who don't believe in climate change. Sure. Never mind that poverty-stricken people of color in Brazil are now able to earn a living. The rich white people have to keep them down and in their place. Racism Rules, right? Bob
those poor "people of color" being oppressed
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 22:09:53 GMT -5
Sure. Never mind that poverty-stricken people of color in Brazil are now able to earn a living. The rich white people have to keep them down and in their place. Racism Rules, right? Bob
those poor "people of color" being oppressed
That's amazing. One rich American is responsible for all that! Yeah, right.
The millions of Brazilians who voted the present government into power had nothing to do with it.
Well those people of color probably don't know what's good for them. They aren't smart like people in the white nations who are telling them what they should do with their lives and their country.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 22:30:17 GMT -5
Do you support the Bolsonaro regime and its environmental policies, Bob?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 22:34:53 GMT -5
Do you support the Bolsonaro regime and its environmental policies, Bob?
I support the right of the Brazilian people to choose whatever policies they want for their own country without interference from rich, white, racist European organizations.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 22:42:10 GMT -5
Is that a yes or a no?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 22:53:05 GMT -5
I support the right of the Brazilian government (which was democratically elected) to manage Brazil in any way it sees fit that is consistent with Brazilian law.
What I do not support is rich, white, Neo-colonial, racist Europeans who think they have tie right to tell people of color how to run their own country.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 22:56:18 GMT -5
I support the right of the Brazilian government (which was democratically elected) to manage Brazil in any way it sees fit that is consistent with Brazilian law. Is that a yes?
What I do not support is rich, white, Neo-colonial, racist Europeans who think they have tie right to tell people of color how to run their own country. Bob
You only support rich white neocolonial racist Americans, yes. I know that already.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 23:18:07 GMT -5
I support the right of the Brazilian government (which was democratically elected) to manage Brazil in any way it sees fit that is consistent with Brazilian law. Is that a yes? I support the right of the democratically elected Brazilian government to manage Brazil any way it wants to. If the Brazilian people don't like what's happening, they can change the government in the next election. Wrong. I never said that. You made it up.
I don't support Americans who try to tell Brazilians how to run their own country either.
And your Ad Hominem here doesn't erase the fact that rich white people are telling people of color in a poor nation how they should live their lives.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 17:49:02 GMT -5
I support the right of the democratically elected Brazilian government to manage Brazil any way it wants to. So your support Bolsonaro's policies. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 2, 2019 18:10:17 GMT -5
I support the right of the democratically elected Brazilian government to manage Brazil any way it wants to. So your support Bolsonaro's policies. Thanks for clearing that up.
Wrong.
Support for Free Speech does not mean support what someone else says.
Support for a democratically elected government to manage their country does not mean support for any of their policies.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 18:32:33 GMT -5
So your support Bolsonaro's policies. Thanks for clearing that up. Wrong. Support for Free Speech does not mean support what someone else says. Support for a democratically elected government to manage their country does not mean support for any of their policies. Bob
"I support the right of the democratically elected Brazilian government to manage Brazil any way it wants to" is not the same as "I support your right to say whatever you want" unless you believe that making policies and laws is indistinguishable from making speeches.
But I asked you whether you support their policies.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 2, 2019 20:48:08 GMT -5
Wrong. Support for Free Speech does not mean support what someone else says. Support for a democratically elected government to manage their country does not mean support for any of their policies. Bob "I support the right of the democratically elected Brazilian government to manage Brazil any way it wants to" is not the same as "I support your right to say whatever you want" unless you believe that making policies and laws is indistinguishable from making speeches. They are the same. I don't give orders to other people regarding what they say or how they choose to live their own lives. This is different from well-fed Westerners like Macron who think they have the wisdom to tell other countries what to do when in fact they have mismanaged their own country. Ho hum. Another Ad Hominem. I support Free Speech for everyone, right-wing, left-wing, communist, fascist. I even support Free Speech for you. Which policies are you referring to? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 2:19:57 GMT -5
I don't give orders to other people regarding what they say or how they choose to live their own lives. Even if you actually gave orders to other people, nobody would care to begin with. You have no authority over anybody on this planet. That's not some moral high ground you're occupying here, it's simply a consequence of your irrelevance.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 10:55:08 GMT -5
Aren't journalists supposed to mention sources or evidence when they accuse people of running a scam?
Aren't you supposed to read the article first before commenting on it? If you had, you would see that it did cite sources.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 11:22:26 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how often you repeat yourself, you still haven't shown any evidence for the claim that Macron is running a scam operation by any common definition of "scam".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 13:20:53 GMT -5
It doesn't matter how often you repeat yourself, you still haven't shown any evidence for the claim that Macron is running a scam operation by any common definition of "scam".
"Definition of scam (Entry 1 of 2) : a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation"
Now why do you suppose that a French politician who is in political trouble (evidence already presented) is suddenly talking about a fire in another country thousands of miles from France?
Brazil is Macron's Red Herring, "a fraudulent or deceptive act."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 17:30:11 GMT -5
Again, no evidence.
Bob, this is what you had to say the last time we argued over who is in need to provide evidence:
You are free to believe what you want. Fact is that you cannot prove that you are not a child rapist. Therefore, you have no grounds to object if people were to call you a child rapist. Correct? [/quote] But that means you also have no grounds to object if someone were to call you a child rapist. In fact, there are grounds to object. Very solid grounds. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE! If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence for that claim. And that is a basic rule here on the FACTS Board. Otherwise we would have to "prove" that ghosts don't exist, UFO's are not space ships from other planets, and the Jews were not trying to take over Germany before the Nazis saved the country. CARDINAL RULE: The person making the claim is the one who has to provide the Proof. [/quote][/div]
Do you believe your own "cardinal rule" applies to claims you agree with?
If you do, then you need to provide proof for your claim.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 18:07:12 GMT -5
Again, no evidence. Bob, this is what you had to say the last time we argued over who is in need to provide evidence: Fact is that you cannot prove that you are not a child rapist. Therefore, you have no grounds to object if people were to call you a child rapist. Correct? Wrong. It is up to the person who makes a claim to provide supporting evidence. Otherwise the "accusation" is no more than a fantasy. A Rule isn't a claim. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 19:18:56 GMT -5
Are you going to answer my question?
|
|