The fact is that there is no evidence he said that, when it's said that there is no contemporary evidence of Washington saying that it means that of the documents we have from that era of that specific point there is no mention or report of Washington saying such a thing.
Also, there is contemporary evidence of Newton observing a falling apple, he said so himself to William Stukeley and his own Assistant also confirms this in his writings about netwons life.
... wasn't the point that there'd no evidence that Washington said "So Help Me God" .. and a news network claiming there 'is'.. would be bad journalism.
No. The point is that it is not disingenuous for Fox to report as fact a well known and generally accepted historic account when there is NO EVIDENCE to disprove it. Many historic facts have been preserved through word of mouth only and are accepted to be true. Certainly if verifiable evidence to the opposite is discovered, the historic record is altered. But for some historian to surmise that a certain event is unlikely to have occurred is not sufficient to invalidate a historic account.
Yes - but Libby is wrong. It IS a historic account. That there is no written record of the account, preserved throughout history by eyewitness word of mouth only, does not invalidate the account. It is not the opinion of historians the event occurred, it is their fervent belief that they are repeating an oral history account. The historic account of Wm. B Travis drawing a line in the sand with his sabre to ask for volunteers at the Alamo is not supported by anything but oral history accounts...
"it Is a historic account" I'm not so sure. You can't prove that it happened. It's acknowledged Washington gave the oath, but we don't have any record of that oath.
But if that's a historic account, then so is the easter bunny and mother goose.
Your pathetic attempt to compare undocumented history to well established fairy tale is laughable. You can try again to refute my argument with something that approaches sensibility, but I can't promise I'll waste time with you once you have evidenced just how desperately ridiculous you can be...
Too bad that you don't seem to know that much of what we accept to be historical fact is preserved by ORAL history traditions. I know concepts like this are too complex for a simpleton to grasp. But if you want to start trying to find written record of all of what we accept as our history - good luck with that. It was fact that Newtonian mechanics explained how the universe worked until Einstein tweaked the system with relativity. Myths were facts to hose who believed them - until DISPROVED.
so we go full circle. You say it's 'accepted to be historical fact' even though there's no real record or 'proof' that it happened. So when we tell litlte children about mother goose, apparently it's fact to them.
But facts aren't based on 'belief' it's based on evidence. Now we can have bad evidence, but when it comes to Washington's oath.. there's 'no' evidence.
You can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, so are little children 'right'?
Oooh, i see what you did "what 'we' accept as our history". Maybe we all don't accept that as our history.. history scholars don't all agree Washington used the phrase "God" in the oath. It's would be debatable, if we had proof.
But we have no proof, so we can't say he have or 'haven't'. You try to add consent when there really isn't one. Accepted fact isn't an actual fact... but i guess you don't believe in 'real' facts.
If we had proof? But we do...the carefully preserved oral history of our ancestors that we trust to be accurate. Sorry you don't have the capacity to trust your fellow man or ancestors. That is your short coming.
"Oral History" is a maddeningly imprecise term: it is used to refer to formal, rehearsed accounts of the past presented by culturally sanctioned tradition-bearers; to informal conversations about "the old days" among family members, neighbors, or coworkers; to printed compilations of stories told about past times and present experiences; and to recorded interviews with individuals deemed to have an important story to tell.
Each of these uses of the term has a certain currency. Unquestionably, most people throughout history have learned about the past through the spoken word. Moreover, for generations history-conscious individuals have preserved others' firsthand accounts of the past for the record, often precisely at the moment when the historical actors themselves, and with them their memories, were
Shortly after Abraham Lincoln's death in 1865, for example, his secretary, John G. Nicolay, and law partner, William Herndon, gathered recollections of the sixteenth president, including some from interviews, from people who had known and worked with him. Similarly, social investigators historically have obtained essential information about living and working conditions by talking with the people who experienced them.
Thus, the Pittsburgh Survey, a Progressive Era investigation of social conditions in that city designed to educate the public and prod it towards civic reform, relied heavily on evidence obtained from oral sources.
your example falls apart with the fact that the interviews were 'written' and there were 'witnesses'.
But for the Washington and the oath, there were no records of witnesses claiming he said "So God Help Me" If there is, end the argument by naming the person please. (I could be wrong, so here's your chance)
However, The first eyewitness documentation of a president saying 'So help me God' was in Sept. 22, 1881.
Hmm.. after thinking about it, I'm not even sure it's apart fo Oral History. I never addressed the subject..b ut Oral History does account for first hand experiance..
So.. if that's true, who's the person that heard it and made the claim? I"m guessing around the 1890's someone made the claim and it worked itself in our culture as a myth
Could be - then you have to deal with the fact that as the "myth" propagated, apparently more were to ACCEPT the logic and plausibility of the occurrence than deny it. Why are you so skeptical?
In your opinion it is unproven myth. In the majority opinion it is accepted fact. Live with it. Fox doesn't have to cater to the Libby Viewer conspiracy theorists on every detail of every story. Sorry, but you will just have to accept the fact that in some cases, the burden of proof is on the side of disproving an accepted fact, no matter how implausible YOU may think it is.
If Fox news reported in 1492, that Columbus risked falling off the world, they would not have qualified the story with a disclaimer that some crack pots thought the world wasn't flat. It was once accepted FACT that the world was flat. sure, NOW we know bwtter, but because there is irrefutable evidence TO THE CONTRARY...
minus the 'opinion' part and we have our self a deal.
If it was a fact, you would be able to prove it. You can't when given the chance. By that definition alone, it's not a fact. It's an accepted myth and there's no grounds to believe it.
Now who said I thought it was implausible? I said "It's possible he could have said it" But regardless of what i think, it's not a fact he said it one way or the other, because i wasn't there to 'know'
So a fact to you is something not proven wrong... without the need for evidence.
Hense the easter bunny. Any fool can consider that fairy tale real until someone tries to prove it false.. But you can't prove that something did not exist..
no - you are wrong again. the easter bunny is proven to not exist. it's origins are known to be fantasy. most of us can tell the difference between fairy tales and anecdotal history...hmmmm...why can't you?
The Easter Bunny is a mythical character depicted as an anthropomorphic rabbit. In legend, the creature brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy and toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter. The Easter Bunny will either put the baskets in a designated place or hide them somewhere in the house for the children to find when they wake up in the morning.
The Easter Bunny is very similar in trait to its Christmas holiday counterpart, Santa Claus, as they both bring gifts to good children on the night before their respective holiday. Its origin is disputed but the character was mentioned as early as 1600; some trace it to alleged pre-Christian fertility lore,[1] others to the role of the hare in Christian iconography.
Well it is just semantics. What you call unproven legend, I call un-disproved fact..
legend - a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and 'popularly accepted as historical'
you see, the trick is, if it doesn't exist, then there's no proof to say it's not there. Anyone can argue that legends and myth have some item of proof. Like your 'accepted' fact.
Yes, but intelligent people are able to discern pure fantasy from plausible historic account. Until we went to the moon (unless you also think that was faked) some claimed the moon to be made of cheese. There was no way to empirically disprove the claim. The majority of thinking people discounted the claim as untrue. To claim there is anecdotal evidence of Washington's words is not nearly as implausible. Some legends and myths have no item of truth, except to the deluded originator...
But also, intelligent people know that an unverifiable story isn't fact... regardless of how plausible it is.
We both know it's possible.. but we both should nkow that we honestly 'don't know' and unable 'to know' without evidence.
If you want someone proof that something doesn't exist and consider it an unproven fact... Then by your own logic, fairy tales could be considered as 'facts' until proven wrong.
No - fairy tales are originated as fiction. You mean myths. And yes, until proven wrong, the sun was pulled across the sky in a chariot by Helios, and that WAS A FACT. I am no less intelligent to believe as fact that Washington was reported to have uttered his words and the account of his speech was orally passed down through history. To criticize someone for reporting the story as if it actually happened is rooted in petty spite. The very sentiment that drives libby viewer...
and we go in a circle - because you don't know the difference between fictional, known to be made up fantasy, and first hand reported historic account. Yes join the "reality" that you design for yourself, where no thought opposing your self generated view is real...
Ha! Tell that to the scientific community that has overwhelmingly ACCEPTED IT AS FACT. I was taught in both high school and college level biology and anthropology courses is if it was fact. The professors never emphasized the distinction between fact and theory...So, if Libby Viewer is going to criticize Fox for stating as fact Washington's words, I want him to now document and criticize every fucking high school biology teacher who teaches evolutionary theory AS A FUCKING FACT...fair is fair..
For someone who's around 50 years old... I don't think you can exactly remember what you were taught.
Me being significantly younger... Yeah.. they do make a distiction between Fact and Theory. I"ve been applying that law and pointed out the lack of 'evidence'
There are facts that help support the theory of evolution and facts of evolutions in insects. But it's still a theory.
Well if the entire scientific community and educational system can "accept" by concensus, theories such as evolution and the big bang, and actually base other presumptions and models upon them as "assumed to be true" until disproved without criticism, I think Libby Viewer is just showing his typical Fox news obsession by criticizing them for reporting the "theory of washington' words" as fact...
Fox news reported what the majority assumes to be the truth. If their reporting seemed as though they ere reporting fact, that is because they know that the majority of their audience shares the same belief....it would be like expecting a teacher to constantly be issuing disclaimers about evolution, whilst teaching the known mechanisms based upon the original assumption. It is just lazy human behavior to "move on" from minutia, and just speak in terms as fact.
To make an assumption based upon belief without evidence is to subsequently treat the assumption AS FACT. Otherwise there is no reason to make the assumption....Fox is rightly treating the assumed "theory" of Washington's words as FACT UNTIL DISPROVED...
News corporations are right now reporting that global warming is a man made phenomenon as fact. It is a disputed fact. If Lobby Viewer is going to hold Fox news responsible for reporting an apparently disputed historic account as fact, then I demand that he start posting videos correcting all the shows that report global warming as if it were fact...
or you can make your own video criticizing that and call it a liberal bias.
But good luck with getting your demand fulfilled. I'm just happy it 'seems' you can tell the difference between a proven fact and an unproven statement.
yes - it is an unproven statement to suggest that, based on supposition only, Washington did not close his inaugural oath with the words "so help me God." It is proven fact tha Libby Viewer is a partisan hack who will cling to even the thinest of lefty lie to try to down all things American...
yepp, that basically just owned him and shut him up. ^^
marklross2, you can say things and not mean them, or you could just shut up and prevent it from happening. Personally, when I see your videos I barely hear any words come out and I just see your ugly face talk in the voice of a frog, you also GREATLY remind me of Osama Bin Ladin and his recordings, yet I would normally not say anything of this manner because its called being Rude and Jackass and Douce, these 3 things describe u well.
I wish i owned him... it's a way to waste time while working.
The guy is detached from reality and wants to make up arguments against someone... who basically try to be neutral (liberal viewer).
Instead of really arguing.. he make strawman arguments and make up shit.
Honestly i think this mark person is against american values and treat republican ideals like a religion -- having complete faith in them without questions.
Well aren't the two of you just perfect examples. One wastes time shirking his work. (Probably a government employee). While the other distracts himself from his own education...either of the two of you masturbate much?
you are absouletly right. its not Fact until disproved, its 'accepted' until proven Fact or Fake. Just like the Big Bang is accepted, but it needs work. Global Warming is accepted, but it needs work on the man-made part.
To state the Jesus Christ existed as god's son is a Huge BELIEF, not a Fact, yet the majority of the people believe it to be true, so therefore it Must be true (according to marklross2's logic)?
lets just believe the holocaust is fake too (sarcasm)
China has taken over as the #1 economic superpower and the US will never be the same
davisfleetwood 2 years ago
"made in China" has new meaning...
marklross2 2 years ago
The fact is that there is no evidence he said that, when it's said that there is no contemporary evidence of Washington saying that it means that of the documents we have from that era of that specific point there is no mention or report of Washington saying such a thing.
Also, there is contemporary evidence of Newton observing a falling apple, he said so himself to William Stukeley and his own Assistant also confirms this in his writings about netwons life.
daverick 2 years ago
But Newtonian mechanics were flawed. Einstein had to correct Newton. So, Newton can be trusted as to whether an apple reallty fell? BAH!!
marklross2 2 years ago
There are a lot of words you don't know, but you sure have cornered the market in "tedious."
rha101 3 years ago
yes - because libby viewer delves into such ridiculous minutia, in refutation, my responses can become tedious...
marklross2 3 years ago
keep them coing
itazuketower 3 years ago
doin' my best...
marklross2 3 years ago
... wasn't the point that there'd no evidence that Washington said "So Help Me God" .. and a news network claiming there 'is'.. would be bad journalism.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
No. The point is that it is not disingenuous for Fox to report as fact a well known and generally accepted historic account when there is NO EVIDENCE to disprove it. Many historic facts have been preserved through word of mouth only and are accepted to be true. Certainly if verifiable evidence to the opposite is discovered, the historic record is altered. But for some historian to surmise that a certain event is unlikely to have occurred is not sufficient to invalidate a historic account.
marklross2 3 years ago
but the point of the liberal viewer's video is... it's not a historic account, it's an opinion without any documtation to prove it.
Other words, it's not a fact.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Yes - but Libby is wrong. It IS a historic account. That there is no written record of the account, preserved throughout history by eyewitness word of mouth only, does not invalidate the account. It is not the opinion of historians the event occurred, it is their fervent belief that they are repeating an oral history account. The historic account of Wm. B Travis drawing a line in the sand with his sabre to ask for volunteers at the Alamo is not supported by anything but oral history accounts...
marklross2 3 years ago
Tell a Texan it did not happen...
marklross2 3 years ago
"it Is a historic account" I'm not so sure. You can't prove that it happened. It's acknowledged Washington gave the oath, but we don't have any record of that oath.
But if that's a historic account, then so is the easter bunny and mother goose.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Your pathetic attempt to compare undocumented history to well established fairy tale is laughable. You can try again to refute my argument with something that approaches sensibility, but I can't promise I'll waste time with you once you have evidenced just how desperately ridiculous you can be...
marklross2 3 years ago
too bad you don't seem to understand that undocumented history isn't necessarily factual history. Truthfully isn't not even 'undocumented'.
It could be a myth. but i understand if you don't want to think 'too' hard about it.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Too bad that you don't seem to know that much of what we accept to be historical fact is preserved by ORAL history traditions. I know concepts like this are too complex for a simpleton to grasp. But if you want to start trying to find written record of all of what we accept as our history - good luck with that. It was fact that Newtonian mechanics explained how the universe worked until Einstein tweaked the system with relativity. Myths were facts to hose who believed them - until DISPROVED.
marklross2 3 years ago
so we go full circle. You say it's 'accepted to be historical fact' even though there's no real record or 'proof' that it happened. So when we tell litlte children about mother goose, apparently it's fact to them.
But facts aren't based on 'belief' it's based on evidence. Now we can have bad evidence, but when it comes to Washington's oath.. there's 'no' evidence.
You can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, so are little children 'right'?
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Oooh, i see what you did "what 'we' accept as our history". Maybe we all don't accept that as our history.. history scholars don't all agree Washington used the phrase "God" in the oath. It's would be debatable, if we had proof.
But we have no proof, so we can't say he have or 'haven't'. You try to add consent when there really isn't one. Accepted fact isn't an actual fact... but i guess you don't believe in 'real' facts.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
If we had proof? But we do...the carefully preserved oral history of our ancestors that we trust to be accurate. Sorry you don't have the capacity to trust your fellow man or ancestors. That is your short coming.
marklross2 3 years ago
"Oral History" is a maddeningly imprecise term: it is used to refer to formal, rehearsed accounts of the past presented by culturally sanctioned tradition-bearers; to informal conversations about "the old days" among family members, neighbors, or coworkers; to printed compilations of stories told about past times and present experiences; and to recorded interviews with individuals deemed to have an important story to tell.
marklross2 3 years ago
Each of these uses of the term has a certain currency. Unquestionably, most people throughout history have learned about the past through the spoken word. Moreover, for generations history-conscious individuals have preserved others' firsthand accounts of the past for the record, often precisely at the moment when the historical actors themselves, and with them their memories, were
marklross2 3 years ago
about to pass from the scene.
Shortly after Abraham Lincoln's death in 1865, for example, his secretary, John G. Nicolay, and law partner, William Herndon, gathered recollections of the sixteenth president, including some from interviews, from people who had known and worked with him. Similarly, social investigators historically have obtained essential information about living and working conditions by talking with the people who experienced them.
marklross2 3 years ago
Thus, the Pittsburgh Survey, a Progressive Era investigation of social conditions in that city designed to educate the public and prod it towards civic reform, relied heavily on evidence obtained from oral sources.
marklross2 3 years ago
your example falls apart with the fact that the interviews were 'written' and there were 'witnesses'.
But for the Washington and the oath, there were no records of witnesses claiming he said "So God Help Me" If there is, end the argument by naming the person please. (I could be wrong, so here's your chance)
However, The first eyewitness documentation of a president saying 'So help me God' was in Sept. 22, 1881.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Hmm.. after thinking about it, I'm not even sure it's apart fo Oral History. I never addressed the subject..b ut Oral History does account for first hand experiance..
So.. if that's true, who's the person that heard it and made the claim? I"m guessing around the 1890's someone made the claim and it worked itself in our culture as a myth
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Could be - then you have to deal with the fact that as the "myth" propagated, apparently more were to ACCEPT the logic and plausibility of the occurrence than deny it. Why are you so skeptical?
marklross2 3 years ago
It's possible he could have said it. But It's incorrect to claim it is 'fact' when there's no proof.
and in the sense of that... it would be bad journalism not to point to the fact.. let alone not mentioning it could be a myth.
the liberal viewer had a point and it's valid.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
In your opinion it is unproven myth. In the majority opinion it is accepted fact. Live with it. Fox doesn't have to cater to the Libby Viewer conspiracy theorists on every detail of every story. Sorry, but you will just have to accept the fact that in some cases, the burden of proof is on the side of disproving an accepted fact, no matter how implausible YOU may think it is.
marklross2 3 years ago
If Fox news reported in 1492, that Columbus risked falling off the world, they would not have qualified the story with a disclaimer that some crack pots thought the world wasn't flat. It was once accepted FACT that the world was flat. sure, NOW we know bwtter, but because there is irrefutable evidence TO THE CONTRARY...
marklross2 3 years ago
minus the 'opinion' part and we have our self a deal.
If it was a fact, you would be able to prove it. You can't when given the chance. By that definition alone, it's not a fact. It's an accepted myth and there's no grounds to believe it.
Now who said I thought it was implausible? I said "It's possible he could have said it" But regardless of what i think, it's not a fact he said it one way or the other, because i wasn't there to 'know'
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Well it is just semantics. What you call unproven myth, I call un-disproved fact...
marklross2 3 years ago
So a fact to you is something not proven wrong... without the need for evidence.
Hense the easter bunny. Any fool can consider that fairy tale real until someone tries to prove it false.. But you can't prove that something did not exist..
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
no - you are wrong again. the easter bunny is proven to not exist. it's origins are known to be fantasy. most of us can tell the difference between fairy tales and anecdotal history...hmmmm...why can't you?
marklross2 3 years ago
okay, taking your backwards logic, it's up to you to disprove the easter bunny. You say it's proven.. but where's this 'proof'
stop fooling yourself.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Easter Bunny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A "bunny" and eggs
The Easter Bunny is a mythical character depicted as an anthropomorphic rabbit. In legend, the creature brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy and toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter. The Easter Bunny will either put the baskets in a designated place or hide them somewhere in the house for the children to find when they wake up in the morning.
marklross2 3 years ago
The Easter Bunny is very similar in trait to its Christmas holiday counterpart, Santa Claus, as they both bring gifts to good children on the night before their respective holiday. Its origin is disputed but the character was mentioned as early as 1600; some trace it to alleged pre-Christian fertility lore,[1] others to the role of the hare in Christian iconography.
marklross2 3 years ago
Well it is just semantics. What you call unproven legend, I call un-disproved fact..
legend - a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and 'popularly accepted as historical'
you see, the trick is, if it doesn't exist, then there's no proof to say it's not there. Anyone can argue that legends and myth have some item of proof. Like your 'accepted' fact.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Yes, but intelligent people are able to discern pure fantasy from plausible historic account. Until we went to the moon (unless you also think that was faked) some claimed the moon to be made of cheese. There was no way to empirically disprove the claim. The majority of thinking people discounted the claim as untrue. To claim there is anecdotal evidence of Washington's words is not nearly as implausible. Some legends and myths have no item of truth, except to the deluded originator...
marklross2 3 years ago
But also, intelligent people know that an unverifiable story isn't fact... regardless of how plausible it is.
We both know it's possible.. but we both should nkow that we honestly 'don't know' and unable 'to know' without evidence.
If you want someone proof that something doesn't exist and consider it an unproven fact... Then by your own logic, fairy tales could be considered as 'facts' until proven wrong.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
No - fairy tales are originated as fiction. You mean myths. And yes, until proven wrong, the sun was pulled across the sky in a chariot by Helios, and that WAS A FACT. I am no less intelligent to believe as fact that Washington was reported to have uttered his words and the account of his speech was orally passed down through history. To criticize someone for reporting the story as if it actually happened is rooted in petty spite. The very sentiment that drives libby viewer...
marklross2 3 years ago
and we go in a circle... because you can't prove fairy tales never happened.
You refusing to get evidences before claiming something is a fact, only show you're not really concern with 'truth' Just 'your truth'
I'll leave you to your truth and join reality :)
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
and we go in a circle - because you don't know the difference between fictional, known to be made up fantasy, and first hand reported historic account. Yes join the "reality" that you design for yourself, where no thought opposing your self generated view is real...
marklross2 3 years ago
says the person claiming you need to prove something 'didn't exist' instead of proving something 'did'
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
By your logic the, the unproven theory of evolution is a fairy tale...
marklross2 3 years ago
it's a theory, not a 'fact'.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Ha! Tell that to the scientific community that has overwhelmingly ACCEPTED IT AS FACT. I was taught in both high school and college level biology and anthropology courses is if it was fact. The professors never emphasized the distinction between fact and theory...So, if Libby Viewer is going to criticize Fox for stating as fact Washington's words, I want him to now document and criticize every fucking high school biology teacher who teaches evolutionary theory AS A FUCKING FACT...fair is fair..
marklross2 3 years ago
For someone who's around 50 years old... I don't think you can exactly remember what you were taught.
Me being significantly younger... Yeah.. they do make a distiction between Fact and Theory. I"ve been applying that law and pointed out the lack of 'evidence'
There are facts that help support the theory of evolution and facts of evolutions in insects. But it's still a theory.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
That does bring something else.. If many people consider the theory of evolution as 'fact' they would be wrong. It's a theory.
Now there's evidence towards it being true such as the mutation of insects.. But we don't have all the 'facts'
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Well if the entire scientific community and educational system can "accept" by concensus, theories such as evolution and the big bang, and actually base other presumptions and models upon them as "assumed to be true" until disproved without criticism, I think Libby Viewer is just showing his typical Fox news obsession by criticizing them for reporting the "theory of washington' words" as fact...
marklross2 3 years ago
They accept it as an assumption. Not a fact. They 'believe' it's true, but it's not a 'fact'
Believing includes assuming something as true without evidence.. fact require evidence.
You're confusing assumptions with facts. Because people accept something does NOT make it a fact.
Fox news made that saem confusion, claiming a myth or legend as 'fact'
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
Fox news reported what the majority assumes to be the truth. If their reporting seemed as though they ere reporting fact, that is because they know that the majority of their audience shares the same belief....it would be like expecting a teacher to constantly be issuing disclaimers about evolution, whilst teaching the known mechanisms based upon the original assumption. It is just lazy human behavior to "move on" from minutia, and just speak in terms as fact.
marklross2 3 years ago
To make an assumption based upon belief without evidence is to subsequently treat the assumption AS FACT. Otherwise there is no reason to make the assumption....Fox is rightly treating the assumed "theory" of Washington's words as FACT UNTIL DISPROVED...
marklross2 3 years ago
that's why it's bad journalism. Journalism is about reporting... reporting is about giving details and specific.
Journalism isn't about giving an opinion or stating beliefs as 'facts'
this argument is falling apart.. you're arguging that a news corporation should be allow to give beliefs as 'facts'
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
News corporations are right now reporting that global warming is a man made phenomenon as fact. It is a disputed fact. If Lobby Viewer is going to hold Fox news responsible for reporting an apparently disputed historic account as fact, then I demand that he start posting videos correcting all the shows that report global warming as if it were fact...
marklross2 3 years ago
or you can make your own video criticizing that and call it a liberal bias.
But good luck with getting your demand fulfilled. I'm just happy it 'seems' you can tell the difference between a proven fact and an unproven statement.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
yes - it is an unproven statement to suggest that, based on supposition only, Washington did not close his inaugural oath with the words "so help me God." It is proven fact tha Libby Viewer is a partisan hack who will cling to even the thinest of lefty lie to try to down all things American...
marklross2 3 years ago
There you go confusion your opinions as facts :).
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
yepp, that basically just owned him and shut him up. ^^
marklross2, you can say things and not mean them, or you could just shut up and prevent it from happening. Personally, when I see your videos I barely hear any words come out and I just see your ugly face talk in the voice of a frog, you also GREATLY remind me of Osama Bin Ladin and his recordings, yet I would normally not say anything of this manner because its called being Rude and Jackass and Douce, these 3 things describe u well.
im2cow4u 3 years ago
I wish i owned him... it's a way to waste time while working.
The guy is detached from reality and wants to make up arguments against someone... who basically try to be neutral (liberal viewer).
Instead of really arguing.. he make strawman arguments and make up shit.
Honestly i think this mark person is against american values and treat republican ideals like a religion -- having complete faith in them without questions.
RedPandaBoy 3 years ago
For me, commenting on his videos is good procastination from homework.
But for this guy commenting on LV... I have no clue what he's trying to prove.
He really hasn't stirred up any questions in me, I watch LV but I don't worship it, and I question it too. But this is just ridiculous.
So I've concluded that he's just trying to prove that he's an asshole.
im2cow4u 3 years ago
Well aren't the two of you just perfect examples. One wastes time shirking his work. (Probably a government employee). While the other distracts himself from his own education...either of the two of you masturbate much?
marklross2 3 years ago
you are absouletly right. its not Fact until disproved, its 'accepted' until proven Fact or Fake. Just like the Big Bang is accepted, but it needs work. Global Warming is accepted, but it needs work on the man-made part.
To state the Jesus Christ existed as god's son is a Huge BELIEF, not a Fact, yet the majority of the people believe it to be true, so therefore it Must be true (according to marklross2's logic)?
lets just believe the holocaust is fake too (sarcasm)
im2cow4u 3 years ago