Address to the EU parliament, Dr David Martin

[DefTrap]

It's interesting to hear someone else's version of events. And we have, here it is, it's not banned. But that doesn't necessarily mean it should have the same weight. The popular modern media seems to have decided to leave critical thought aside in the spirit of 'fairness'. Of course the less popular modern media are fine with leaving reason behind because the vocal what-if? minority lap it up.

[Cousin Jack]

An interesring article with some background on Dr David Martin.


https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/new-p ... spiracies/

[Ant]

Fact check = Opinion Suppresser

[DefTrap]

Like I said, crack on with your opinion, there is no banning, we can see it for what it is and come to our own conclusions. This is great.

<Whinge - you don't agree with me. This is censorship>

FFS

[Cousin Jack]

Fact check = Opinion Suppresser

Or myth buster,
or conspiracy detector.

Other lables are available.

[Ant]

Fact check = Opinion Suppresser

Or myth buster,
or conspiracy detector.

Other lables are available.

Cancel Culture.

[Count Steer]

Love it! These facts undermine my opinion, which being my opinion, is my truth. Ergo, they are oppressing my opinion/truth by insisting on using facts.

It's the same as me waking up one day and saying, 'Today, in my opinion, I am a squirrel' and getting shirty when someone says to me 'Where's your tail?' or 'Show me how well you can climb trees'. If they tested my DNA and it showed not a nose-twitch of squirrel in it I'd say the lab they used was part of a secret squirrel oppression programme funded by billionaire industrialists and big pharma in collusion with government.

Rise up against squirrel oppression!!

[Ant]

This opinion, undermines my opinion.

And if someone wants to identify as a squirrel, it's a hate crime to mis-identify them. We mustn't make fun of the men pretending to be something they're not.

[Cousin Jack]

You lot are missing the point.

A squirrel (or a cat) is a squirrel (or cat) if it says it is a squirrel (or cat). That is a given.
What is really really amazing is that the squirrel (or cat) can express that opinion in human language. Now that is amazing.

[Count Steer]

You lot are missing the point.

A squirrel (or a cat) is a squirrel (or cat) if it says it is a squirrel (or cat). That is a given.
What is really really amazing is that the squirrel (or cat) can express that opinion in human language. Now that is amazing.

According to the ex-most powerful person on the planet, we don't even have to say it, just think it - and it is so. So nerrr.

[gremlin]

I thought this was some Martin Clunes sitcom spin off.

Oh, the disappointment.

[Rockburner]

Do I have to watch the video to know what this is all about?

Is there not a brief precis?

[slowhare]

Only if you take what he says and the conclusions he draws as undisputed truth.

I checked his sources. They’re all legitimate. Plus you would be held accountable for ‘misleading the House’ had they not been.

[slowhare]

An interesring article with some background on Dr David Martin.


https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/new-p ... spiracies/

All very well & good, it would appear, until you realise non of the ‘authors’ are factchecked themselves, and worse:

Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org are designed to verify political claims and hold politicians accountable. But critics say fact-checking entities are themselves biased. The Weekly Standard's Mark Hemingway and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post discuss fact-checking in American politics.

from Political Fact-Checking Under Fire: https://www.npr.org

I agree it’s difficult knowing what’s what these days when every news outlet is biased and adds to misinformation. It’s up to the individual to make a reasoned assessment from as many sources as possible. But where things are written in plain sight, by the proponents themselves, it becomes difficult and rather naive to label everything with sweeping statements claiming conspiracy theories. You only need look at the WEFs website, for example. Their plans are in plain sight, and are deeply unsettling.

Wikipedia’s own entries are also often dubious btw, yet many would regard the information there as factually valid truths.

[Count Steer]

Only if you take what he says and the conclusions he draws as undisputed truth.

I checked his sources. They’re all legitimate. Plus you would be held accountable for ‘misleading the House’ had they not been.

Of course. The sources/references aren't the issue. They're public. As he said you can check them. It's the snippets he takes from them and the inferences that he then makes and presents as if they're direct links as a result that are the issue. He'd be a fool if he put slides up with fake references.

'Misleading the house'? Was he under oath or just invited to present his view as part of information gathering? I wasn't aware the presentation was to any sort of court. Anyway, he didn't tell any specific lies as far as I'm aware, just presented his own inferences from a few 'data points'.

[slowhare]

'Misleading the house'?

It’s a phrase used in Westminster, I imagined it also applied in principle to the european parliament.

(Some MP, i forget who, wrongly claimed in the House (UK) that Farage had accepted Russian funds, in yet another tawdry attempt by politicians to smear rival politicians while evading questions of policy, and i wondered when this MP would be held accountable for misleading the House. Won’t happen of course because that’s the way it is. I think all these so-called crises are simply caused by a much more evident one, which is the crisis in politics, worldwide).

[MrLongbeard]

It's the snippets he takes from them and the inferences that he then makes and presents as if they're direct links as a result that are the issue.

[Count Steer]

'Misleading the house'?

It’s a phrase used in Westminster, I imagined it also applied in principle to the european parliament.

Well, the EP is a parliament but, in reality it's not a very 'European' one. It's more like the US Congress..there's a few porkies told there. Also, I didn't pay enough attention to the video to clearly get the context that he was presenting in tbh.

Really, he could turn up and say 'I believe the moon is made of green cheese'...clearly nonsense, but it's true he believes it so not likely to be sanctioned. He only inferred most of the stuff anyway.

[slowhare]

He only inferred most of the stuff anyway.

Was that true? His chronological dating of events didn’t appear inferred.

I suppose we could infer a lot from the recent news patient zero came from the Wuhan lab, but that’s just another conspiracy so you’re right, let’s stick with the narrative.

[MingtheMerciless]

You do know 9/11 was just a bank job?