Evidence for God from Science

You don't seem to understand what "spin" means.

In defense of Infowars, it shouldn't have been banned and anyone who says otherwise is in my opinion anti-libertarian, not liberal, as well as being anti-entertainment, party-poopers and should be shot.

As Silicon Valley tech powerhouses continue down the path of censorship, it'll ultimately result in their undoing unless they drastically change. Unlike CNN, MSNBC and such which presents itself as "news" and yet flagrantly presents misinformation and tries to stir the pot and cause division, upset and enrage people, etc... Infowars always presented itself as "conspiracist" in nature, with an Alex Jones flavour of him hyperventilating his new ideas in your face inbetween his more reserved co-hosts.

I personally don't like someone screaming in my face. But, inbetween all his hyper mania, and clearly extreme ideas, there are veins of truth and definitely political issues people are interested in. He also often encourages the viewer to look into it further and decide. The reason why he was effective, was the genre of entertainment he tapped into. Late Night shows mix in lies (their spin) with their comedy when covering political and social issues; Alex Jones mixes in conspiracy stuff with his routine when covering the same. It's in the same vein as people who are into into UFOs and little green men, government conspiracies and the like. Some people just enjoy that stuff.

There's a reason why Rogan's show with Alex Jones was one of the most popularly watched shows (almost at 14 million). Because Alex Jones is entertaining, and you seriously have no idea what he's about to come out with next. If you haven't watched it, you got to watch at least some of it. Then you'll start to understand more. Seriously funny, and I found entertaining. Facebook would have Rogan banned with their new repressive policies that belong more in communist China than in the US/West.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:48 pmAs Silicon Valley tech powerhouses continue down the path of censorship, it'll ultimately result in their undoing unless they drastically change.

I think that some of those companies are monopolies that ought to be broken up, but the censorship angle is partisan pundits working the refs. Is Facebook supposed to just let anyone say anything, knowing full well that there are literally Russian agents using the site to plant misinformation in the American political dialogue?

Maybe as a Kiwi (Aussie? Sorry, I can't recall) you don't give a damn, but as an American I do. Our country is a roiling mess of divisiveness, anger, and chaos, and propagandists using social media bots to spread lies have a lot to do with it.

Stu,

Just throwing this out there - Infowars has a ToS agreement, too.

Here it is (in part - it's pretty long):

20. COMMENT RULES
By using Infowars.com, you agree to the following when making a comment:
You will stay on topic.
You will not spam. (Spam is flooding the Internet with unnecessary or out of topic comments)
You will not include links to websites and videos not associated with the topic.
You will not post the same comment multiple times on the same of different articles
You will not solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services, or to make donations of any kind. You will not include links to products in your status updates, comments, articles or groups.
You will not post anything libelous, defamatory, harmful, threatening, harassing, abusive, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal.
You will not make threats to other users or people not associated with the site.
If you violate these rules, your comment(s) and/or user name will be deleted.

See? Infowars has a lot of rules, and if you violate them they'll delete your posts and/or ban you. How is it that Facebook or Twitter banning somebody for violating their ToS is censorship, but Infowars doing the same thing doesn't warrant a mention? If Alex Jones can do that to me then why can't Facebook do it to him?

Please, Stu, explain the difference.

Man, this one is a doozy.
You're not even allowed to post an opinion now on banned subjects UNLESS you're condemning it!

Michelle Malkin Censored on Facebook for Opposing Censorship

Conservative author, media entrepreneur and CPAC 2019 star Michelle Malkin has been censored by Facebook for posting supportive messages about recently-banned conservative figures Laura Loomer and Gavin McInnes.
As Breitbart News has reported, Facebook recently declared that posting support for certain banned individuals and organizations — including links to Infowars — would result in post takedowns and bans. This is a formula not just for banning the targeted individuals, but their friends and supporters as well. Used to its full extent, it could result in the purge of large swathes of the anti-establishment grassroots from Facebook by the 2020 election.

Malkin’s posted the following on Facebook:

These are two of my friends, Laura Loomer and Gavin McInnes. They are banned from Facebook and Instagram for exercising their free speech — while violent jihad groups are allowed on these platforms to spread their murderous poison. I spoke out passionately about de-platforming at CPAC and have done what I can to use my voice to speak for the voiceless. Laura and Gavin are suing the radical forces (SPLC and CAIR) behind the insidious agenda to criminalize political dissent. I have donated to their causes and hope you will too (DefendGavin.com and LauraLoomer.us). I do not know how much longer it will be before I am next. Anyone and everyone who refuses to capitulate to the open-borders, sharia-enforcing social justice agenda is “DANGEROUS.”

Malkin reported on Twitter that her post had been taken down as a violation of Facebook’s “community standards.”

More

Bokhari: Link-banning Is Facebook’s Terrifying New Censorship Tool

The banning of multiple political commentators from Facebook and Instagram, including conservatives Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer, is an outrage against the ideals of an open Internet on its own. But beyond the bans on individuals, Facebook has deployed an even more terrifying tool of censorship — link-banning.
The mainstream media were, of course, tipped off about the bans in advance, and the Atlantic’s report contains the following eye-opening detail. Not only has Alex Jones’ personal account now been banned from Facebook, in addition to PrisonPlanet editor-in-chief and YouTube star Paul Joseph Watson, but all links to Infowars sites are now banned across the platform. Share Infowars too often, and you’ll be banned too.

Via The Atlantic:

Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Jones and Infowars.)

This takes censorship on social media to altogether new levels. If you post Infowars content on Facebook or Facebook-owned Instagram, your post will be removed. If you post it repeatedly, you will be banned.

Note the wording, too — you’ll be banned unless you’re condemning Infowars. Facebook is now brazenly using its power to reward certain political positions and punish others.

This isn’t censorship of an individual or a group over a violation of terms of service. It’s the wholesale ban of an independent media site, which for all the criticism levied against it, has had a major impact on the politics of the United States.

More

You ducked the issue of the Infowars ToS agreement. In fact, you've ducked every argument that I've made in this thread. You either pretend that nothing happened, or you call it spin. If your arguments are valid then why can't you defend them?

Regarding the latest batch of [nonsense], do you seriously think that Facebook has some kind of responsibility to allow Michelle Malkin to use Facebook to try and gin up more fake outrage about Facebook enforcing their ToS? Really? You're literally arguing that Facebook has no right whatsoever to control of their own platform, that their ToS has no validity, that the company and its board of directors has no right to decide who to do business with and who to avoid, and that the shareholders have no right to have their investment protected from right wing vandals.

By the way, FOX News, Breitbart, and all the rest have ToS agreements. They all reserve the right to delete posts and ban posters. Every forum I've ever seen reserves that right, including this one. How is it that Facebook, and only Facebook, has no right to exercise control of their own platform or enforce their ToS?

Man up, Stu. Put on your big boy pants and defend your claims.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:38 am You ducked the issue of the Infowars ToS agreement. In fact, you've ducked every argument that I've made in this thread. You either pretend that nothing happened, or you call it spin. If your arguments are valid then why can't you defend them?

Regarding the latest batch of [nonsense], do you seriously think that Facebook has some kind of responsibility to allow Michelle Malkin to use Facebook to try and gin up more fake outrage about Facebook enforcing their ToS? Really? You're literally arguing that Facebook has no right whatsoever to control of their own platform, that their ToS has no validity, that the company and its board of directors has no right to decide who to do business with and who to avoid, and that the shareholders have no right to have their investment protected from right wing vandals.

By the way, FOX News, Breitbart, and all the rest have ToS agreements. They all reserve the right to delete posts and ban posters. Every forum I've ever seen reserves that right, including this one. How is it that Facebook, and only Facebook, has no right to exercise control of their own platform or enforce their ToS?

Man up, Stu. Put on your big boy pants and defend your claims.

Go ahead and defend the censorship of conservatives and Trump supporters you're only showing everybody why you people cannot be in power in our country.You and people like you are why we voted for Trump and we will defeat you even while you censor us. We are still winning as just like when King James made it illegal to publish a bible in english and made it against the law to even have a bible in english this only made the people desire a bible in english even more and now men like William Tynndale who put their life on the line and translated the bible into english and people were buying his bibles under neath the radar are heros.It totally back fired on those censoring and they lost.The Bible became so popular that King James was forced to change the law and even had the bible translasted into english himself by the very best hebrew and greek scholars at the time.You people will lose your power and rightfully so.

The Left Will Silence You. Kimberly Strassel
https://youtu.be/6den-SEYXb0

We will take back our country from these communists who have committed treason against the US and are now against free speech.If they disagree with you and think you are crazy they will just sit back and allow you to be censored. Well no more! We are going to prosecute these traitors in our government and preserve freedom of speech.In the future those on the left in power that commit treason will be prosecuted for it.It is easy to commit treason ,by the way,as most don't even realize how easy it is because it has gone on for so long that we don't recognize it when we see it.But you see every elected official takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and if they get into office and break this oath they must be investigated to find out why they are doing it. This is where we are headed in the future and it is not going to be so easy of breaking the oath you made to God and the people who elected you. You do the crime,you do the time.The days of our elected officials breaking their oaths once they get into office are about over.We are going to restore the rule of law in America.It is all about making America great again.This is the goal of Trump and his supporters. You all should be glad and be helping to make it happen anyway you can.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 5:19 pm

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:48 pmAs Silicon Valley tech powerhouses continue down the path of censorship, it'll ultimately result in their undoing unless they drastically change.

I think that some of those companies are monopolies that ought to be broken up, but the censorship angle is partisan pundits working the refs. Is Facebook supposed to just let anyone say anything, knowing full well that there are literally Russian agents using the site to plant misinformation in the American political dialogue?

Maybe as a Kiwi (Aussie? Sorry, I can't recall) you don't give a damn, but as an American I do. Our country is a roiling mess of divisiveness, anger, and chaos, and propagandists using social media bots to spread lies have a lot to do with it.

I think it only seems that way, because it is what the MSM itself does -- divide, enrage, create chaos and propagandise. It's what keeps people coming back for more "news", hooked right? If news always reported on positive and rosey stuff, people would lose interest. Wars are especially great for MSM.

Social media, is a public platform. Although it was suppose to be, hence the "social" aspect to it. The walk-away movement was also stigmatised as being Russian bots when it started, don't know if it still is characterised that way. But, this "bot" thing is just stigmatising by MSM and really isn't as big a deal as often portrayed.

As for Facebook, I don't think people disagree with it having its policies and moderating. To frame the issue like that, well no sane person would really disagree. This board has its own guidelines for example, and unlike Facebook's they're quite crystal clear and an attempt is made to be fair to members who are both Atheist and Christian (as I'm sure you appreciate e.g., with RickD).

The issue is more when it comes to censor speech that is otherwise legal. When what is being censored appears to be one side of the aisle to influence certain politics and social issues based upon unclear and non-transparent policies that more resemble the subjective tastes of an organisation who sides against Western values. It is actually also quite sad that certain forms of hate groups are allowed like ANTIFA, Muslim Brotherhood and more extreme Islamic groups that are very anti-Amercian.

If Facebook wants to propagandise with its social algorithms (that do feed hatred and cause division), try and influence politics via censoring one side, then it becomes a national security concern right? That any private organisation, let alone Suckerburg, has the power to mess with and influence elections akin to say Russia is a concern of governments in any country, and there needs to be a full and open disclosure of processes involved and accountability.

Since it seems Facebook wants to censor speech in a non-transparent manner, it can expect more lawsuits like to one in Poland just recently. Expect more to come. Even Facebook's co-founder says Facebook needs breaking up.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:18 pmI think it only seems that way, because it is what the MSM itself does -- divide, enrage, create chaos and propagandise. It's what keeps people coming back for more "news", hooked right? If news always reported on positive and rosey stuff, people would lose interest. Wars are especially great for MSM.

The MSM leans into controversies and sensationalizes events in order to boost ratings, but the claim that the entire MSM is just fake news and propaganda is itself fake news and propaganda.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:18 pmThis board has its own guidelines for example, and unlike Facebook's they're quite crystal clear and an attempt is made to be fair to members who are both Atheist and Christian (as I'm sure you appreciate e.g., with RickD).

I'm not following the part about Rick.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:18 pmThe issue is more when it comes to censor speech that is otherwise legal. When what is being censored appears to be one side of the aisle to influence certain politics and social issues based upon unclear and non-transparent policies that more resemble the subjective tastes of an organisation who sides against Western values. It is actually also quite sad that certain forms of hate groups are allowed like ANTIFA, Muslim Brotherhood and more extreme Islamic groups that are very anti-Amercian.

Just about all speech is legal in the US, including speech that is unquestionably hateful and irresponsible. That has nothing to do with Facebook. The First Amendment protects individuals from being censored by the government. That's it. Period.

The claim that Facebook is public space is false. The claim that Facebook is the new public square is dubious at best. It would be far more accurate to say that the Internet is the new public square, which is ironic being that many of the people currently howling about Facebook being biased against them actively opposed net neutrality. Go figure.

Anyway, for the moment at least, the internet is open to us all. Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, Laura Loomer, and any other attention-seeking, polemic loudmouth can create a website of their own and market it on any number of social media platforms. Granted, Facebook or Twitter are currently the best platforms for reaching a ton of viewers, so yeah, the bans will cost those guys some viewers, influence, and money. They should have thought about that before they flagrantly violated the ToS.

Oh, and Alex Jones and Laura Loomer are not representative of either side of the aisle. They're their own thing - cynical conspiracy mongers looking to make a buck by gulling morons. If Facebook was really trying to crack down "the right" then surely they'd have dinged Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter, right? No? How about Rudy Giuliani and Ben Shapiro? No? Jerry Falwell? Franklin Graham? Charles Koch? Still there? Tucker Carlson? No? Laura Ingraham? No?

Hmmm...

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:18 pmIf Facebook wants to propagandise with its social algorithms (that do feed hatred and cause division), try and influence politics via censoring one side, then it becomes a national security concern right? That any private organisation, let alone Zuckerberg, has the power to mess with and influence elections akin to say Russia is a concern of governments in any country, and there needs to be a full and open disclosure of processes involved and accountability.

Sure, Facebook is bad. Their algorithm makes sure that people see the people that they know and the content that they want, and if all they want is to have their views reinforced then Facebook will help them stay in their bubble. That's it - there's no sinister left-wing plot - but that's more than enough to be a problem. Facebook wants people to spend a lot of time there, so they program the site to make everybody feel like a special snowflake. Thus people who get all of their news from Facebook are going to wind up consuming nothing but simplistic memes that support their preconceived notions.

Google does the same thing. Again, it's not a sinister plot, Google just tracks people's' interests and points their searches toward pleasing results. That's it. If you show Google that you want to see a broader cross section of the media Google will oblige you. I post here fairly regularly so I read lots of articles from sources that range from center right all the way to the lunatic fringe. Google notices that, so my news feed and search results tend to yield some pretty broad results.

Here's the thing, though - nobody is forcing anybody to get all of their news from Facebook. The people who do that are, frankly, the same people who will never watch a news channel other than FOX (or MSNBC), never drink a beer other than Budweiser (or a locally sourced, craft brewed, triple hopped, session IPA), and never entertain any kind of challenge to their beliefs. All those algorithms do is validate and reinforce bad habits, but that's plenty. That's very bad.

I'm all for reinstating the fairness doctrine and insisting that something similar be built into Google's search algorithm. I'd be fine with Facebook deciding to eliminate all discussion of politics. You know what, though? That's not gonna happen, and it's not because the left will block it. Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, and no Republican that I've ever heard of is interested in bringing it back to life. None of the screaming about censorship on Facebook is sincere. If it was it would be aimed ensuring that neutrality is maintained by all media outlets, social networks, and other news sources. They don't want that. They hated the Fairness Doctrine, and they love FOX News, Sinclair Broadcasting, and AM talk radio.

You see Ed, this is the kind of news that you miss. Being banned for expressing an opinion that differs, is that what the left stands for now...

TECHNO-DICTATORSHIP: APPLE BANS NATURAL NEWS FOR PUBLISHING TRUE CLIMATE SCIENCE STORIES

As part of the accelerating techno-dictatorship sweeping across the online world, Apple News has banned Natural News for expressing views which Apple claims are “rejected by the scientific community.”

This ban was received shortly after Natural News published a rebuttal to the junk science climate change narrative which falsely claims that carbon dioxide is a poison that will destroy the planet. (Only someone who is scientifically illiterate or completely brainwashed could believe such a falsehood.)

Natural News dares to state the simple scientific fact — now confirmed by NASA — that carbon dioxide boosts the growth of green plants all across the Earth. This is not allowed by the techno-fascists of the Left who run Apple and insist that CO2 is somehow a poison that’s responsible for “climate change.”

Here’s the world map showing the increase in reforestation and greening, as cited by NASA and published the journal Nature: Climate Change:




Note that this image shows an increase in “greening” across every continent, which NASA confirms is due to rising carbon dioxide, a fertilizer for plants.

APPLE CENSORS DISAGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC REALITY AND BAN ANYONE WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH
Even though NASA has also admitted that CO2 is greening the Earth, Apple says that Natural News stories are diverging from the “scientific community,” somehow justifying Apple’s censorship of all news from Natural News, including the hundreds of articles each month that cite scientific journals.

More

You're still ducking my question. Is that ignorance or cowardice? Is it scary having your beliefs challenged, Stu?

Stu wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 1:03 amYou see Ed, this is the kind of news that you miss. Being banned for expressing an opinion that differs, is that what the left stands for now...

First off, I don't miss "news" like that because I'm a regular on these forums and you routinely post it.

Second, that's not news, it's conspiratorial [nonsense]. The claim that "the science is settled" isn't one that's ever made by science because the science is never settled. There's always the possibility that new data will change how we understand things.

Take the Theory of Gravity as an example. The fact of gravity is demonstrated constantly. The Theory of gravity is a bunch of math that explains the fact of gravity, at least to the extent that our best and brightest understand it. If new information is discovered it's added to the explanation and our understanding broadens.

That doesn't mean that everything in science is just a wild-assed guess. Gravity is real. Evolution is real. Climate change is real. All of those things are observable. The open question is precisely how those things work, but again, it's not down to wild-assed guesses. There are brilliant people all over the world studying climate change, and their consensus is that a) it's real, b) we're a major factor, and c) if we don't do something about it it's going to cause summer-blockbuster level catastrophes.

Those brilliant people know how climate change works, but they lack perfect knowledge, and that gap is where the merchants of doubt work their con. But lack of perfect knowledge isn't close to the same as complete ignorance. Rejecting climate change science based on that gap is no different than rejecting the theories of gravity or evolution because we can't perfectly explain all there is to know.

Actually there's one crucial difference - it doesn't matter if the crazies believe in gravity, but their rejection of climate change is going to have tragic consequences for all of us.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 5:40 am You're still ducking my question. Is that ignorance or cowardice? Is it scary having your beliefs challenged, Stu?

Stu wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 1:03 amYou see Ed, this is the kind of news that you miss. Being banned for expressing an opinion that differs, is that what the left stands for now...

First off, I don't miss "news" like that because I'm a regular on these forums and you routinely post it.

Second, that's not news, it's conspiratorial [nonsense]. The claim that "the science is settled" isn't one that's ever made by science because the science is never settled. There's always the possibility that new data will change how we understand things.

Take the Theory of Gravity as an example. The fact of gravity is demonstrated constantly. The Theory of gravity is a bunch of math that explains the fact of gravity, at least to the extent that our best and brightest understand it. If new information is discovered it's added to the explanation and our understanding broadens.

That doesn't mean that everything in science is just a wild-assed guess. Gravity is real. Evolution is real. Climate change is real. All of those things are observable. The open question is precisely how those things work, but again, it's not down to wild-assed guesses. There are brilliant people all over the world studying climate change, and their consensus is that a) it's real, b) we're a major factor, and c) if we don't do something about it it's going to cause summer-blockbuster level catastrophes.

Those brilliant people know how climate change works, but they lack perfect knowledge, and that gap is where the merchants of doubt work their con. But lack of perfect knowledge isn't close to the same as complete ignorance. Rejecting climate change science based on that gap is no different than rejecting the theories of gravity or evolution because we can't perfectly explain all there is to know.

Actually there's one crucial difference - it doesn't matter if the crazies believe in gravity, but their rejection of climate change is going to have tragic consequences for all of us.

Oh I only post a few articles of all the conservatives that are being banned and silenced on social media these days.

That's all very good and well but you never addressed the fact that he WAS BANNED for that opinion That was the whole point of the post, but then you knew that and tried to change the subject.

The reason I don't respond to your posts, Ed, is because you always give me the same answers. It's either a conspiracy (as in this case) or just the ramblings of conservative/right wing media, so I just don't bother anymore.

---------

Just for fun though, as to gravity, this is what Tesla said of Einsteins relativity: "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

And remember when Einstein was asked what is it was like to be the smartest man on the planet he was said to have replied "Go ask Tesla.", and we all know Tesla was no fool.

If you apply Newtons law to galaxies, they spin too fast, 10x too fast and galaxies should fly apart. So they introduced dark matter, but after 50 years they still haven't discovered anything. Gravity is there, but we are missing the matter says Neil deGrasse Tyson. Well maybe there is another answer instead of something that we have yet to find any evidence for after 50 years!

Famed cosmologist Michio Kaku said that in cosmology we are off by a factor of 10^120, that is 1 with 120 zeroes behind it!!!! Let that sink in.

So, no, maybe gravity isn't on such solid footing as you think. Evolution... paaa a load of codswallop.

Hi Stu

I came on for a bit and was surprised that this thread is still up. You and Able are doing a fine job.

Here is more for you and others on the seriousness of this topic - the head line read from all places CNBC - May 15, 2019

"Trump’s White House just put up an online form for people to complain about social media censorship"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/15/trump-w ... rship.html

If not serious then why is this?

And Ed please don't waste my time by addressing me or name calling - it is a waste of time to engage in a conversation with you.