Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Incidentally, we can learn a lot about propaganda from this and previous posts. Whereas a rational person would prefer to be presented with an accurate view of the subject, we see the OP of this tangent argue by example, sourced from a newspaper which is documented to be propagandizing regarding the subject in exactly this way. This serves only to lead to a biased view of the conflict and is effectively anti-scientific.
Hmm. Interesting. Unfortunately, I have to wonder what you're referring to. In the start of this topic, dudalb didn't cite an article and later, you brought up Western media as you spent time demonstrating your ignorance about it. In other words, you're saying that we can learn a lot about propaganda from your rant? Sure, why not, much as it's not going to be pretty for you. Either way, the first linked article was indeed by me, when I gave an example of what Western media actually said on the topic, one which was echoed by the rest on a quick look, in response to your tangent about Western media's treatment of the subject. Once again, unsurprisingly, your rant was completely wrong about how the subject was actually being treated in the Western media. Trying to claim falsehoods as fact definitely leads to untrustworthy conclusions and is indisputably unscientific in both theory and practice.
That simple point is then obfuscated through the following argument: "You can't even agree when people are critical of Israel." Is completely irrelevant and attempts to frame the argument as if it's about how critical one should or should not be of Israel.
Indeed. "You can't even agree when people are critical of Israel." is irrelevant to the topic. It has much to do with how much we should consider you to be interested in discussing topics in good faith, though.
ETA: and while you are correct that my specific claim isn't supported by this study, I can't find the other one where that claim was found and am not going to spend my time searching for it - I thought it was there but couldn't find it. It's a factoid stuck in my head, take it or leave it as you will. The underlying point still stands given the study that was presented.
The point that there is media bias in coverage was and is uncontested. It's pretty obvious in general, for that matter, for just about anyone even passingly acquainted with the situation. I even referenced it in my initial post on the topic of the "price tag" attacks. That, too, is the kind of bias that the cited study actually dealt with, given the abstract and the link that you had actually given. That point still doesn't support your other claims at all, and as it stands, your accusation was that this event was being treated in the way you claimed. You've failed to back that up, support your actual claims about the Western media, show any hint of caring about the "price tag" attack, or demonstrated that you actually understand what a "price tag" attack is. That last, of course, wouldn't even be on the table if you hadn't given plenty of reason to believe that you don't know what they are in your rant against Western media. I could go on, but there's really no need.
Either way, given my actual experience with what Western media says, your factoid or claims, as actually made, are getting left. Weaker claims might have a chance, of course, but those weren't the claims that you made.
Last edited: