Have DM readers had half their brains removed? Watch

Smartcook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 5 years ago
#41
(Original post by thoyub)
No. The Daily Mail is the best newspaper.
Just suck all the propaganda they throw out up.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
someonesomewherexx
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#42
Report 5 years ago
#42
(Original post by TheGuy117)
Firstly I would like to say that I don't care what your opinions are, however extreme - as long as they are consistent. I have a friend who thinks religion is a joke and will mock me about it from time to time, but he's consistent so it doesn't bother me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments

Whenever a so called Muslim commits an act of terror and actual Muslims say "well, he wasn't actually a Muslim then was he.", people always argue that's a stupid argument and say the terrorist was in fact Muslim.

Yet when a Briton commits an act of terror, he is suddenly not a Briton. :rolleyes:

People wonder why I'm so cynical about the general public's intelligence, what a joke.

Edit: Yes, maybe "at birth" was a bit too much.
Oh please, it's just not the DM, it's the whole media. A Brit of Nigerian descent wins a medal at the Olympics..yay he's British was born here, trained here etc etc. When another Brit of Nigerian descent hacked a man into pieces he is NIGERIAN...:rolleyes:
0
reply
Hyde
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 5 years ago
#43
There's a correlation between the amount of rubbish tabloids people read (like the Daily Fail) and their intelligence.
0
reply
Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#44
Report 5 years ago
#44
The funny thing is, in all my life I have rarely seen anyone who has a real problem with the Daily Mail- yes, it exaggerates, and the Health section is stupid, but it's hardly worse than other papers, yet on this website the general opinion seems to be that Daily Mail readers have the intelligence of, say, a rock. Which I don't understand. Pretty much all papers exaggerate to prove their point, yet only the Daily Mail is singled out.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#45
Report 5 years ago
#45
(Original post by Pastaferian)
But you keep popping up in climate change threads to spread politically motivated deliberate ignorance, or at any rate ignorance. If you stopped, maybe things would get better? :confused:
My agenda is one of opposing ignorance. The exact opposite of the warmist agenda.

I'll all for complete openness and integrity in science - which is the exact opposite of the warmist agenda.

I could absolutely be convinced of AGW if I could be shown untainted science. I have never met an AGW proponent who says they could be convinced to the contrary under any circumstances.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#46
Report 5 years ago
#46
(Original post by Unruly Marmite)
The funny thing is, in all my life I have rarely seen anyone who has a real problem with the Daily Mail- yes, it exaggerates, and the Health section is stupid, but it's hardly worse than other papers, yet on this website the general opinion seems to be that Daily Mail readers have the intelligence of, say, a rock. Which I don't understand. Pretty much all papers exaggerate to prove their point, yet only the Daily Mail is singled out.
It's because TSRians need a bogeyman that they can hurl they bile and hatred at unabated. It makes them feel clever and funny to be able to write off something as "lies" or "fail trololololol" without any further comment. The problems only come when something they like is published, and they then have to justify why it's not automatically a lie.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#47
Report 5 years ago
#47
(Original post by Clip)
I have never met an AGW proponent who says they could be convinced to the contrary under any circumstances.
I would be convinced to the contrary if the scientific consensus held that the contrary was true.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#48
Report 5 years ago
#48
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
I would be convinced to the contrary if the scientific consensus held that the contrary was true.
That's good to hear.
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 5 years ago
#49
(Original post by TheGuy117)
Firstly I would like to say that I don't care what your opinions are, however extreme - as long as they are consistent. I have a friend who thinks religion is a joke and will mock me about it from time to time, but he's consistent so it doesn't bother me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments

Whenever a so called Muslim commits an act of terror and actual Muslims say "well, he wasn't actually a Muslim then was he.", people always argue that's a stupid argument and say the terrorist was in fact Muslim.

Yet when a Briton commits an act of terror, he is suddenly not a Briton. :rolleyes:

People wonder why I'm so cynical about the general public's intelligence, what a joke.

Edit: Yes, maybe "at birth" was a bit too much.
From a legal perspective they were British but in what sense otherwise? Am I supposed to feel kinship with some guys committing terrorist attacks in Syria in the name of Allah? Culturally, politically etc etc these people are not British.
0
reply
Octopus_Garden
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#50
Report 5 years ago
#50
(Original post by Unruly Marmite)
The funny thing is, in all my life I have rarely seen anyone who has a real problem with the Daily Mail- yes, it exaggerates, and the Health section is stupid, but it's hardly worse than other papers, yet on this website the general opinion seems to be that Daily Mail readers have the intelligence of, say, a rock. Which I don't understand. Pretty much all papers exaggerate to prove their point, yet only the Daily Mail is singled out.
In 2011, it turned out the Daily Mail had been taking inspiration from Blue Peter, amd presenting us with something it had made earlier... We, the general public, found this out when it put up the wrong court account, which it had prepared for a guilty verdict, when Amanda Knox was found not guilty.

That's a damn sight more than "exaggeration".

http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/amanda-kno...l-guilty-lols/
1
reply
Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#51
Report 5 years ago
#51
(Original post by Octopus_Garden)
In 2011, it turned out the Daily Mail had been taking inspiration from Blue Peter, amd presenting us with something it had made earlier... We, the general public, found this out when it put up the wrong court account, which it had prepared for a guilty verdict, when Amanda Knox was found not guilty.

That's a damn sight more than "exaggeration".

http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/amanda-kno...l-guilty-lols/
I'll admit, that is pretty bad. Bad practice. But I daresay that the Mail issued an apology- I don't know for certain, yes, but it would be out of line not to- but I assume that it was an accident. Also, on your source, why did it only go into the details depicted in the wrong article, hmm?
0
reply
Octopus_Garden
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#52
Report 5 years ago
#52
(Original post by Unruly Marmite)
I'll admit, that is pretty bad. Bad practice. But I daresay that the Mail issued an apology- I don't know for certain, yes, but it would be out of line not to- but I assume that it was an accident. Also, on your source, why did it only go into the details depicted in the wrong article, hmm?
Hmm?
Because that's the interesting bit! All those generic quotes they'd pre-written!
0
reply
Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#53
Report 5 years ago
#53
Yeah, but how do you know there weren't much the same generic points in the true article? All I'm saying is, much as I agree that it is bad that they not only pre-wrote an article, but then published it wrong, the source you used seems focused on the quotes from the wrong article. Smacks of bashing the Daily Mail to me. I understand people dislike the Mail and its opinions, but I don't understand why it goes from, 'The Daily Mail has incorrect opinions' to 'Readers of the Daily Mail are stupid'.
0
reply
thoyub
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#54
Report 5 years ago
#54
(Original post by Smartcook)
Just suck all the propaganda they throw out up.


Posted from TSR Mobile
It's not propaganda. They tell the truth. People who don't like it are scared of the truth, why would they print it if it isn't the truth? That would be illegal...
0
reply
LightBlueSoldier
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#55
Report 5 years ago
#55
(Original post by SoftPunch)


It is the truth. No one in their right mind would refer to Daily Mail, let alone read it.
Actually, the daily mail tends to be far more impartial than the telegraph and the guardian on most social issues. They tend to be very pro-british but I don't mind that so much. The guardian comments are way worse to be honest.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#56
Report 5 years ago
#56
(Original post by Clip)
That's good to hear.
My suggestion is that most people who accept that we are causing global warming would be likewise convinced.
0
reply
Smartcook
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 5 years ago
#57
(Original post by thoyub)
It's not propaganda. They tell the truth. People who don't like it are scared of the truth, why would they print it if it isn't the truth? That would be illegal...
The Daily Mail likes to imply everyone who claims benefits as 'vile Workshy scroungers'. Does that mean that it true?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Octopus_Garden
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#58
Report 5 years ago
#58
(Original post by Unruly Marmite)
Yeah, but how do you know there weren't much the same generic points in the true article? All I'm saying is, much as I agree that it is bad that they not only pre-wrote an article, but then published it wrong, the source you used seems focused on the quotes from the wrong article. Smacks of bashing the Daily Mail to me. I understand people dislike the Mail and its opinions, but I don't understand why it goes from, 'The Daily Mail has incorrect opinions' to 'Readers of the Daily Mail are stupid'.
I don't trust the veracity of the one that declares she won her appeal either, because I suspect that had pre-written quotes in it too, but to catch them out on that would have required people trekking out to Italy to ask. The Daily Mail has since taken down that article as well, which I think also tells us something.

When they put the wrong article up, with stuff that couldn't ever have been said, that meant the world had proof! It's entirely right to focus on it.
0
reply
Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#59
Report 5 years ago
#59
(Original post by Octopus_Garden)
I don't trust the veracity of the one that declares she won her appeal either, because I suspect that had pre-written quotes in it too, but to catch them out on that would have required people trekking out to Italy to ask. The Daily Mail has since taken down that article as well, which I think also tells us something.

When they put the wrong article up, with stuff that couldn't ever have been said, that meant the world had proof! It's entirely right to focus on it.
This is where my defence of the Daily Mail starts to fall down, because I agree with you. A lot of what it says is suspect, and I read it with a pinch of salt. Quite a hefty one in most cases. I just think that it gets a lot of flak, e.g. being referred to as 'The Daily Fail'- its one of the UKs most successful newspapers, so people must agree with some of it.
0
reply
Octopus_Garden
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#60
Report 5 years ago
#60
(Original post by Unruly Marmite)
This is where my defence of the Daily Mail starts to fall down, because I agree with you. A lot of what it says is suspect, and I read it with a pinch of salt. Quite a hefty one in most cases. I just think that it gets a lot of flak, e.g. being referred to as 'The Daily Fail'- its one of the UKs most successful newspapers, so people must agree with some of it.
I call it the Daily Heil, in homage to its adoring stance towards pre-war Germany and the Daily Wail, in tribute to its relentless articles about the moral decay of modern Britain, if that helps.

You did a good job with the the Devil's advocacy, though, and you were brave to take on the challenge!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (221)
22.97%
The paper was reasonable (430)
44.7%
Not feeling great about that exam... (174)
18.09%
It was TERRIBLE (137)
14.24%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise