The EU debate - Part III

That must win me a prize in Hull bingo.

I'm not dismissing Mail articles purely because they're Mail articles. Given they all follow the same formula of little to no research even when it's easy to do so, a borderline racist slant where possible and an incendiary headline, there's rarely much more to say. If they ever make a good point then it'll be covered better and more fairly in other right-wing media. Unlike you I don't have the whole day to read every article in every news source and then decide to only post the right-wing ones while telling people to read a variety of sources.

If you're genuinely interested in exploring a topic you won't be doing so in the Mail.

 

****ing hell Dull, do you not get bored of saying the same old **** over and over again?

 

Damn the Trump-hating BBC

 

Okey doke.

 

It's not bigoted to point out that something's literally propaganda.
Russia Today's exactly that. It's own reporters have called it that. Ofcom's called it that.
Are they bigoted, too?

You're posting stuff that's garbage and then complaining about it being called garbage.
It's a ridiculous stance to take.

 

Simple answer?

No!...

 

More Daily Mail bullshit.

Staying in the EU is the patriotic thing to do, claims former M&S boss Stuart Rose at referendum campaign launch.

Former Marks and Spencer's boss Stuart Rose said Britain could survive outside the EU but would not be able to 'thrive'.

The business chief, who is the chairman of the official 'Britain Stronger in Europe' campaign which also includes all three living former Prime Ministers, said the 'patriotic course' was to stay in and fight for reform rather than 'retreat, withdraw and become inward looking'.

Lord Rose, speaking in central London, claimed families would be up to £3,000 a year worse off outside the EU and claimed exit amounted to 'a leap in the dark'.

He added: 'This is not about choosing between Britain and Europe. There are those who will say you can't be for Britain if you want to be part of Europe.

'Utter nonsense. It is precisely because we are part of Europe that we are stronger and at our best in the world.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-not-leap-dark-vote-leave.html#ixzz4QmCz3p4h
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

It's dishonest if you don't explain in what way the content in question is untrue, especially if you haven't even read it. That is bigotry.

There are studies showing the BBC is biased.

 

Your cut and paste function seems to have accidentally omitted the balance of the article which covered Farage's response.

 

It's also some 14 months old!...

 

It's more the way it reports things rather than what it actually reports or people would dislike The Daily Star though the actual content is rarely particularly complex but I appreciate the readers don't want to be challenged.

If someone who happens to be Muslim commits a crime, why is the default choice to describe him as a Muslim?

 

I'm not going to spend 15 minutes watching a propaganda video to explain why it's wrong.
Russia Today is a bloody awful source that's literally a mouthpiece for the main Russian oligarch.
That's not in dispute. It's not bigotry to point that out.

I'm sure that there are some studies showing that the BBC is biased.
The first one that pops up on Google is by a right-wing think-tank founded by Thatcher that champions the small state, by their own admission.
Do you think that their study might have a bit of an agenda?

You're using obviously biased sources to try and prove bias.
Do you really not see a problem with that?

 

How do you know they do that with every muslim?

 

You just keep confirming you're an ignorant bigot with no view on the actual content.

 

That's a ridiculous accusation.

If that's the source of the video, it's pretty clear what their agenda is.

 

No, you're just confirming that you can't debate anything and expect everyone to accept your links without question.
It explains a lot about how you think and why you keep offering up such ****e sources, to be honest.
A little critical thinking might prevent these childish errors.

It would be very simple to offer up a criticism from somewhere substantial.
I'm sure that there are plenty of them. I've no idea why you haven't done that.
You're offering up bias to try and prove bias and can't even dispute that claim, so you're attacking me, instead.
It's par for the course, I'm afraid.

Deflect, play the victim, insult, repeat. Boring.

 

There's obviously no way of proving that unless I can somehow research the background of those mentioned in every story about crime where no religion is mentioned. Even you don't have time for that. Even if the only Mail articles that mention Islam are those linked on this thread then it's a lot of anti-Muslim propaganda.

I doubt you even disagree with most of what people are saying but you can't help but take the opposite stance in your bizarre crusade to educate everyone.

 

That's a ridiculous reply. It's just a lazy excuse to avoid the topic.

If the content is bullshit, it should be easy enough to demonstrate.

 

I can debate, but first you need to engage with the topic and not just hide.

 

End of.