Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.


Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → See? CNN: THE most Untrusted, Unethical Name in News.

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 15

1

Well, it is based on evolutionary psychology theory, which is based on current cognitive and social science data. I sort of resort to current cognitive and social science. It has a lot to do with human biases and beliefs in universal truths (true or false) derived therefrom. Maybe it is time for a renaming.
There. Bet you didn't expect a reply with the word therefrom in it. Right? Yeah!
See, I told you, you kicked Pandora in the backside. She's feisty when kicked. Well, unless she's a he. Whatever.

2

Go read the CNN official statement... it is the very definition of Blackmail.
I can only guess that CNN's general counsel is on vacation for this week... because everything these idiots did was illegal... and then the official statement admitting to their crime... this goes to the top of the worlds stupidest criminals list...

3

"Go read the CNN official statement... it is the very definition of Blackmail. " I did. It's the *opposite* of blackmail. How is doing this clown a favor, blackmail?

4

I will Feature your comment here in a bit.

5

again... read the real official statement put out by CNN... read the last line about 20 times and you may figure it out.

6

Maybe you should make to clear to yourself, that not all demands which are emphasized with a threat instantly constitute an unethical or even illegal blackmail?
Get off my lawn or
- I call the police
- unleash my dogs
- kill your children
- start to sing
Some of these are fair and square, some are not.
The demand must be unlawful, the relation between threat (or force) and demand must be disproportionate.
Now mind to elaborate what in CNNs demand was unlawful? In fact what did they demand of HanA.Solo and how do you know that, did you actually speak to him/her (or maybe you are him/her)?
Or is the relation between their lawful demand and the unlawful threat they made totally off? Which unlawful threat did they make anyway?

7

Of course I follow the issue. I just have a different view of it than you. If CNN is the biggest quack show I know where the sounds are coming from;  you!
I am assured that CNN will be here and standing on the wall for most of US in reporting the news from a viewpoint that  is far different from the side shows on fox.

8

As I said to someone in the OP...the question is like asking me why I beat my wife.
I stand with them because I see them take on a  President that is toxic, a liar, a shallow and crude fellow and against whom  we need people to stand and defend the long standing viewpoints that made america great.

9

For the most part, it ain't bureaucrats. It's politicians elected by voters in our more or less free democracy. If this really did boil down to bureaucrats, then my already very low opinion of politicians would need to be readjusted lower. After all, under the law, bureaucrats answer to elected politicians and if that's not the case, the politicians are more incompetent than I now believe.
The concept of a God-fearing King being at the service of the people, baffles me. I have no idea of how such a thing could ever exist. Of course that's based on my conception of God being far above the people. If that is a misconception, it is based on my flawed reading of all of recorded human history, specifically including what people have done to each other in the name of God. ISIS is a good current example.
Crud. Wish I was a current history major in college (decades before what is now current), along with a political science major, current cognitive science major, current social science major, current philosophy major, current statistics major, current physics major, etc.
So much knowledge. Such a small brain. I'm so very puny in the face of human knowledge. Sigh.

10

@FoundingFrog
Thanks for recommendation.
Thanks all who recommended this discussion.

11

I know many have seen the CNN statement but I place it here for reference:
"CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."
Maybe CNN did not mean to threaten or blackmail the person, but how can we read that statement and not at least feel uncomfortable with the implication, intended or not, that if this man post something CNN does not like his identity may be published?

12

That sounds like a terrorist threat to me. Bye-bye CNN you sealed your fate

13

wish i'd seen you pretty much said the same thing but all nice and short before i posted my rant. oh well ^^;

14

Whom did CNN out? I thought they did not reveal his info.
All I have heard, is that right wingers are now publishing personal info of CNN employees.
It appears to me that the right 4chan trolls and others are exactly doing, what you accuse CNN.

15

I will do it.  Hold up a bit buddy.  Go to your discussion in about 3-5 minutes

Posts: 15

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → See? CNN: THE most Untrusted, Unethical Name in News.

Similar topics in this forum