Media Khabib on WMMA, moving to 170 and more....

[Negator402]

Second yellow card is coming

Well given that you are misquoting me...which one of us is getting a yellow card?

And boy, if I live in my mom's basement, I am paying ALOT in rent!

 

[TR1]

Obama did a lot of stupid stuff during his career. I'm not sure what you are talking about in these cases, but well...dictator he wasn't.
There are levels to this $#it

True, he managed to kill more people in other countries than any (I'd have to check the list to be 100% sure) of the dictators Khabib has met with.

Your ignorance about American drone strikes and civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria, support for war in Yemen or say....EVERY dictatorship in the ME aside from Syria and Iran....is pretty shocking considering you are here calling others dictators and castigating Khabib for meeting them.

Truly, there are levels to this shit. POTUS tends to be at the very top tier.

 

[Muppettoker]

Most news outlets repeat information from the same original source, with viewing figures/clicks/political motivation as their motivation. Repetition of the same unsubstantiated sources may impress
you, but that's fine. In fact, most outlets literally copy and paste the story from one another, without ever fact checking, as the truth is more often than not a secondary thought in both politics and journalism.
I own a small media company and I also shoot for Getty Images so I say that from first hand experience.

That's at the polar opposite end of seeing something first hand, not 'pretty much the same'.

And seriously....'Saudi men'? That's some generic shit right there.

Never said ‘pretty much the same’ I don’t know why put that? Did you not comprehend what I said or are you deliberately trying to misrepresent my argument? I said beyond seeing it first hand, the best you can hope for is multiple sources with the same/similar story.

‘Saudi men’ as in men that are close people to the crown prince, take direct orders from him etc. I don’t know why you’re playing dumb when you must of realised I was just shortening it for brevity.

Out of interest then, where do you find out about world events and news in general? Or do you find it easier to dismiss everything as bias and lies, acting superior while being totally ignorant?

 

[chuckleknuckle]

Never said ‘pretty much the same’ I don’t know why put that? Did you not comprehend what I said or are you deliberately trying to misrepresent my argument? I said beyond seeing it first hand, the best you can hope for is multiple sources with the same/similar story.

‘Saudi men’ as in men that are close people to the crown prince, take direct orders from him etc. I don’t know why you’re playing dumb when you must of realised I was just shortening it for brevity.

Out of interest then, where do you find out about world events and news in general? Or do you find it easier to dismiss everything as bias and lies, acting superior while being totally ignorant?

Saying something is "as close as you can get to something" whilst simultaneously saying its reliable, is the same as saying two things are 'pretty much the same'. I was paraphrasing, not misrepresenting. I too was shortening for brevity.

Your argument as i understand it, is that 'multiple sources' makes something reliable.

My counter was very simple. You are not hearing anything from multiple sources, most information comes from the same source, repeated by different organisations and outlets.

Secondly, reliability of the sources determines reliability of the information you are receiving. Our government, foreign governments, political rivals, put out via biased, click bait driven media outlets are not reliable sources of information, no matter how many of them there are saying the same thing.

Garbage in, garbage out.

That was why i referenced the non specific term 'Saudi men'. It shows how non specific the sources have to be before its spread out, accepted and absorbed without question.

I get a lot of my knowledge of world events by the exact same sources as everyone else. The only difference is i accept everything as malleable, unproven and don't readily accept political claims.

I concern myself primarily with local politics, which I can involve in and garner personal experience of. Then i scale my interest and acceptance of information downwards as the level of politics grows through local, to national to international.

It's not a feeling of superiority to call someone out on claiming someone is a dictator. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[Muppettoker]

Saying something is "as close as you can get to something" whilst simultaneously saying its reliable, is the same as saying two things are 'pretty much the same'. I was paraphrasing, not misrepresenting. I too was shortening for brevity.

Your argument as i understand it, is that 'multiple sources' makes something reliable.

My counter was very simple. You are not hearing anything from multiple sources, most information comes from the same source, repeated by different organisations and outlets.

Secondly, reliability of the sources determines reliability of the information you are receiving. Our government, foreign governments, political rivals, put out via biased, click bait driven media outlets are not reliable sources of information, no matter how many of them there are saying the same thing.

Garbage in, garbage out.

That was why i referenced the non specific term 'Saudi men'. It shows how non specific the sources have to be before its spread out, accepted and absorbed without question.

I get a lot of my knowledge of world events by the exact same sources as everyone else. The only difference is i accept everything as malleable, unproven and don't readily accept political claims.

I concern myself primarily with local politics, which I can involve in and garner personal experience of. Then i scale my interest and acceptance of information downwards as the level of politics grows through local, to national to international.

It's not a feeling of superiority to call someone out on claiming someone is a dictator. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

It’s actually not the same ‘as close as’ refers to there being no further method to know with more certainty beyond seeing it in person. Not saying it’s pretty much the same thing at all. I still recognise the possibility the source being false or modified.

‘Saudi men’ was my abbreviation, not the sources, they gave names and government role of the killers. Once again you’re misrepresenting what I’m saying so it fits your argument better.

So you use exactly the same method as I do, I am just fairly sure based on that the Saudi Prince did order/play a major part in the killing of Jamal K. The extraordinary proof has been provided. Multiple governments(including SAUDI ARABIA!) have said they are responsible.

Keep your head in the sand to terrible global events if you like, I don’t take anything as 100%, but that’s life, few things if anything is certain.

 

[chuckleknuckle]

It’s actually not the same ‘as close as’ refers to there being no further method to know with more certainty beyond seeing it in person. Not saying it’s pretty much the same thing at all. I still recognise the possibility the source being false or modified.

‘Saudi men’ was my abbreviation, not the sources, they gave names and government role of the killers. Once again you’re misrepresenting what I’m saying so it fits your argument better.

So you use exactly the same method as I do, I am just fairly sure based on that the Saudi Prince did order/play a major part in the killing of Jamal K. The extraordinary proof has been provided. Multiple governments(including SAUDI ARABIA!) have said they are responsible.

Keep your head in the sand to terrible global events if you like, I don’t take anything as 100%, but that’s life, few things if anything is certain.

At this point you are splitting hairs. You stated quite clearly that 'hearing multiple sources say the same thing' is good enough for you to believe something. That clearly equates to saying 'the same as'
is this context.

Saudi men was not an abbreviation, if you are being honest. I believe that you simply didn't know the names of the accused, because you hadn't done much investigation into the matter, enough anyway
to remember their names. It felt like you were happy to use a generic non specific term whilst spreading rumours. To quote myself previously: "It shows how non specific the sources have to be before its spread out". You attempted to spread generic information in this thread as fact, genuinely believing that was enough for people to accept your claims. It's not.

As for the validity of the claims that the 'murderers' are known, I ask you to reference the source of those claims, the evidence provided, without mentioning a national controlled media outlet or government.
I noticed you have decided not to refute the inanity of quoting national controlled biased media as a source, yet are simultaneously happy to refer to their conclusions as fact. You have to have some
form of intellectual consistency there.

The Saudi Arabian government, like the Libyan government when accused of Lockerbie, have very little course of action when international media and governments decide to accuse you of guilt.
Admitting the guilty came from your country but refuting any knowledge is bog standard international plea bargaining. Historically replete with examples.

My head isn't buried in the sand, it's watching the world go by. Not blindly accepting anything that's fed to you isn't burying your head in the sand, it's not conspiritard, and it's not woke. It's
just the most rational and error free logical conclusion.