Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Fact checkers looked more into the Voice Yes case’s claims after Sky News’ investigation" video.

@seasonedbeefs All that the original comment proved was an argument from authority is fallacious. Are you suggesting that Prof Blainey’s every word is faultless and that he has never uttered a false word or made a mistake? All the fact-checking I have read has been checked by numerous sources expert in their fields. You just want RWNJ opinion to be considered fact or every leftie opinion to be considered the truth.
2
You obviously haven’t got a clue how fact checking works.
1
@gregmatthies8128 Left or right, opinion has to be fact checked.
1
@gregmatthies8128 Nope, I will point out factually incorrect opinion be it left right or indifferent. You just don't like being proven wrong when you espouse your RWNJ rhetoric.
1
@robharris6874 I rarely if ever offer opinion. I may sometimes offer fact based statements supported by evidence.
1
@LawnDartzStudios Yes that is most definitely my opinion. What is not my opinion is that anything you personally comment on that is fact based will immediately be dismissed as nonsensical garbage unless it is supported by fact based data/evidence. You are not able to understand the difference between a fact based comment and mindless opinion of which you seem to have an endless bounty of, which was my original point. Thankyou for confirming my suspicions.
1
@penguinvic9892 I have no idea why you would consider the ABC an arbiter of fact. The idea that a single source could possibly ever be faultless is ludicrous. I’m not sure you understand the concept of fact checking. Multiple independent sources using the same data and coming to the same conclusion or perhaps the data collected by the one source (ABS) and published publicly is a little more reliable than some unsubstantiated idiotic claim expressed on YouTube comments.
1
@penguinvic9892 Just on a side not to the discussion on fact checking in regard to your comment on indigenous franchise. It is a fact that almost universally indigenous people living in remote communities voted overwhelmingly in favour of the voice. This is proven by the returns from remote polling booths in WA, NT, and Queensland as published by the AEC. Whether you believe Indigenous people would or would not have been represented, indigenous people themselves in remote Australia overwhelmingly voted that they were in favour of a voice.
1
@mikem9001 No you are confusing factual data (AEC published returns from remote polling booths in WA, NT, and Queensland that are predominantly populated by indigenous Australians) with your opinion on some vague notion of ideology and political opinion. I made no comment on the views of various indigenous leaders some of who were supportive and some were very much against. So what, that was not my point. The factual data proves overwhelming that indigenous people in remote communities voted yes to the voice. This is also supports the various prepolling results which suggested over 80% of indigenous people were in favour of the voice. I am not interested in your opinion of any alleged motivation for voting yes as that is merely your opinion. In fact the concept that you are able to read the minds of thousands of voters and understand their motivations is quite comical. I merely stated AEC published factual data.
1
@philmapper9892 How many times do I have to agree with you. I never claimed or suggested the ABC is the arbiter of truth/fact. What I said was any claim/opinion should be subjected to fact checking. Now it's fine for you to oppose such an opinion, however there are basic truths, 2+2=4. If we can't agree on that then whatever you say is im afraid illogical nonsense.
1
@LawnDartzStudios OMG you finally made a factual statement. Well done, you are learning.
1
@robharris6874 You would have to reference a published peer reviewed scientific paper that supports your ludicrously hyperbolic statement that the world is going to burn down by 2030. I personally do not know of any scientific evidence that suggests this, but you may have. In the mean time again try and stick to factual comment not idiotic opinion.
1
@LawnDartzStudios You need to read my last comment to understand the proper meaning of the word hyperbolic and used in its correct context. You got your second comment correct, you should have stopped while you were on top.
1
@uniqueprogressive9908 You stupidity didn't understand a single syllable I wrote. I never stated I was an arbiter of fact of any claim or opinion, only that claims or opinions to be considered to have any value need to backed by evidence. So your meaningless attempt at a strawman is just that, nonsensical garbage. Do you have anything of actual substance to contribute?
1
Yeah I can't contribute to a discussion dominated by emjois. It is far to cerebral for me.
1
@LawnDartzStudios Thank you for your kind words.
1