In tweeted conversations about the Mike Duffy, suspended Cdn Senator, trial, there has been a full court press, yes a basketball term, to have the 31st charge Bribery of a judicial official accepted in the general population, by our mass media alone. This is 1 of the Laws of the land, From Bill C-46 apparently page 63, paragraphs 119, 120 and 121. Well it would appear that the media and their self-absorbed pundits all believe in broad-based mass seeding of only 1 side of a much more complex story.
Mercedes Stephenson @ CTVMercedes 22h22 hours ago
“Bayne says Nigel Wright made $90 G payment for political reasons to “enrich” the government and make a political scandal go away # Duffy”
The pundit: (I never got permission to use name) “Very faulty reading of Parl Act has RCMP believing Wright rec’vd no PERSONAL benefit, ergo no charge”
One sided, okay, but reasonable, simply following the 1 sided ideology our media has been using for decades to manipulate what we understand. Mr. Nigel Wright was never given a fair opportunity to speak before he was lamb-basted and had his motives challenged by our wonderful media. This is true, the news stories by all networks, circulars and social media formats since it came out refused to release any unedited statements or comments by Mr. Wright until they made him guilty in the media, guilty of what ? who knows. So I presented the otherside of the coin … which by our media’s standard was unacceptable, sorry but I do that. Personally, I was raised to hear all sides of a story before “choosing” to make up my own mind.
So, to Ms. Stephenson’s tweet, I replied,
Lance Duke @1stpaganmystic · 22h 22 hours ago
“@CTVMercedes you can’t “enrich” when personal funds are used to replace misappropriated funds that compensates a short-fall; we want truth”
I hope that was a fair request?
I then went on to address The pundit, having said this to the CTV reporter who appeared to be non-concerned with Mr. Wright’s side of the story and dismissive of those who want to hear it, it actually becomes critical in all fairness, because we are, today expected to make decisions and rationalizations only on hearsay and someone elses suppositions. Therefore, requesting commentors to make good on their claim is only fair, right? Clearly I made my point understood 1st, standing for what I believe in.
I replied to the contributor, “Very faulty reading of Parl Act also leaves faulty assumptions=over-zealous media&lies”
That earned me the comment, LOL, “Sorry, that’s a non sequitur.”
Still LOL, what was I suppose to say,
Lance Duke @1stpaganmystic 20h20 hours ago
( name removed )
“LOL yet the RCMP’s faulty reading isn’t hmm. The media doing good job/manipulation”
now the fun part >> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur :
noun non se·qui·tur \ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\
: a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it
Full Definition of NON SEQUITUR
1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
Examples of NON SEQUITUR
1.We were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.
Origin of NON SEQUITUR
Latin, it does not follow; First Known Use: 1540
This is non sequitur, hmm I wonder why this tweet contributor is so scared of an honest discussion.
It is crazy how our use, well gross over use of these discussion or debate fallacies has become so destructive some are now simply using them to block or prevent a full and comprehensive discussion in all equity and fairness and this is also endorsed by our so-called fair, honest and factual media system by allowing this to twist and mame a fair discussion.