{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/16/2015 6:55:36 PM
9
I don't mean to seem like a jerk, but the article is obviously arguing on a specific agenda. Things may have been taken out of context
English
-
Wow you have to explain that one to me. Maybe you are high or perhaps i am not high enough. Either way you are able to see things that i cannot see myself.
-
Really? The title of the article didn't make you notice?
-
Edited by BiG SH0T ROB: 12/16/2015 7:13:31 PMWhat are you trying to say? The article should hide the fact this man is a millionaire businessman? Perhaps they should also have hidden that the man is a foreign national. All in the interest of political correctness i'm sure. That is way more important than the truth right?
-
Not at all. Instead of addressing the court case with an unbiased opinion, the title shows that the author believes that the man is guilty
-
The title describes the story in a somewhat sensationalistic way but there is absolutely no bias in the title nor in the article.
-
The title is unnecessarily long just to say that the defendant's accuse is invalid. That is a biased title
-
You are wrong. The title does not say the defendant's excuse is invalid, the title only mentions the excuse itself. Wich totally makes sense because it is a ridiculous excuse. Why would you even attack the article. There are dozens of other news outlets who have reported this story. Are you saying that they are all biased as well then? Maybe the entire world of journalism is conspiring against this man to write slightly biased articles about this court case wich btw is information that is open to the public? Hmmm maybe you are on to something here..
-
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The fact that the jury found him innocent is saying that something is missing. That we aren't seeing. Also, the world's mindset is now trained (thanks to those idiotic SJWs) to believe that someone labeled as a rapist is guilty until proven innocent
-
Edited by BiG SH0T ROB: 12/17/2015 12:58:30 AM[quote] Something is missing. That we aren't seeing. [/quote] There ya go. [quote] During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Abdulaziz's evidence to be heard in private [/quote] You are right about SJW fools. My mind however is trained to see corrupt bs. I have years of experience. I would bet my life that something very fishy is going on here.
