Philippines says two coast guard vessels damaged by China’s ‘unlawful manoeuvres’, while Beijing says it took ‘control measures’ after vessels illegally entered waters around shoal
Chinese and Philippine vessels collided on Monday during a confrontation near a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, the two countries said.
Both countries blamed each other for the incident near the Sabina Shoal.
China and the Philippines have had repeated confrontations in the vital waterway in recent months, including around a warship grounded years ago by Manila on the contested Second Thomas Shoal that hosts a garrison. Beijing has continued to press its claims to almost the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling that its assertion has no legal basis.
yup.
Where on the political spectrum do you think Dave Van Zandt classifies organizations that are pro-science, and respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field?
Rather than personal opinions lacking supporting evidence, let’s look at the data we do have to analyze your baseless implication:
Live Science - HIGH
science daily - HIGH
scientific American - HIGH
nature - VERY HIGH
NASA - VERY HIGH
by your unfounded accusations, van Zandt highly values pro-science news sources.
look at all those extra steps you took to get back here and prove yourself wrong. Again.
“Scientific studies using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017”
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/9/pgad286/7258994?login=false
“When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect” inter-rater reliability”
Charitably, I think you missed the point. I didn’t imply that van Zandt doesn’t highly value pro-science news sources. Although he’s not a scientist, and doesn’t understand science, he clearly values it highly. That’s to his credit. But ‘HIGH’ and ‘VERY HIGH’ is not a place on the left-right political spectrum.
We agree that both the human rights of gay people and pro-science publications have no political bias, but one might reasonably place them both on the left of the political spectrum based on the typical positions of politicians in the United States. If climate change clarion callers like Scientific American and NASA are completely devoid of a ‘bias’ rating according to Van Zandt, what does that tell you about what he thinks about the human rights of LGBTQ+ people?
You keep making incorrect assumptions and drawing false conclusions.
Misleading and derailing the conversation won’t pan out.
I understand you’d rather not risk making any more embarrassing mistakes than you already have, but you can solve that by asking actual questions about the things you don’t understand instead of trying to “gotcha!” me with vagaries and baseless implications, which has backfired on you the last half dozen attempts.
it doesn’t matter that you don’t personally like the founder of MBFC and despite no evidence have sneaking suspicions about him and the popular palatability of his beliefs.
completely irrelevant to the point at hand.
We’re talking about the credibility of Media Bias Fact Check, which according to independent sources, is a highly reliable source with which to judge the credibility of news sources.
You misunderstood misinterpreted and maligned the site without evidence, were exposed as never having taken the trouble to actually read any of the site, and now you’re trying to find any windy path out of your many blunders.
as you’ll notice in my previous comments, I enjoy clarifying and explaining things.
If you have genuine questions that will help you understand a matter more clearly, I’ll be glad to lend a hand.
If you’re just trying to unproductively cast doubt and raise vitriol without evidence, your transparent runarounds aren’t going to accomplish anything.
Okay, you didn’t miss the point. You just can’t admit you’re wrong about anything.
proof?
or are you going to stick with the whole vague, baseless implications thing?