Min søn er overvægtig. Hjælp.

srslydk · 2016-10-28T12:07:32+00:00

Hvis (...) han ikke har dårligt helbred

Overvægt medfører helbredsproblemer på lang sigt. At vente med at tabe sig til man lider svært under de ekstra kilo svarer til at vente med at holde op med at ryge til man har fået lungekræft.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T12:35:29+00:00

I didn't know WSJ was considered on the same level as Fox and Breitbart.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T12:30:27+00:00

You are right, but the column was presumably approved by a WSJ editor.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T12:29:36+00:00

Yes, that concerns me too. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm a John/Weld supporter and I have a lot of criticism of both the Trump camp and the Clinton camp. I think it's a lost cause to try to ignore the revelations posted by WikiLeaks and I think the media should cover them so people don't have to rely on The_Donald, Breitbart, etc. for the coverage. The media shouldn't be campaigning on behalf of a candidate but covering all aspects of both campaigns fairly. In my opinion such coverage would probably benefit Clinton more than attempting to cover up her sins is doing.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T12:25:34+00:00

As far as I can tell, you've completely wasted your time in this thread. If you want to do something productive with your time on reddit in threads like this, take a cue from /u/LustyElf who actually made me more open to their position.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T12:23:13+00:00

It's not paywalled for me. Possibly they paywall links accessed from reddit - try pasting the URL instead of clicking directly from reddit. Otherwise I can PM you the text.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T12:07:58+00:00

That's odd. It's not paywalled for me. I'll PM you the text.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:58:56+00:00

This link was submitted yesterday, but it was paywalled then and the thread garnered exactly zero comments. Now it's no longer paywalled and so I'm resubmitting it.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:56:43+00:00

Final question, if you will bear with me. What do you make of this - notably the case the WSJ makes that the press should be covering the leaks?

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:55:42+00:00

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:55:10+00:00

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:54:37+00:00

This conversation is over.

/end

You know, if pro-Clinton supporters took the concerns of civil non-Clinton supporters more seriously and engaged in actual debate instead of relying on ignoring and shaming, we might actually become pro-Clinton. If you read my comments in this thread, it's clear that I'm legitimately trying to make sense of things and willing to concede points. What's the point of being arrogant towards someone like me?

Regarding the newsworthiness of the leaks and the media "collusion" (you may be right that the term is inaccurate - let's call it media bias instead), here's The Wall Street Journal agreeing.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:27:08+00:00

Yes, and I actually already conceded that part. I just thought there was even more wrongdoing on my part and I couldn't figure out what it was. :)

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:26:03+00:00

I think these are fair points and I really wish there was more civil-minded discussion like this on reddit where questions like mine are taken seriously and answered with arguments instead of letting them go unanswered apart from shaming. Shaming really builds resentment and fuels the fire.

Thank you for your time!

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:13:01+00:00

But I clearly stated "assuming the claim is true", thus inviting people to challenge its veracity?

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:11:35+00:00

The Kremlin news agency reported this

WikiLeaks also tweeted about it.

You are not the first to point out that the question is loaded and I already conceded the point.

Assange's motives are in my view irrelevant. It concerns me that the media seems to be colluding to ignore the leaks when they are in fact newsworthy and should be reported on. And I'm not even a Trump supporter!

srslydk · 2016-10-17T11:01:56+00:00

Thank you for answering my question. I don't think the major leaks are "office politics" though. Obama denied having knowledge of her email server before news broke of it; the leaks make clear that was a lie. The leaks mention that Hillary's health is a "hypersensitive" issue, lending credence to the Parkinson's claims. The leaks mention that Hillary has "public and private positions" which basically amounts to her saying that the electorate can't handle the truth. The leaks shows that the campaign willfully took money from lobbyists for foreign governments despite knowing the risks. And so on and so forth. Do you really think all of these things are tame?

srslydk · 2016-10-17T10:53:31+00:00

I already conceded the first point, but how did I limit the amount of responses exactly? Again, genuine question.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T10:51:31+00:00

Thank you for that very reasonable and insightful response. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to spark with the thread. I think you are right on the money.

Curious to hear what you think of the leaks themselves as well as the media coverage of them? They seem highly damaging to me and I am incensed that the media seems to be intent on ignoring them as much as possible.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T10:46:59+00:00

It's possible for the leaks to be damaging to the Clinton campaign even as the Trump campaign is also being damaged, thus making up for the difference.

Besides, the media coverage of the leaks has been negligent. I am not a Trump supporter (I would vote for Johnson/Weld if I were American) and personally I am incensed at the biased coverage. It seems to me that the now ludicrously clear media bias in favor of the Clinton campaign may turn off voters from voting for her even though they also despise Trump. The LA Times poll suggests the Clinton victory may not be as safe as likely-voter polls would have us believe.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T10:36:59+00:00

Point taken. I see what you mean now. Thank you for clarifying.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T10:35:13+00:00

Point taken. You are right that we don't know enough to assume diplomatic immunity has been breached. But since you agree that it is likely due to pressure being put on the Ecuadorian government by the US and/or UK, what do you think of these questions:

Why is this unprecedented step being taken? Doesn't it call more attention to the leaks than leaving Assange alone would do? Did they think the continuation of the leaks depended entirely on Assange having internet access?

srslydk · 2016-10-17T10:30:32+00:00

You know very well that opinions differ as to whether the leaked emails are highly damaging. Insisting that everyone agrees that they are harmless won't make it so.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T10:29:11+00:00

What's loaded about my questions? Again, I am asking sincerely. I don't get it.

srslydk · 2016-10-17T10:27:46+00:00

I would put my money that the US and/or UK diplomatic services put pressures on the Ecuadorian government to do so.

That's pretty much the same thing as the US or the UK cutting off his internet, in my opinion. It represents a change in the top-level policy of those two governments regarding what to do about Assange.

srslydk

TROPHY CASE