Moderator: coldharvest
flipflop wrote:Donny
got them facts yet
Penta wrote:got them facts yet
I can tell you that the Asociación Nacional de Periodistas (ANP) [National Journalists' Association] and the Confederación General de Trabajadores de Perú (CGTP) [General Workers' Confederation of Peru, i.e. TUC] have both condemned the closure. That the CGTP Secretary General, Mario Huamán, described the closure as "yet another sign of the authoritarianism of this regime" that is using pretexts to try to silence opposition media. That the local branch of the ANP says the closure should be reversed as a restriction on freedom of speech. That the lawyer for the Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos [National Co-ordinator for Human Rights], Víctor Álvarez, who has been on a fact-finding trip to the area, says he has received reports that journalists were threatened to prevent them broadcasting versions of events different from the government's official line.
That the station's licence was awarded for 10 years from 2007, that it was revoked supposedly for failure to have its equipment ready for inspection
and that its owners and its director have denied that charge.
In addition, the director, Carlos Flores, said that was false because the station installed all the right equipment, asked the ministry for the relevant inspection, the ministry fixed the date and then didn't turn up. He also said that the licence withdrawal was a government manoeuvre to silence the station which had been reporting widely and objectively on the protests.
That the PM, Yehude Simón, assured the foreign press that the government respects the communications media and freedom of the press, even though he and other ministers "gave a tongue-lashing" [fustigaron] to jungle radio stations, which they accused of lying.
And finally, I can report that the reason the government is so annoyed is reported to be because the stations (plural) reported numerous deaths of indigenous people last week, while the government is sticking to its original figures of 24 police and only 9 civilians.
Meanwhile, at least 30 indigenous people are said to have been killed, and 61 more have been listed by name by Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Aprodeh) [Pro-Human Rights Association] as still missing. They have also said 133 people have been detained without charge and 189 injured. There have been unconfirmed eyewitness reports of the army and/or police dropping bodies from helicopters into rivers and burning bodies (on the ground, obviously).
That's all from Spanish-language reports. Meanwhile, you might like to look at Channel 4 News's report last night:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/w ... ru/3211457
flipflop wrote:What did the other side say?
And that's enough fact-gathering on Peru for today.
Penta wrote:Or
4) I am being scrupulously careful, because for once I know I've got you bang to rights. ;)
and
5) The government will come out fighting again today, and tomorrow's papers will be full of their comments and explanations.
a fast-swelling tide of constitutional lawyers agreeing that the decrees García passed to comply with his commitments in the FTA to open up the Peruvian Amazon regions to exploitation by foreign firms are unconstitutional, as the protesters have been saying all along
flipflop wrote:Or
4) I am being scrupulously careful, because for once I know I've got you bang to rights. ;)
Saying you have me bang to rights has no relation to it actually existing in reality.
a fast-swelling tide of constitutional lawyers agreeing that the decrees García passed to comply with his commitments in the FTA to open up the Peruvian Amazon regions to exploitation by foreign firms are unconstitutional, as the protesters have been saying all along
Which has nothing to do with the reasons why the governement closed the radio station.
to get back to the original reason for the protests
Remember, once again my opinion has not been offered
Penta wrote:
What happened to your sense of humour? Bypassed again?
I was referring to your accusations that I commented about the radio station closure and that I was begging the question with the title.
You asked me for facts about the closure, and I provided all the facts I could find, with very careful even-handedness.
Víctor Álvarez, who has been on a fact-finding trip to the area, says he has received reports that journalists were threatened to prevent them broadcasting versions of events different from the government's official line.
Carlos Flores, said that was false....He also said that the licence withdrawal was a government manoeuvre to silence the station which had been reporting widely and objectively on the protests.
And finally, I can report that the reason the government is so annoyed is reported to be because the stations (plural) reported numerous deaths of indigenous people last week, while the government is sticking to its original figures of 24 police and only 9 civilians.
Meanwhile, at least 30 indigenous people are said to have been killed, and 61 more have been listed by name by Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (Aprodeh) [Pro-Human Rights Association] as still missing. They have also said 133 people have been detained without charge and 189 injured.
Can't ask more than that, mate.
fact /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt]
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial
Remember, once again my opinion has not been offered
Perhaps you'd like to grace us with it. Do you think a government is justified in selling off rights to the subsoil of people's land without consulting them properly? I'll tell you my view quite happily now: I don't. I expect you guessed. ;)
flipflop wrote:You did and you were, then you were guilty of equivocation
If you think I'm going to take your word on any of this you're sorely mistaken.
Victor "says", it must be a "fact" if Victor says it.
Carlos "said", it must be a "fact" if Carlos said it
That's all from Spanish-language reports. Meanwhile, you might like to look at Channel 4 News's report last night
And I can now add a very interesting detail [in a separate post, followed by the closest thing to a real fact]
that's enough fact-gathering on Peru for today
What did the other side say?
That's the thing: I did a search on Google Spanish noticias for the closure of the radio station, read all the first few news (not blog-site) pages that came up, and related to you every single fact I could find in the reports. It seems the government hasn't got much to say for itself, apart from the initial announcement about the station's failure to pass a technical inspection, and subsequently how much it values freedom of expression, which I also reported faithfully.
5) The government will come out fighting again today, and tomorrow's papers will be full of their comments and explanations.
You asked me for facts about the closure, and I provided all the facts I could find, with very careful even-handedness.
What happened to your sense of humour? Bypassed again?
So, all you have given us here is the "fact" that these people said things (or put another way - the facts are these people said some things), not that the things they said are "facts"
you're equivocating.
I asked you for "facts", this requires a dictionary definition of "fact". Before you bring up the problem of dictionary definitions, and using the dictionary as the final arbiter on some questions, think about this: "What is a fact?" is not the same as asking "What is art?" or "What is justice?", there's no impropriety in asking the dictionary what a "fact" is, it is a simple noun with no vague interpretations, unlike "justice" which can cover myriad views of what "justice" is. It is like asking the dictionary "What is a duck?" - the answer will be "a wild or domesticated web-footed swimming bird, characterized by a broad, flat bill, short legs, and depressed body", or something similar. So, the dictionary will suffice here:fact /fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt]
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
A bit more, "fact" regarding philosophy:A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial
You haven't confirmed anything, you're not dealing in "facts" you're peddling "opinion". Do you see now how hard it is to maintain such a black/white (unpragmatic) view of the world? This is the fundamental level where all your threads/posts fall down. Facts, real facts, are elusive things at best, especially so when you look at divisive topics like this one. Scientific facts are easy (but not certain, one contrary experiment can kill a long held theory in an instant, and whole careers along with it), but in the whole range of human interaction facts are fuzzy at best, objectivity is a great goal, but falters at the human level.
flipflop wrote:Loaded/complex question:
A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition. In this case it's question-begging "Do you think a government is justified in selling off rights to the subsoil of people's land without consulting them properly?" Begs the question "Did the government sell off the rights to the subsoil without consulting the people properly?" How do you define this? Did they not consult them at all? Did they try negotiating with "the people"? What people? All or some of the people? Did all the people disagree? "Properly"? what do you mean by properly? qualify your interpretation of "properly"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 95 guests