I'm not surprised to hear that there's discussion about SVT's bias and whether it should continue being financed by tax money, in fact I'd expect that kind of debate in a democratic society. But I wasn't referring to Wikipedia as the source but to the studies that were mentioned by Wikipedia. Again, you'd have to show how these were faulty, until then I'd rather believe them than some right wing populist from the internet who willfully ignores data that doesn't fit his worldview.emphatic wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 8:42 pmI like and use Wikipedia all the time, if something seem to not line up with reality, I go for more sources. I merely pointed out that in Sweden, Swedish Television along with many leftist media outlets consider Wikipedia to be biased/disinformation, which is ironic, as the article about Swedish Television being unbiased came from that very site. There's also an ongoing debate about SVT's bias and why it's being financed by tax money in Sweden that's hard to find out about when Googling it from say, Germany. One source is hardly definitive.ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:13 pmSo you don't like a source and it's suddenly, magically, not valid.
No, I mean “taken seriously“ in a very literal sense. Why should people be interested in continuing a conversation if the other person calls them names? I didn’t expect I’d be able to convince you and it wasn’t my intention to do so (conversations and debates still have value even if nobody changes their stance), what I complained about was that you simply changed the rules of the conversation from „we’re exchanging arguments supported by (what we believe to be credible) data“ to „Don’t care, you’re lying anyway“. Go ahead, post articles that support your view that SVT is lefty propaganda, I’d be very interested in reading them. I don’t like being stuck in a lefty bubble and I absolutely see the value in being subjected to perspectives different from my own.emphatic wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 8:42 pmI'm so used to not being "taken seriously", as that's a very convenient way to say I'm a stupid bigot without actually saying that as to, you know, save face. Just because you "took time" doesn't mean I owe you my time in return. I have better things to do with my time than to try and convince you that you're wrong. I will likely fail, no matter what articles I dig up. Something that I have experienced many times, and it's a waste of my time. And yours.ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:13 pm The time I took to type out all that other shit I could have spent doing something more useful since you simply state it's all lies. Why should anybody take you seriously in the future if you simply ignore data and arguments you don't like?
Lobbying for what/ on whose behalf? I couldn’t find any info on that, so I’d be grateful for info. Not that it plays much of a role for the question of whether Denmark has a huge alcohol problem, among else becauseemphatic wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 8:42 pmDid you take a gander at what kind of organization PopNAD is? Because it's not particularly unbiased towards recreational use of alcohol, tobacco or gambling. They are a lobbyist organisation.ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:13 pm I googled "alcoholism in Denmark"
[...]
This article is written by
Associate professor Kristine Rømer Thomsen,
Associate professor Bagga Bjerge,
Assistant professor Lotte Vallentin-Holbech and
Professor emerita Kim Bloomfield
on the request of PopNAD"![]()
- it’s not like these topics are particularly controversial, excessive consumption all each of the drugs you mentioned has catastrophic consquences for your health and/ or life.
- it’s not the only source I posted, and the scientists that wrote the summary of their study don’t work for PopNAD. The Danish are heavy drinkers, and alcohol makes many of them ill or dead.