Reply With Quote
Jewnoseguyrubbinghands.jpeg
Is the study invalid because of the source of its funding, or some other reason?
Jewnoseguyrubbinghands.jpeg
That may be the single stupidest ing thing I have read here today.
Not all "realities" are created equal, or should be treated as such, anyone who wants to hold differing versions of reality as all equally valid should pray like the next time they get sick or injured, and not seek any medical help, because the two "realities" of "prayer heals everything" and "medicine works" are equal.
Instead of believing something ing moronic, read this and change your mind about "reality":
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...cal-fallacies/
Yes goy, learn a thing or two by checking out another link I’m shilling you written by who knows and who knows what their agenda is. You already tried to shill me on George Soros poo poo why do you keep peddling this stuff? Yes sources do matter. No I don’t trust a Soros project. Yes everyone has biases and wants to prove their perception of reality is correct. No it usually isn’t 100%. That’s the irony you people do not understand, you have a completely totalitarian mindset while running around calling others fascist. I’m sure you could also attempt to quantify why the transgender movement is great for society. Everyone has an agenda these days it seems.
Is the study invalid because of the source of its funding, or some other reason?
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem
(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true.
Example #1:
My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!
Explanation: The fact that the woman loves her ice cream, has nothing to do with the lowering of taxes, and therefore, is irrelevant to the argument. Ad hominem attacks are usually made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.
--------------------------------------
More fodder for the OP.
You can't form a logical argument, it makes my case for me. Thanks.
You think that a badly reasoned post is true.
You also make my case for me. Thanks.
"misinformation is predominantly a pathology of the right"
mis·in·for·ma·tion
ˌmisinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
false or inaccurate information,
"the study is wrong because it is funded by George Soros"
This is false (ad hominem logical fallacy), provably so.
Copy and paste some more it’s working well for you. I think lots of people are reading your links and having an in depth discussion about them right now. The rest of us just can’t see them but you can in your reality.
ad hominem is all you’re going to get, it’s ST (known cesspool) and you haven’t even tried to make an interesting argument, or much of one at all. What do you want me to do, say I enjoyed your Soros peddled garbage? Both sides weaponised information and always have. This isn’t new contrary to pppular belief. News has always been partially fake partially real.
For 's and giggles ask him to explain how David Brock funded CREW is non-partisan.
and if your determination of whether it is real is solely based on "who said it" rather than "what evidence are they relying on" then you have a warped view of reality, and are the whole "reality is totally subjective" bull is you projecting that on the rest of the world
this thread has taken a very unexpected postmodern turn (unwittingly, most likely)
lol david "sucks " brock
did you clap when djt went through his bullet points in his SOTU or did you shoot the messenger?
depends if i agreed with them or not
actual stat proved bullet points and not future endeavors is what i am talking about. it's all about the hate and only the hate with the leftists in office.
what bullet points are you referring to, specifically
Deranged Right Wing Fringe Playbook:
1) believe any ridiculous theory that pops up in any corner of the internet
2) brand skeptics as MSM soros shills
3) drivel drivel drivel
I don't know MSM is anymore. I really don't.
If you take away WSJ, NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, Der Spiegel that's not easily replaced for me. That's 4 left leaning papers and 1 right IMO. But I can't get any input back on these from our conservative leaning board members. Especially the nutty ones. Hater (who I have no idea how to categorize) has the NYT as an arm of the CIA... Can't get anything back from him after nuclear bombing his RT news. Now... The silence is deafening from the right mostly.
Other more specialized, like The Economist and Foreign Affairs, are good but don't really have their own staff on the ground in many countries. More analysis than cold hard reporting. Much heavier as well.
I also think it's good to be self critical or even joust with the other papers if they legitimately screw up.
let's just take for instance lower numbers for unemployed minorities specifically blacks. did you see any stand and applaud record lows in that department? sad.
the one thing that really bummed me out was how unpatriotic those on the left were when the flag, the anthem, and this nation was mentioned. like kids in middle school/high school who think they're hot shots by sitting down during the anthem every morning.
Deranged 21 Playbook:
1.) Make up imaginary enemies.
2.) Conflate them with people you don't like.
3.) Tar and feather appropriately.
4.) Ignore facts.
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Reuters, NBC, Politico are generally reliable imo. as always with breaking stories, helps to remain guarded in case of a correction/retraction. when it comes to those bigger stories, its just best to look for corroboration all over the place rather than trusting just once outlet's reporting. that's how you avoid falling into the trap like the ABC news guy who reported that false stuff about trump instructing flynn to lie, etc.
i do find it funny that posters here like to on WaPo and NYT and yet often times cite to WaPo/NYT articles to make their points when there's a story they like (uranium one, most notably)
other places like CNN/MSCBC/Fox... basically cable news outlets with an online presence, just tend to be sensational more than anything, so it usually requires much more careful reading than the other places.
and then you have the complete nutterboxes like conservativetreehouse, breitbart, dailykos, motherjones, naturalnews, etc
dont think i've ever stood or applauded at anything on TV outside of sports tbh, so no, i didnt stand or applaud.
i'm also aware of the statistics regarding black unemployment figures, and the downward trajectory they've been on for some time now. do i think the continued decrease of the unemployment rate is good? absolutely. am i going to attribute the continuation of a nearly decade-long decline to the sitting POTUS who had been there for 1 year? nah, probably not
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006
i mean go back further. it seems really disingenuous to credit the guy for who sat there for 1 year
Well the left is so busy redefining themselves even their gender that it's hard to pin down anything. Soon as you can prove they're doing it they pretend like it's not them. There are like 20 different parties on the left it seems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
