So let's say the Trump campaign did talk to Russians...
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
No, my good sir, you misunderstood the point of my comment. Please allow me to clarify.
There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority. It was considered a perfectly legitimate debating technique. Otherwise we would not have been taught to employ it. But it was thought to be a "Plan B," a fallback plan when you could see your argument was falling on deaf ears. Kind of "if you don't believe me you will have to believe this guy. He's an expert! He knows what he's talking about!"
Most debate judges in high school are parents of kids on the debate team. Most of them do not know the first thing about how to judge. They would listen to what you had to say, nod knowingly, and then pick a winner. The appeal to authority would work as often as not. But a particularly perceptive judge might notice that you had abandoned your personal appeal. And they might perceive it as an acknowledged weakness in the case you had prepared. Even then it oftentimes worked because the judge agreed with the authority.
In this chat room I see the "authority card" played quite often. I'd use it, too, if I knew how to show a link. I just recognize that more often than not the fallback to authority comes when a participant has run out of his own ideas.
So, don't for one minute conclude I resist an argument put forth by an authority. If it's an authority I believe is being objective. And that's where I have a problem with many of the links that are put forth as proof of the certitude of an argument. Almost every website displays a bias. The bias is usually as clear as the nose on your face. But, of course, the person linking it is so blinded by his loyalty he doesn't see it. And even if he sees it he is so determined to "win" the point he will deny the bias until he is blue in the face.
That's kind of what I watched you do last night. Poor Medic put up example after example of "authorities" showing bias on snopes. And you rejected every one of them with a suercilious, perfunctory, nose-in-the-air attitude that must have driven him up the wall.
I mean this to be funny, not insulting, but I thought of this last night before I went to bed. Your attitude reminded me of the clown at the dunk tank at the State Fair. He sits in his chair hurling insults at contestants as they timidly fire baseballs at the bullseye, hoping to drop him in the water. And every so often someone lucks out, hits the target and down he goes! The crowd cheers wildly. But the clown calmly repositions his seat, climbs back aboard, and nonchalantly announces: "High and Dry, I'm high and dry." Like it never even happened.
Anyway, for what it's worth I believe you in your recognition of bias on websites, et al. And your basis for accepting them or rejecting them strikes me as appropriate.
And with that I bid you goodnight!
Strangely enough you got this part wrong... I actually agreed with two of Medics suggestions and appreciate his willingness to share relevant examples... As to the clown in the dunk tank - there are times I put on my big floppy shoes and try to incite the crowd. This was not one of those occassions.
I've seen davidallen post for a while now, and it's fairly predictable when he draws his line in the sand. That's when he does his best looking down his nose at us peasants schtick. I find humor in it and enjoy the feisty side of him. I was actually surprised he read the links I posted and actually took the time to offer his rebuttals etc. davidallen is a great poster but jumps on some of the strangest grenades. Something I suppose we all do from time to time if I'm keeping it real. When he's being sincere and non-partisan, he offers up some awesome stuff.
Who really gives a rats ass if Snopes is biased. They have some like all of the other sites do. More or less? Don't know and don't care. Never been a reader myself. Now you start blasting Fox News and I'm all up in it.
I love the floppy shoes david. I haven't looked at anything on Snopes in years. I still think of them as the urban legend killers. I'm going to give them a look when I get a chance to see what the fuss is about. I'm dubious about any "fact checkers" because I don't know what's behind the curtain especially when it comes to political and health stuff.
I think Wikipedia has done a reasonable job of the community contributed and moderated content thing. Jimmy Wales is a bit of a prick but perhaps he could apply the model to fact checking as well.
You talking Wikinews? Or something else? Community contributed and moderated interests me.
WikiFacts or some such... and add a status "Depends on your perspective" and then delineate the part of the claim that is subjective.
A hot porn star or a nasty looking porn star? You tell us this and you don't post a pic? You kinda suck!
(And I'm not talking some x rated picture, but come on, man!)
Google Elyssa Young pornstar for additional, but probably not from work. Looks like she's an escort or was one.
Google Elyssa Young pornstar for additional, but probably not from work. Looks like she's an escort or was one.
Oh. Thanks. Sorta. I've seen enough.
LOL. After reading her escort bio and info about her persona, David Mikkelson is definitely a cuck/submissive.
Google Elyssa Young pornstar for additional, but probably not from work. Looks like she's an escort or was one.
Liberal loosers.
