CDZ I am sorry it just does not work that way

[CHSeeman]

there is a basic truth argument and that is if you want someone to accept your proof and change his or her mind about something you need to have a reputation where you are trusted.

so know we have the Wahington Post (besides others) trying to convince those people that think Trump dd the right thing by pulling out of the Iran deal to reconsider our position and we are suppose to reconsider our opinion because they (the Washington Post) writes a so -called (by them) truthful and fact checked article on why the Iran deal was good. The problem with the position of the Washington Post (and many other sources) is that they have been caught in numerous (I mean lots and lots) of lies. So in reading their so-called fact based article I keep asking myself well they said that such and such was fact based and that turned out to be untrue.

sources like the Washington Post can not have it both ways: If you consistantly lie then I am not going to believe you.

this logic has also escaped James Comey who told us that he had performed a legimate investigation of Hilliaary Clintons e mail and it is his considered professional opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would try this case. Yet we found out all kinds of mistakes or errors that comey made including failing to interview Hiliary before writing his opinion. So now Comey wants us to believe him,.. Sorry Jim it does not work that way

 

[Toronado3800]

there is a basic truth argument and that is if you want someone to accept your proof and change his or her mind about something you need to have a reputation where you are trusted.

so know we have the Wahington Post (besides others) trying to convince those people that think Trump dd the right thing by pulling out of the Iran deal to reconsider our position and we are suppose to reconsider our opinion because they (the Washington Post) writes a so -called (by them) truthful and fact checked article on why the Iran deal was good. The problem with the position of the Washington Post (and many other sources) is that they have been caught in numerous (I mean lots and lots) of lies. So in reading their so-called fact based article I keep asking myself well they said that such and such was fact based and that turned out to be untrue.

sources like the Washington Post can not have it both ways: If you consistantly lie then I am not going to believe you.

this logic has also escaped James Comey who told us that he had performed a legimate investigation of Hilliaary Clintons e mail and it is his considered professional opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would try this case. Yet we found out all kinds of mistakes or errors that comey made including failing to interview Hiliary before writing his opinion. So now Comey wants us to believe him,.. Sorry Jim it does not work that way

If you want news, where do you turn? In some ways we need to compare and settle on folks who can get on base only 3 out of 10 times.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Leaving the Iran accord was reckless and irresponsible; Trump was motivated solely by his unwarranted hatred of Obama, not the merits of the accord.

 

[jwoodie]

If you want news, where do you turn? In some ways we need to compare and settle on folks who can get on base only 3 out of 10 times.

The only way to discern fact from fiction is to listen to a broad spectrum of news sources and compare their reports. If all sources agree on certain facts, they are more likely to be true (this also applies to their deliberate omission). I do not place much value on the opinions of journalists, who are notoriously ignorant in terms of general knowledge and logical analysis. However, the more vicious and personal the attacks on them are, the more credible their opinions become. Trust none; verify all.

 

[task0778]

Part of the problem lies in the fact that many of us do not have the time to watch or read different sources of information and opinions, so we tend to have favorites that we use to find out WTH is going on. And of course most sources have some bias, some more slanted than others and so you have to be aware that what you hear may or may not be the whole story. So you take it in with a grain of salt so to speak, and if you have the time and the inclination you can google it and get a number of different POVs. But as I say, too many of us don't bother, if Oprah said it then it's gotta be true. Or whoever it is you pay attention to these days.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Leaving the Iran accord was reckless and irresponsible; Trump was motivated solely by his unwarranted hatred of Obama, not the merits of the accord.

Or are you motivated by your unwarranted hatred of the President and not by the merits of the accord.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Part of the problem lies in the fact that many of us do not have the time to watch or read different sources of information and opinions, so we tend to have favorites that we use to find out WTH is going on. And of course most sources have some bias, some more slanted than others and so you have to be aware that what you hear may or may not be the whole story. So you take it in with a grain of salt so to speak, and if you have the time and the inclination you can google it and get a number of different POVs. But as I say, too many of us don't bother, if Oprah said it then it's gotta be true. Or whoever it is you pay attention to these days.

Alternatively, you can try to think for yourself.

 

[BlackFlag]

there is a basic truth argument and that is if you want someone to accept your proof and change his or her mind about something you need to have a reputation where you are trusted.

so know we have the Wahington Post (besides others) trying to convince those people that think Trump dd the right thing by pulling out of the Iran deal to reconsider our position and we are suppose to reconsider our opinion because they (the Washington Post) writes a so -called (by them) truthful and fact checked article on why the Iran deal was good. The problem with the position of the Washington Post (and many other sources) is that they have been caught in numerous (I mean lots and lots) of lies. So in reading their so-called fact based article I keep asking myself well they said that such and such was fact based and that turned out to be untrue.

sources like the Washington Post can not have it both ways: If you consistantly lie then I am not going to believe you.

this logic has also escaped James Comey who told us that he had performed a legimate investigation of Hilliaary Clintons e mail and it is his considered professional opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would try this case. Yet we found out all kinds of mistakes or errors that comey made including failing to interview Hiliary before writing his opinion. So now Comey wants us to believe him,.. Sorry Jim it does not work that way

But you trust Trump?

 

[toomuchtime_]

there is a basic truth argument and that is if you want someone to accept your proof and change his or her mind about something you need to have a reputation where you are trusted.

so know we have the Wahington Post (besides others) trying to convince those people that think Trump dd the right thing by pulling out of the Iran deal to reconsider our position and we are suppose to reconsider our opinion because they (the Washington Post) writes a so -called (by them) truthful and fact checked article on why the Iran deal was good. The problem with the position of the Washington Post (and many other sources) is that they have been caught in numerous (I mean lots and lots) of lies. So in reading their so-called fact based article I keep asking myself well they said that such and such was fact based and that turned out to be untrue.

sources like the Washington Post can not have it both ways: If you consistantly lie then I am not going to believe you.

this logic has also escaped James Comey who told us that he had performed a legimate investigation of Hilliaary Clintons e mail and it is his considered professional opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would try this case. Yet we found out all kinds of mistakes or errors that comey made including failing to interview Hiliary before writing his opinion. So now Comey wants us to believe him,.. Sorry Jim it does not work that way

But you trust Trump?

I trust the President to do what he says he will do, and after yesterday, so should you.

 

[BlackFlag]

there is a basic truth argument and that is if you want someone to accept your proof and change his or her mind about something you need to have a reputation where you are trusted.

so know we have the Wahington Post (besides others) trying to convince those people that think Trump dd the right thing by pulling out of the Iran deal to reconsider our position and we are suppose to reconsider our opinion because they (the Washington Post) writes a so -called (by them) truthful and fact checked article on why the Iran deal was good. The problem with the position of the Washington Post (and many other sources) is that they have been caught in numerous (I mean lots and lots) of lies. So in reading their so-called fact based article I keep asking myself well they said that such and such was fact based and that turned out to be untrue.

sources like the Washington Post can not have it both ways: If you consistantly lie then I am not going to believe you.

this logic has also escaped James Comey who told us that he had performed a legimate investigation of Hilliaary Clintons e mail and it is his considered professional opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would try this case. Yet we found out all kinds of mistakes or errors that comey made including failing to interview Hiliary before writing his opinion. So now Comey wants us to believe him,.. Sorry Jim it does not work that way

But you trust Trump?

I trust the President to do what he says he will do, and after yesterday, so should you.

Trump is dishonorable scum. You can keep him.

 

[jwoodie]

But you trust Trump?

Excellent illustration of the OP's point: You will oppose Trump regardless empirical evidence or rational analysis to the contrary.

 

[BlackFlag]

But you trust Trump?

Excellent illustration of the OP's point: You will oppose Trump regardless empirical evidence or rational analysis to the contrary.

Trump feeds off of the worst this country has to offer. He is a proud liar. Example: as a tactic to win, he convinced voters that Ted Cruz was an illegal immigrant. That’s among the least of his lies. He does not deserve any trust.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

there is a basic truth argument and that is if you want someone to accept your proof and change his or her mind about something you need to have a reputation where you are trusted.

so know we have the Wahington Post (besides others) trying to convince those people that think Trump dd the right thing by pulling out of the Iran deal to reconsider our position and we are suppose to reconsider our opinion because they (the Washington Post) writes a so -called (by them) truthful and fact checked article on why the Iran deal was good. The problem with the position of the Washington Post (and many other sources) is that they have been caught in numerous (I mean lots and lots) of lies. So in reading their so-called fact based article I keep asking myself well they said that such and such was fact based and that turned out to be untrue.

sources like the Washington Post can not have it both ways: If you consistantly lie then I am not going to believe you.

this logic has also escaped James Comey who told us that he had performed a legimate investigation of Hilliaary Clintons e mail and it is his considered professional opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would try this case. Yet we found out all kinds of mistakes or errors that comey made including failing to interview Hiliary before writing his opinion. So now Comey wants us to believe him,.. Sorry Jim it does not work that way

The problem is that many people do remember what happened in the past and if you lie, misspeak, fact errors, misinformed misspoke we remember. Every time you do this we lose faith in the point you make until we just don't listen anymore.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

there is a basic truth argument and that is if you want someone to accept your proof and change his or her mind about something you need to have a reputation where you are trusted.

so know we have the Wahington Post (besides others) trying to convince those people that think Trump dd the right thing by pulling out of the Iran deal to reconsider our position and we are suppose to reconsider our opinion because they (the Washington Post) writes a so -called (by them) truthful and fact checked article on why the Iran deal was good. The problem with the position of the Washington Post (and many other sources) is that they have been caught in numerous (I mean lots and lots) of lies. So in reading their so-called fact based article I keep asking myself well they said that such and such was fact based and that turned out to be untrue.

sources like the Washington Post can not have it both ways: If you consistantly lie then I am not going to believe you.

this logic has also escaped James Comey who told us that he had performed a legimate investigation of Hilliaary Clintons e mail and it is his considered professional opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would try this case. Yet we found out all kinds of mistakes or errors that comey made including failing to interview Hiliary before writing his opinion. So now Comey wants us to believe him,.. Sorry Jim it does not work that way

The problem is that many people do remember what happened in the past and if you lie, misspeak, fact errors, misinformed misspoke we remember. Every time you do this we lose faith in the point you make until we just don't listen anymore.

I do not trust people who speak in the plural. As in you speak only for yourself...not for anyone else.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

there is a basic truth argument and that is if you want someone to accept your proof and change his or her mind about something you need to have a reputation where you are trusted.

so know we have the Wahington Post (besides others) trying to convince those people that think Trump dd the right thing by pulling out of the Iran deal to reconsider our position and we are suppose to reconsider our opinion because they (the Washington Post) writes a so -called (by them) truthful and fact checked article on why the Iran deal was good. The problem with the position of the Washington Post (and many other sources) is that they have been caught in numerous (I mean lots and lots) of lies. So in reading their so-called fact based article I keep asking myself well they said that such and such was fact based and that turned out to be untrue.

sources like the Washington Post can not have it both ways: If you consistantly lie then I am not going to believe you.

this logic has also escaped James Comey who told us that he had performed a legimate investigation of Hilliaary Clintons e mail and it is his considered professional opinion that no reasonable prosecutor would try this case. Yet we found out all kinds of mistakes or errors that comey made including failing to interview Hiliary before writing his opinion. So now Comey wants us to believe him,.. Sorry Jim it does not work that way

How dare you let the words "truth" and "logic" pass your lips. A logical person does not "accept proof" on the basis of trust. The lamentable irony of your thread title is cringe-worthy.

And proofread your work for spelling and grammar. This looks like it was written by a junior high school student hurrying to catch a bus.

 

[miketx]

Leaving the Iran accord was reckless and irresponsible; Trump was motivated solely by his unwarranted hatred of Obama, not the merits of the accord.

lol, Obama giving Iran the green light for nukes is insane, just like all libs.

 

[Dragonlady]

Leaving the Iran accord was reckless and irresponsible; Trump was motivated solely by his unwarranted hatred of Obama, not the merits of the accord.

lol, Obama giving Iran the green light for nukes is insane, just like all libs.

The deal did NOT give the Iranians the green light for nukes. It did the opposite.

Trump just gave the Iranians the green light for nukes by pulling out of the agreement.

 

[miketx]

Leaving the Iran accord was reckless and irresponsible; Trump was motivated solely by his unwarranted hatred of Obama, not the merits of the accord.

lol, Obama giving Iran the green light for nukes is insane, just like all libs.

The deal did NOT give the Iranians the green light for nukes. It did the opposite.

Trump just gave the Iranians the green light for nukes by pulling out of the agreement.

Goebbels never goes away.

 

[oldsoul]

A logical person does not "accept proof" on the basis of trust.

Not so fast. Have you personally verified every single thing you accept as fact? For example, do you accept as fact that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence? Did you personally witness it? Have you so much as studied the signatures on the declaration, and compared his to other verified signatures?

There are times that even a logical person MUST accept things based on trust. That trust can, and should, be placed on multiple CREDIBLE sources, but it is trust nonetheless.

If a person were to only accept as fact things that they can personally attest to (aka they witnessed them), then that person would, indeed, accept very little as fact. The truth, and facts of a matter can be ascertained with great credibility if one uses multiple credible sources, and considers all reasonable alternatives, thus arriving at what is, most likely, the truth, and fact.

On the other hand, if a person only accepted as fact those things they personally witnessed, then there would be no point in studying history, current events, science (that they have not personally verified), etc. We take much of what we "know" on trust, or faith. What we read/watch in the news is no different.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

A logical person does not "accept proof" on the basis of trust.

Not so fast. Have you personally verified every single thing you accept as fact? For example, do you accept as fact that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence? Did you personally witness it? Have you so much as studied the signatures on the declaration, and compared his to other verified signatures?

There are times that even a logical person MUST accept things based on trust. That trust can, and should, be placed on multiple CREDIBLE sources, but it is trust nonetheless.

If a person were to only accept as fact things that they can personally attest to (aka they witnessed them), then that person would, indeed, accept very little as fact. The truth, and facts of a matter can be ascertained with great credibility if one uses multiple credible sources, and considers all reasonable alternatives, thus arriving at what is, most likely, the truth, and fact.

On the other hand, if a person only accepted as fact those things they personally witnessed, then there would be no point in studying history, current events, science (that they have not personally verified), etc. We take much of what we "know" on trust, or faith. What we read/watch in the news is no different.

I understand what you’re saying, and agree in spirit. However, trust can never provide proof. If you put a gun to my head and asked “Did Abraham Lincoln exist as a living human being?” I would say “I don’t know.”

However, it’s useful to take it on reasonable faith that he did, as it contributes to building a worldview that conforms with my perception, and conclusions born of logical deduction.

In reality, we know only our experience, and nothing inferred from that experience. I see a tree - this is true. There IS a tree - I’m not able to say (if what’s meant is a tree existing independent of my perception).

We use the word “knowledge” a bit loosely to include reasonable, though less-than-certain information. Seeing a tree is not proof that it exists independent of me, but for the sake of not having to qualify everything I say with this acknowledgement, I choose to allow subjective perception (and consensus) to count as “knowledge” in practical terms; and this seems to work quite well.

If 10 people look over and 9 or 10 of them see the tree, we allow ourselves the assumption that it objectively exists, so as not to stifle ourselves due to our inherent subjective limitation. But trust is never proof, only reasonable faith, and not even that when it regards second-hand information coming from a manipulated source with a conflict of interests like the news media.