What's it called when you cite a source to prove that source again?

[Pedro de San Patricio]

"Has anyone watched the videos at the White House?" "Somebody probably has."
"How did you find out that the videos are fraudulent?" "Planned Parenthood said so."
"So basically you just accepted their side of the story uncritically?" "They'll tell you what really happened if you ask them."
"Has Planned Parenthood contacted the White House about the videos?" "Dunno, but probably."

 

[g5000]

Bald assertion. Ipse dixit.

Circular reasoning.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most on the right have gone full-blown ridiculous trying to propagate this lie.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

We showed you undercover videos of PP sales reps talking shop with sting operatives. You dismissed it as manipulative, fraudulent, and a hoax. It was terrible that they did it and didn't even happen anyway.
I just showed you a clip of a White House spokesman saying that the videos are fraudulent because Planned Parenthood said so. You dismissed it as a full-blown ridiculous lie.

At this point I could walk you into their lab and you'd tell me that they're justified in harvesting organs because the baby's dead, that they're harvesting tissues from a fetus, that they're merely harvesting research samples from organic material that was never alive in the first place, and that there's not even anyone there and I'm insane. It's pretty obvious you're in full damage control mode right now...

 

[konradv]

Like using the Bible to prove creationism?

 

[Blackrook]

Like using the Bible to prove creationism?

What a total retard thing to say.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Like using the Bible to prove creationism?

Yeah basically.

(Pst. I'm an atheist. Totally don't believe in any book or god. Still pro-life.)