toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
I was watching a news program on TV earlier and I saw another example of the latest ploy used against Trump again in my opinion! It made me wonder: how do these reporters say this stuff with a straight face without questioning the obvious flaw of their own statements?
IT GOES LIKE THIS:
Trump made a remark about something and the reporter follows it up with the claim that what Trump said has been disproven as PATENTLY FALSE (thereby supporting the claim that Trump is a LIAR); but they don't actually play any video letting you hear what Trump really said. Then the reporter follows it up with the claim that some republican in the GOP has said that Trump's statement isn't true. In this case, a republican who was standing right behind Trump when he said it! You know--- position is everything.
Wait a minute--- am I the only person seeing the flaw in this argument? Two things:
The fact of the matter is that nothing has been disproven. You have two people making two different statements. This is no argument or basis to say that one disproves the other. In fact, if anything, on the very merit of being a former PRESIDENT, Trump carries more intrinsic credibility as the top person in the government to KNOW. So before you can say Trump's statement is baseless and disproven, you need a THIRD source of credible (higher?) authority to back up the credibility of the person making the statement.
This is the fatal fallacy in most attacks against Trump used this way (that never get examined in the press): they use an impeachable source against him whose only merit in their eyes is that HE IS A REPUBLICAN, so must be right and believed, ONLY BECAUSE HE IS DISPUTING TRUMP, without actually qualifying neither the person making the claim nor the merits of his dispute.
IT GOES LIKE THIS:
Trump made a remark about something and the reporter follows it up with the claim that what Trump said has been disproven as PATENTLY FALSE (thereby supporting the claim that Trump is a LIAR); but they don't actually play any video letting you hear what Trump really said. Then the reporter follows it up with the claim that some republican in the GOP has said that Trump's statement isn't true. In this case, a republican who was standing right behind Trump when he said it! You know--- position is everything.
Wait a minute--- am I the only person seeing the flaw in this argument? Two things:
- To the left, the GOP are wrong about everything and never to be believed. The ONLY time they quote or use or support any republican is when one of them speaks out against Trump! And that raises the question: who was that person, what is their history, have they been paid, do they have an agenda, and what is their expertise in the matter? It would seem you would need to qualify a person before you can use them as your "proof" that another person is wrong, but they never do!
- The other problem is that the argument is based on: TWO people said two different claims, one an unknown minor figure you never heard of before and the other a former president! So what makes the one more credible than the other? If some minor figure in the DNC disputed a claim by Biden, would the media be all jumping in the air claiming that Biden had lied and his remark baseless and disproven because some minor, unknown figure in the party disagreed with him? No.
The fact of the matter is that nothing has been disproven. You have two people making two different statements. This is no argument or basis to say that one disproves the other. In fact, if anything, on the very merit of being a former PRESIDENT, Trump carries more intrinsic credibility as the top person in the government to KNOW. So before you can say Trump's statement is baseless and disproven, you need a THIRD source of credible (higher?) authority to back up the credibility of the person making the statement.
This is the fatal fallacy in most attacks against Trump used this way (that never get examined in the press): they use an impeachable source against him whose only merit in their eyes is that HE IS A REPUBLICAN, so must be right and believed, ONLY BECAUSE HE IS DISPUTING TRUMP, without actually qualifying neither the person making the claim nor the merits of his dispute.
