Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
A legitimate source is anyone who tells a leftist journalist what they want to hear
Oh! You're unimpressed...Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
A legitimate source is anyone who tells a leftist journalist what they want to hear
Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.
What a dumb ass
Oh! You're unimpressed...Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
A legitimate source is anyone who tells a leftist journalist what they want to hear
Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.
What a dumb ass
I think that you stupidly missed the point. You think that "right wing" was the most important part of what I had to say to you. It wasn't. It was hack. I don't care if you are Right, Left, or center. Once you have been revealed as a hack, your views, opinions, observations, and comments are irrelevant, and meaningless because you're...well...a hack. "Liberals" are guilty of every offence, while "conservatives" never do anything that isn't praiseworthy. Rather like your asinine comment about liberal dismissals of "perfectly valid" sources. Like you have never just dismissed a source outright. Pfft. You, sir, are a buffoon. That is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact.Oh! You're unimpressed...Oh that's rich. Like right wing hacks like yourself never just dismiss a source out of hand.I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
A legitimate source is anyone who tells a leftist journalist what they want to hear
Hours of your racking your brains for the perfect insult has paid off. I'm a "right wing." Damn that's good. An insult every other liberal comes up with to show your extreme intelligence. Well played, my friend. Well played.
What a dumb ass
Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?
I think that you stupidly missed the point. You think that "right wing" was the most important part of what I had to say to you. It wasn't. It was hack. I don't care if you are Right, Left, or center. Once you have been revealed as a hack, your views, opinions, observations, and comments are irrelevant, and meaningless because you're...well...a hack. "Liberals" are guilty of every offence, while "conservatives" never do anything that isn't praiseworthy. Rather like your asinine comment about liberal dismissals of "perfectly valid" sources. Like you have never just dismissed a source outright. Pfft. You, sir, are a buffoon. That is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact.
Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?
You miss the point. After having done so with a particular source over...and over....and over...and over again, it is simply accepted that the source is generally dishonest, disingenuous, and untrustworthy. Thus, when it is seen used as a source for some opinion, observation, or refutation of a point, it is simply dismissed, as the source has a track record of being unreliable because of its agenda.Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:
a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.
My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?
Deal with the message....not the messenger.
This is a current headline from WND:
Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.
In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.
In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.
Sooooo.....
...where is the problem with proving the refutation??????....
...as you just did.
Off hand, I can't think of a single time I've refused to confront a post and used the source as though it was dispositive for my point.
One can certainly state what they believe the problem with the source is....but must still show it is incorrect.
Or else.....the source is to be believed.
In other words, one would be remiss to wait for the NYTimes to provide the proof that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and an inveterate racist.
He is.
Both.
Oh look. It's the Peewee Herman response:I think that you stupidly missed the point. You think that "right wing" was the most important part of what I had to say to you. It wasn't. It was hack. I don't care if you are Right, Left, or center. Once you have been revealed as a hack, your views, opinions, observations, and comments are irrelevant, and meaningless because you're...well...a hack. "Liberals" are guilty of every offence, while "conservatives" never do anything that isn't praiseworthy. Rather like your asinine comment about liberal dismissals of "perfectly valid" sources. Like you have never just dismissed a source outright. Pfft. You, sir, are a buffoon. That is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact.
Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?
Here is another simple,statement of fact: you're a hack.....
Funny how you can't even get over your Obamas newly lowered bar on ignorance...
Oh look. It's the Peewee Herman response:I think that you stupidly missed the point. You think that "right wing" was the most important part of what I had to say to you. It wasn't. It was hack. I don't care if you are Right, Left, or center. Once you have been revealed as a hack, your views, opinions, observations, and comments are irrelevant, and meaningless because you're...well...a hack. "Liberals" are guilty of every offence, while "conservatives" never do anything that isn't praiseworthy. Rather like your asinine comment about liberal dismissals of "perfectly valid" sources. Like you have never just dismissed a source outright. Pfft. You, sir, are a buffoon. That is not an insult. It is a simple statement of fact.
Why do you suppose that the right usually grasps what libertarians are and leftists almost never do. I'm thinking it's that they are smarter than you are. Anyone not a liberal is a "right winger." You're just that stupid. What do you think?
Here is another simple,statement of fact: you're a hack.....
Funny how you can't even get over your Obamas newly lowered bar on ignorance...
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Why don't you just toddle on off to the corner, and play with yourself. Grown ups are trying to talk here.
Last week a poster linked an article that was titled "Sicko Dyke......" Can't remember the website. I'm going to consider that type of opinionated language as a "clue" the information is either unreliable or has been twisted so severely it no longer resembles the original facts. It was not written as an opinion piece, but as a 'news' article. I suppose some will say I'm just invoking P.C., though.
I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:
a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.
My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?
Deal with the message....not the messenger.
You miss the point. After having done so with a particular source over...and over....and over...and over again, it is simply accepted that the source is generally dishonest, disingenuous, and untrustworthy. Thus, when it is seen used as a source for some opinion, observation, or refutation of a point, it is simply dismissed, as the source has a track record of being unreliable because of its agenda.Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:
a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.
My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?
Deal with the message....not the messenger.
This is a current headline from WND:
Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.
In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.
In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.
Sooooo.....
...where is the problem with proving the refutation??????....
...as you just did.
Off hand, I can't think of a single time I've refused to confront a post and used the source as though it was dispositive for my point.
One can certainly state what they believe the problem with the source is....but must still show it is incorrect.
Or else.....the source is to be believed.
In other words, one would be remiss to wait for the NYTimes to provide the proof that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and an inveterate racist.
He is.
Both.
Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:
a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.
My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?
Deal with the message....not the messenger.
This is a current headline from WND:
Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.
In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.
In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.
Sooooo.....
...where is the problem with proving the refutation??????....
...as you just did.
Off hand, I can't think of a single time I've refused to confront a post and used the source as though it was dispositive for my point.
One can certainly state what they believe the problem with the source is....but must still show it is incorrect.
Or else.....the source is to be believed.
In other words, one would be remiss to wait for the NYTimes to provide the proof that Bill Clinton is a rapist, and an inveterate racist.
He is.
Both.
Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:
a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.
My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?
Deal with the message....not the messenger.
This is a current headline from WND:
Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.
In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.
In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.
Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:
a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.
My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?
Deal with the message....not the messenger.
This is a current headline from WND:
Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.
In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.
In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.
Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:
a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.
My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?
Deal with the message....not the messenger.
This is a current headline from WND:
Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.
In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.
In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.
Okay. I didn't mean for this to digress into this area, exactly, but, okay. We're here. The problem with many of those "right thinking" sources you are referring to is that they are inherently disingenuous in how they present their material. Allow me an illustrative example:I have a question about the dismissal of sources. Now, let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that "Addicting Info", "Mother Jones", "PoliticusUSA", and similar progressive leaning sites are "bad". On the other hand, if we're going to concede that, then "Brietbart", "Drudge Report", "Judicial Watch", and other right leaning sources are equally bad.
Now, given that premise, there seem to be a plethora of people, on both sides who regularly slam the "Lamestream Media", corporate media, pretty much any traditional news source is "evil", and corrupt:
And that's fine. If you want to discuss a topic, simply bring it in from some alternative news source. The problem is, whenever I, or anyone else tries to do that, with, say, Opposing Views, Blaster News, Examiner, or some similar alternative source, the immediate response, particularly if it is saying something that is uncomfortable for one side, or the other is "Well, all you got is some hack story from some unrealiable source, so it isn't real"
So, my question is this. If information from "legitimate" traditional sources is automatically suspect, merely by the nature of those sources being "corporate owned", and information gleaned from alternative sources is suspect, because it is from a source that has not been vetted by the traditional sources, then just what is considered a reliable source?
1. Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, Drudge, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:
a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.
2. What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:
a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.
My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
3. For example.....
FrontPage, the online Internet magazine has received more than one billion ‘hits.’ It has interviewed leading intellectuals, politicians and human rights activists such as Bat Ye’or, Vladimir Bukovsky, Christopher Hitchens, Khaleel Mohammed, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharanky and Andrew Sullivan. It has therefore had both left, liberal voices (Stanley Aronowitz, Susan Estrich, Michael Lerner) and right-wing voices (Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter, James Woolsey).
To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity. Or even efficacy: since the perpetrators of 9/11 were of the Arabic persuasion, should we forswear the use of Arabic numerals?
Deal with the message....not the messenger.
This is a current headline from WND:
Huma Abedin admits Clinton destroyed State records implying that Clinton destroyed documents to hide something from the public.
In reality, if you read the story, what she actually said was:
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that … that certainly happened on … on more than one occasion,” Abedin said to lawyers for Judicial Watch, the nonprofit that’s taking the lead in suing over the Clinton email server scandal, the New York Post reported.
In other words, she never, in any way, suggested that Clinton was trying to destroy documents to hide evidence, or information. She was only removing duplicate documents that were unnecessary. which is perfectly innocuous. So, you can see how the headline was sensationalised, at best, disingenuous, at worst. And a vast majority of the articles coming out of that particular website are like that. The same is true of Drudge. So, many of us have just learned to be dismissive of either of those sources as unreliable, on principle.
