Are we safer now than in 2001?

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by R-Type

in which case the admins should just shut this site down as we have all already 'lost.' NONE of us are privy to any real information on most of the subjects debated here. After all, the general consensus is that the media is not to be trusted and that's what's usually quoted as source. At best, we have a few who are in the armed services and even they are only shown a fraction of the picture and are under assumed orders not to reveal any 'classified' information. Can you guess what information might be classified? Right, any information that might lead someone to make informed deductions.

The fact you're calling him 'pro-terrorist' shows YOUR bias. Stupid name calling doesn't prove anything.

Since all media can't be trusted, that's even more a reason to not use the credibility fallacy and just debate the info, is it not?

Everybody's biased to some degree. I hate racism. That's bias. I hate partisan politics to no end and this board is rife with it. That's also bias,.

So what?

If you can't beat it, join it.

[Diamond Cross]

Also NBC has manufactured stories in the past. Remember the tire recall? They siad that a tire was dangerous to a certain SUV and could cause it to crash. Instead, it turns out they were creating the crashes themselves.

So if WND makes up stories, and NBC makes up stories, then niether of them have any credibility.

Neither Does CBS for using faulty information a few years ago, when Dan Rather blamed it on the Republicans.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Since all media can't be trusted, that's even more a reason to not use the credibility fallacy and just debate the info, is it not?

why post something from a rag like WND? without credibility, there's no point in debate. I could create a totally fake news site, post 'fake' articles I wrote myself, and then use them as 'proof' for debates here. Would that suit you? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Everybody's biased to some degree. I hate racism. That's bias. I hate partisan politics to no end and this board is rife with it.

I agree, and it's getting worse.

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So what?

If you can't beat it, join it.

Unless I'm missing something here, (possible) I think you're running in contradicting, recursive loops.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by R-Type

why post something from a rag like WND? without credibility, there's no point in debate. I could create a totally fake news site, post 'fake' articles I wrote myself, and then use them as 'proof' for debates here. Would that suit you? I doubt it.

I agree, and it's getting worse.

Unless I'm missing something here, (possible) I think you're running in contradicting, recursive loops.

I personally usually don't look at credibility as an issue because the general sense is that once credibility is ruined, that means all information is ruined. In my mind that is not neccessarily so, because if we were to take that conclusion and apply it as a regular basis, then science and evolution would be completely discredited because of Piltdown man, for example. Every single field of science has some hoax or questionable data to it, and the extreme version of that means no science is ever credible ever and all information is wrong. Pi is not 3,14159, the Statue of Liberty could never be built, so on and so forth.

The same thing for the news. Every major news agency probably has at least one hoax in its history, or if not a hoax then something dubious. I don't know about ABC because I haven't done the research yet nor have watched it it all since I don't watch the news media.

So, since all information is not reliable, how else are we going to get at the ehart of the matter and where else can we get real info?

There is nowhere we can go under the axiom of "If the souce is non credible, then the information is non-reliable or wrong".

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I personally usually don't look at credibility as an issue because the general sense is that once credibility is ruined, that means all information is ruined. In my mind that is not neccessarily so, because if we were to take that conclusion and apply it as a regular basis, then science and evolution would be completely discredited because of Piltdown man, for example. Every single field of science has some hoax or questionable data to it, and the extreme version of that means no science is ever credible ever and all information is wrong. Pi is not 3,14159, the Statue of Liberty could never be built, so on and so forth.

The same thing for the news. Every major news agency probably has at least one hoax in its history, or if not a hoax then something dubious. I don't know about ABC because I haven't done the research yet nor have watched it it all since I don't watch the news media.

So, since all information is not reliable, how else are we going to get at the ehart of the matter and where else can we get real info?

There is nowhere we can go under the axiom of "If the souce is non credible, then the information is non-reliable or wrong".

The Reporter and Author of WorldNetDaily has been explicitly banned from any White House meetings, and furthermore probably even from local press functions because of the bullshit (blatantly false statements) he publishes.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

And I have the same right to make fun of people who have no proof to back their assertions up save only their own personal bias. After all, you only attack conservative newsmedia as being biased an non-credible, so how credible is that?

The info is credible, regardless of what you say. You can't debate it so you have to bring up the fallacy of credibility.

Look I found an article to counter yours.

I'm sure your will consider it and not write it off as being from a non-credible source.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Any al quaeda we are killing in Iraq were not a part of that organization before the invasion.

I guess you have intelligence the rest of us don't have?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I personally usually don't look at credibility as an issue because the general sense is that once credibility is ruined, that means all information is ruined. In my mind that is not neccessarily so, because if we were to take that conclusion and apply it as a regular basis, then science and evolution would be completely discredited because of Piltdown man, for example. Every single field of science has some hoax or questionable data to it, and the extreme version of that means no science is ever credible ever and all information is wrong. Pi is not 3,14159, the Statue of Liberty could never be built, so on and so forth.

So no matter how many times you see someone lie, you will always trust them to tell the truth?

That's just silly and your comparisons trying to defend that site are laughable.

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

There is nowhere we can go under the axiom of "If the souce is non credible, then the information is non-reliable or wrong".

So I could link any crazy conspiracy website and you will consider it credible?

Hello prisonplant.com

I suppose you would believe OJ if he said he didn't kill his wife too, right?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I guess you have intelligence the rest of us don't have?

Actually I realize that is false.

It should be that they weren't AQ, or weren't in iraq.


The foreign influance on the insurgency is very small though. Not many fighting in Iraq aren't from there.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Actually I realize that is false.

It should be that they weren't AQ, or weren't in iraq.


The foreign influance on the insurgency is very small though. Not many fighting in Iraq aren't from there.

Fair enough, although I still take issue with what is small? Roadside bombs that kill 30 to 50 people don't take an army.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So no matter how many times you see someone lie, you will always trust them to tell the truth?

That's just silly and your comparisons trying to defend that site are laughable.


So I could link any crazy conspiracy website and you will consider it credible?

Hello prisonplant.com

I suppose you would believe OJ if he said he didn't kill his wife too, right?

Way to completely miss the point.

According to you, if the source of the information is no t credible in any way shape or form, then all information is false. Which is wrong. Because that means all information is false since there is no such thing as credible sources anywhere. All information is false. No newsmedia can be trusted because there is no credible sources among them and therefore any and all information is false. Since there is no such thing as reliable information, what's the point of discussing anything then or believing anything then?

Never heard of prisonplanet.com. I happen to like conspiracy theories but don't neccessarrily believe in them. There is no real corroborating evidence to support them. That's the subject of another thread entirely.

For example, take moon conspiracy theorists that state it was a hoax. Every one of their theories have been debunked from the wind on the moon to the shadows only come from one source.

He was declared innocent of the crime in a court of law, that's good enough for me. He was tried fairly and there was no evidence to support that he did it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Way to completely miss the point.

According to you, if the source of the information is no t credible in any way shape or form, then all information is false. Which is wrong. Because that means all information is false since there is no such thing as credible sources anywhere. All information is false. No newsmedia can be trusted because there is no credible sources among them and therefore any and all information is false. Since there is no such thing as reliable information, what's the point of discussing anything then or believing anything then?

The author and the site have been repeatedly shown as liars.

If you want to keep on believing them, more power to you.

Don't expect anyone else to go along with your delusions or even give them merit.

edit - my favorite WND article.

WorldNetDaily: Soy is making kids 'gay'

[Diamond Cross]

I am not believing the authors, I am separating the article's information from them, the authors are just messengers, nothing more, something you're incapable of comprehending.

It is a logical fallacy to attack author credibility

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):

attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality:

Turing thinks machines think.
Turing lies with men.
Therefore, machines don't think.

(Note the equivocation in the use of the word "lies".)
A common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?" The two wrongs make a right fallacy is related.
A variation (related to Argument By Generalization) is to attack a whole class of people. For example, "Evolutionary biology is a sinister tool of the materialistic, atheistic religion of Secular Humanism." Similarly, one notorious net.kook waved away a whole category of evidence by announcing "All the scientists were drunk."
Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists tell us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic?"
There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: "In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem."
Sometimes the attack is on intelligence. For example, "If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view." Or, dismissing a comment with "Well, you're just smarter than the rest of us." (In Britain, that might be put as "too clever by half".) This is related to Not Invented Here, but perhaps it is more connected to Dismissal By Differentness and Changing The Subject. Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert. (That is, there is an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I am not believing the authors, I am separating the article's information from them, the authors are just messengers, nothing more, something you're incapable of comprehending.

It is a logical fallacy to attack author credibility

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):

attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality:

Turing thinks machines think.
Turing lies with men.
Therefore, machines don't think.

(Note the equivocation in the use of the word "lies".)
A common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?" The two wrongs make a right fallacy is related.
A variation (related to Argument By Generalization) is to attack a whole class of people. For example, "Evolutionary biology is a sinister tool of the materialistic, atheistic religion of Secular Humanism." Similarly, one notorious net.kook waved away a whole category of evidence by announcing "All the scientists were drunk."
Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists tell us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic?"
There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: "In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem."
Sometimes the attack is on intelligence. For example, "If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view." Or, dismissing a comment with "Well, you're just smarter than the rest of us." (In Britain, that might be put as "too clever by half".) This is related to Not Invented Here, but perhaps it is more connected to Dismissal By Differentness and Changing The Subject. Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter's claim that he's an expert. (That is, there is an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks.

I know what a fucking logical fallacy is. That is not the case here.

If someone lies over and over, it's not ad hominem to call them a liar and ignore whatever dumbass rant they have moved on to, especially when they are in the pocket of people who have the most to gain by their misinformation.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

[/b]Sleeper Cells, by definition, never existed in America. It was just a fantasy.

The guys who did 9/11 were sleeper cells.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The guys who did 9/11 were sleeper cells.

No, you are using this conjecture to say there were "Sleeper Cells" in plural.

These 19 hijackers were simply part of an islamist plot.

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I know what a fucking logical fallacy is. That is not the case here.

If someone lies over and over, it's not ad hominem to call them a liar and ignore whatever dumbass rant they have moved on to, especially when they are in the pocket of people who have the most to gain by their misinformation.

Yes it is the case here. You're just plain wrong.

[avsp]

Does the US have a greater ability to project its will than in 2001?
Are its options, (especially military ones), a lot more limited?

Credibility is a perception issue, so regardless of any eventually proved 'truth' in say a WND article, if the majority of posters here regard WND as suspect then WND lacks credibility.

If people are applying differing standards to assess the credibility of say WND & NBC then thats their bias but it still would not necessarily make WND 'credible' to the boards consensus view, even if any given WND report was 'true'