Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You don't need to deal with the argument, if the source is discreditable. You can tell the poster "go find a more credible source, I don't have to give that source the respect of a response - a response it doesn't deserve".

That's completely fallacious reasoning.
You could just perpetually dismiss someone's sources as not being credible.
In fact I've come across posters on other threads that have taken this to ridiculous levels.

An arguments stands or falls on the strength of that argument.
If a disreputable person or website makes a good argument, it's still a good argument.
You can ignore or discredit the source but you still haven't dealt with the argument.

No source is entitled to the assumption that, when the sources reputation is abysmal, that its argument isn't complete nonsense as well - if a poster wants to own the argument, they should ditch the source and put the argument in their own words - except almost nobody does this, when it comes to the kind of linking I'm talking about.


It gets tiring listening to lazy posters, point you to a link and say "argue against this", or pointing to a YouTube video and saying "argue against this" - while putting zero effort in themselves, at presenting an argument in their own words.

That's not a debate/discussion, that's a monologue brought to you through discreditable links and YouTube videos - something more suitable to a blog.

And I completely agree that posters should put their argument in their own words and not argue via link or youtube video.

Links234

I agree with KomradeBishop, the place is being used as a linkdump by folks who have an obvious bias, and it's difficult to call them out on what is increasingly racially charged, because accusations of racism tend to gain the one levying the charge of racism an infraction, but there are posters using the same sources as the BNP and Pegida are using, and in some cases, are quite frankly talking like neo-nazis:

MrPudding wrote: »

Samaris wrote: »

Er...what does "cuckery" mean?

LMGTFY

MrP

Calling out people's sources is a valid argument, especially when posters here are being extremely obvious with their bias, yet toeing the line and being pretty guarded with any outright, obvious racism. And it's something I feel that's been happening a while, Atheism is being co-opted as a veil for some racist and otherwise extremist views. So suggesting that someone who's using a dodgy source and seems to be pushing a certain agenda is not arguing in good faith is hardly above board.

silverharp

Links234 wrote: »

You know, after silverharp's post, I decided to hit up Feminist Frequency's youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4mA_rIeBAQ

"It's a fun movie, and unlike the tedious and lifeless prequels, it's a solid Star Wars film"

Oh no! SHE LIKES THE NEW STAR WARS! :eek: 9/11 was an inside job CONFIRMED! Jet fuel can't melt steal beams! #cuckery #gamergate #trump2016 #notthedroidsyourlookingfor

You should see her video review of the batman game where she seems terribly upset that she can't see his butt

Links234

silverharp wrote: »

You should see her video review of the batman game where she seems terribly upset that she can't see his butt

I did. It wasn't a review of a game, but an analysis on how women's butts are framed in games. I hated it. I don't think I've ever disagreed with her harder about anything. "Equal opportunity butt display is not the answer" she said, like the monster she is.

MORE BUTTS IS THE ANSWER!

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's off topic and there was no need to bring it up.
You just brought it up to take a pot shot at another thread, because you dislike the subject being discussed.

It's very obvious from your post which subforum you're referring to.
You're definitely breaking the spirit of the rule.
It's bad form to lazily describe a thread as "just a link-dump" and disrespectful to the people who posted in it.

You don't decide what's on/off topic. I disagree, I think it's very much on topic, given the kind of link-dumping threads like this are prone to.

If I'm breaking the spirit of the rule, then why did you ask me a question where you knew I'd be breaking the rule answering it

I didn't describe all of such threads as being link-dumps, and I don't care if the people who link dump find my description disrespectful - I don't have any respect for link dumping like that, I think it's really lazy, and not really debating at all - hence why I usually tear into criticising that stuff.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Shockingly, even some of the most backward and disgusting people aren't wrong all of the time.

Who cares? If they (the sources, not posters) are so discreditable, they can be dismissed offhand without argument.

If, on the other hand, a poster adopts an argument themselves, then you can't just dismiss that - you have to counterargue.

Why then, do posters who habitually linkdump, never:
1: Find a more credible link backing the arguments within the discreditable link? (perhaps because there are no credible sources with such an argument...) Or
2: Take on the arguments in their own words?

It's typically because they want to let links and youtube videos do the arguing for them - and want other posters to drop the standards of quality so low, that they'll argue against links to completely disreputable sources.

That's not debate.

Deleted User wrote: »

You should assess the argument regardless of the arguer. You can temper your assessment, but utterly refusing to assess the argument is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing 'Na Na Na Na Na, you were wrong before and therefore you are wrong again'.

No, you are wrong - Ad Hominem is valid tactic against sources, for showing they are discreditable - if you want to make an argument, don't be lazy, put it in your own words instead of linking to extremely disreputable people who you want to let make the argument for you.

Again, that's not debating. You want posters to debate with all the links/videos you throw at them, without making an argument yourself - that's effectively a monologue.

Deleted User wrote: »

You make a choice to read and engage. You could always not do that if it is tiring.

I won't though, because I view the above as a tactic for dishonest argument, where people pushing an agenda try to let links/videos do all the debating for them, and rarely take on arguments in their own words - I will always criticize that for what it is - if you don't like that, feel free not to read or engage with it.

KomradeBishop

Nodin wrote: »

This is true, but as certain internet sites are run by a number of people dedicated to firing out a particular viewpoint, why should we have to wade through the other 99 times out of 100 they are wrong?

Ya, it's exactly a tactic of trying to waste the other posters time wading through garbage - where posting a link/video takes zero effort, allowing posters to just try and shovel more and more discreditable links/videos into a debate, to do the arguing for them, completely wasting their opponents time.

Zero effort for argument on one side, substantial effort to wade through and pick apart garbage on the other side.

It's not debate - it's just a tactic used to relentlessly push an agenda, without ever engaging the other side in real argument.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

If you want/choose to engage, then you must 'play by the rules' of logic if you want your answers to be in anyway useful.

The 'rules of logic' state that Ad Hominem is not a fallacy, when used to discredit sources - so if you don't like people dismissing discreditable sources, 'play by the rules of logic'...

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

That's completely fallacious reasoning.
You could just perpetually dismiss someone's sources as not being credible.
In fact I've come across posters on other threads that have taken this to ridiculous levels.

You have to provide a solid argument as to why a source is discreditable, and then defend that argument - rather than dealing with the argument presented by the discreditable source.

That's a valid and logically sound debating tactic - Ad Hominem is not a fallacy, when the credibility of a source is in question - and debating the credibility of a source, follows the usual rules of logic too.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

An arguments stands or falls on the strength of that argument.
If a disreputable person or website makes a good argument, it's still a good argument.
You can ignore or discredit the source but you still haven't dealt with the argument.

Ideally that would be true, but in the real world, people can't be arsed with discreditable sources, and just ignore them.

With good reason too - because posters shovelling one load after the other of discreditable links/videos at posters, are actually making large demands on the other posters time - so you can't blame anybody for not wasting their time with discreditable sources.

If the argument is so credible, then why can't people find a more credible source espousing such arguments? 99 times out of 100, it's because the argument itself is discreditable too.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And I completely agree that posters should put their argument in their own words and not argue via link or youtube video.

The kind of posters who link-dump, very frequently post a link/video first, and then whine for ages when you point out how discreditable the source is, and ask them to make the argument in their own words - until, many pages of the thread later, they finally get around to putting the argument in their own words.

Really tiring nonsense.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You don't decide what's on/off topic. I disagree, I think it's very much on topic, given the kind of link-dumping threads like this are prone to.

Care to point out where I said I did?

If I'm breaking the spirit of the rule, then why did you ask me a question where you knew I'd be breaking the rule answering it

Because I felt you'd already broken the rule.

I didn't describe all of such threads as being link-dumps...

Never said that you did, although do do seem happy making lazy generalisation against all mens right threads.

..and I don't care if the people who link dump find my description disrespectful - I don't have any respect for link dumping like that, I think it's really lazy, and not really debating at all - hence why I usually tear into criticising that stuff.

And what about the people who aren't link dumping?
You've described the whole thread as a link dump, rubbishing genuine posts at the same time.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Care to point out where I said I did?

"It's off topic and there was no need to bring it up.".............

jackofalltrades wrote: »

KomradeBishop wrote:

I didn't describe all of such threads as being link-dumps...

Never said that you did, although do do seem happy making lazy generalisation against all mens right threads.

And what about the people who aren't link dumping?
You've described the whole thread as a link dump, rubbishing genuine posts at the same time.

The bolded parts show you're contradicting yourself.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

"It's off topic and there was no need to bring it up.".............

That's an opinion seeing as I'm not a mod.

The bolded parts show you're contradicting yourself.

No they don't, you're deliberately misinterpreting my argument to make a point and doing it very badly.
I never made the claim that you described all threads as a link dump.
But you definitely described one as a link dump.

silverharp

Links234 wrote: »

I did. It wasn't a review of a game, but an analysis on how women's butts are framed in games. I hated it. I don't think I've ever disagreed with her harder about anything. "Equal opportunity butt display is not the answer" she said, like the monster she is.

MORE BUTTS IS THE ANSWER!

Thunderf00t did a review of her analysis which is where I remember it from, there are plenty of butts in it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex-YkONJLOE

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You have to provide a solid argument as to why a source is discreditable, and then defend that argument - rather than dealing with the argument presented by the discreditable source.

Most post was referring to idea of telling someone to go off and find a better source. Which you could just do perpetually.

And the main part of a discussion should be dealing with the arguments rather than the sources.
It's the whole point of discussion after all.

Ideally that would be true, but in the real world, people can't be arsed with discreditable sources, and just ignore them.

Go away with your "in the real world" nonsense.
The point I made still stands.
And looking at the last few pages on this thread the last thing posters seem to do is ignore a source if they think it is discreditable.

If the argument is so credible, then why can't people find a more credible source espousing such arguments? 99 times out of 100, it's because the argument itself is discreditable too.

I'm sure you can back this up with something?
Also mainstream news outlet can choose what news stories they cover and what they don't, so as to suit their agenda.
Which often leads to poster choosing less credible sources.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Most post was referring to idea of telling someone to go off and find a better source. Which you could just do perpetually.

No you can't - if you want to discredit a source, you have to have a valid argument discrediting the source itself (rather than the sources argument).

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And the main part of a discussion should be dealing with the arguments rather than the sources.
It's the whole point of discussion after all.

Yes - which is why people should actually present arguments (in their own words...), not links to discreditable sources/videos...

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The 'rules of logic' state that Ad Hominem is not a fallacy, when used to discredit sources - so if you don't like people dismissing discreditable sources, 'play by the rules of logic'...

Yes. You can use ad hominem to discredit a source.

But.
Not.
An.
Argument.

http://skepdic.com/adhominem.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)

Deleted User wrote: »

...
Think about what this means. It literally translates as 'the quality of the deliverer always affects the veracity of the information'.
...

An argument from a discredited source is not a bad argument by virtue of the source! Consider if the BBC, Breitbart and Jezebel all posted the exact same information/argument...

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. You can use ad hominem to discredit a source.

But.
Not.
An.
Argument.

http://skepdic.com/adhominem.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html





An argument from a discredited source is not a bad argument by virtue of the source! Consider if the BBC, Breitbart and Jezebel all posted the exact same information/argument...

Yes, that's right - so make the argument in your own words, otherwise it will be dismissed along with discreditable sources - if a source is discreditable, there is no obligation that anybody address its arguments.

Posters can't just keep crapping out link after link to discreditable agenda-pushing sources, and expect posters to actually be arsed with those sources - that's lazy, and posters should put arguments in their own words.

PopePalpatine

Links234 wrote: »

So it's been fairly well known that the platform has been dying a death for a while now. The question then is why? Well, the brunt of it is bullying, abuse, harassment and twitter itself was doing nothing about it. Why Twitter's Dying (And What You Can Learn From It), 'Twitter's Dying' Puts Spotlight On The Line Between Abuse And Voice, and there have been many similar articles pointing to these issues and Twitter's inability to curtail the abuse as the reason for it's decline. There's also been varying prominent users who've quit and claimed they've been harassed off of twitter. Twitter revises policy banning threats and abuse. These measures are trying to plug a leaky boat, and it might be a case of too little too late.

They're not "firebombing" to appease some imaginary "PC police" they are trying to save their platform. Think of it like spam. If email providers didn't enact measures to curtail spammers, it would be the death of them. People are disengaging from it because they don't want to run into angry, aggressive twitter mobs, or have already fallen afoul of them. It's the unsolicited bulk email spam of twitter, except it's really angry and it's shouting "free speech!"

And so we have this thread in a nutshell. "There's a complex issue, can we blame liberals?" Essentially, this:

Come to think of it, JPNelsforearm's & Sargon's belief that Twitter is dying because they're taking measures to combat abuse on their platform (I'm not talking about "feminism is dumb because it's about female supremacy", more like threats of violence and filling their inbox with spam such as hardcore porn) is a lot like how the Chimpire/hate subreddit "refugees" claimed that Reddit was going to tank because it was violating their right to free speech, and that Voat was going to overtake them as a shiny bastion of liberty. Voat's visitor numbers have trended downwards over the past six months (dropping just over 40% in that time frame), while Reddit's visitor numbers have grown 10% in that same period.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes, that's right - so make the argument in your own words, otherwise it will be dismissed along with discreditable sources - if a source is discreditable, there is no obligation that anybody address its arguments.

Posters can't just keep crapping out link after link to discreditable agenda-pushing sources, and expect posters to actually be arsed with those sources - that's lazy, and posters should put arguments in their own words.

What is this rabbit hole you're dying to get down?

This logic now suggests;

an argument that comes from questionable origins but presented by someone else for consideration can be dismissed offhand...

Correct thus far?

And let me continue if I am correct;

...but only if the presenter doesn't put the argument into their own words?

So your logic suggests that two obviously extraneous issues (primary and secondary argument proposers) are not extraneous to the argument in the special case that the second proposer rewrites/rewords/inherits from the argument.

Anything wrong there?

I also repeat regarding your use of obligation, there is no obligation on anyone to address any arguments whatsoever. Nobody is obliged to answer any arguments. You are choosing to answer some, and choosing to dismiss others.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

What is this rabbit hole you're dying to get down?

This logic now suggests;


Correct thus far?

And let me continue if I am correct;



So your logic suggests that two obviously extraneous issues (primary and secondary argument proposers) are not extraneous to the argument in the special case that the second proposer rewrites/rewords/inherits from the argument.

Anything wrong there?

I also repeat regarding your use of obligation, there is no obligation on anyone to address any arguments whatsoever. Nobody is obliged to answer any arguments. You are choosing to answer some, and choosing to dismiss others.

Do not paraphrase what I said and put it in a quote - that's misrepresenting me.

If you put an argument in your own words, ad hominem is invalid against it. If you put an argument to someone though a link, that argument is open to non-fallacious ad-hominem attacks on the sources credibility - and there must be a valid argument made, establishing lack of credibility.

If you put an argument in your own words, it's all good. Do that - rather than throwing links/YouTube videos at people.

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

I agree with KomradeBishop, the place is being used as a linkdump by folks who have an obvious bias, and it's difficult to call them out on what is increasingly racially charged, because accusations of racism tend to gain the one levying the charge of racism an infraction, but there are posters using the same sources as the BNP and Pegida are using, and in some cases, are quite frankly talking like neo-nazis:
Calling out people's sources is a valid argument, especially when posters here are being extremely obvious with their bias, yet toeing the line and being pretty guarded with any outright, obvious racism. And it's something I feel that's been happening a while, Atheism is being co-opted as a veil for some racist and otherwise extremist views. So suggesting that someone who's using a dodgy source and seems to be pushing a certain agenda is not arguing in good faith is hardly above board.

So many unfounded allegations, so many insults, so much bull$hit ....and yet you are the one playing the victim, as always.
Look, if you want to be taken seriously, stop insinuating that people are racist nazi liars, and just for once, address the actual issue or argument.

BTW an ad hominem is by definition, a logical fallacy. The only time it can be used legitimately is when calling into question the uncorroborated testimony of someone already known to be a liar, or as you would put it, not prone to acting "in good faith".
It cannot be used legitimately to refute an argument, as it has been used in this thread. Even if the argument was produced by a known liar.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You have to provide a solid argument as to why a source is discreditable, and then defend that argument - rather than dealing with the argument presented by the discreditable source.

Even if this point was true (which it isn't) you still haven't managed to comply with it because you didn't even try to give a solid argument as to why sources linked to in this thread were discredited. Just saying that you don't like them is not enough.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Do not paraphrase what I said and put it in a quote - that's misrepresenting me.

If you put an argument in your own words, ad hominem is invalid against it. If you put an argument to someone though a link, that argument is open to non-fallacious ad-hominem attacks on the sources credibility - and there must be a valid argument made, establishing lack of credibility.

If you put an argument in your own words, it's all good. Do that - rather than throwing links/YouTube videos at people.

I didn't paraphrase what you said nor put it in a quote?

I am trying to establish the logic that you are following.

Have I got it correct? - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98867085&postcount=1160

Is that a fair representation of your thoughts?

Links234

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Come to think of it, JPNelsforearm's & Sargon's belief that Twitter is dying because they're taking measures to combat abuse on their platform (I'm not talking about "feminism is dumb because it's about female supremacy", more like threats of violence and filling their inbox with spam such as hardcore porn) is a lot like how the Chimpire/hate subreddit "refugees" claimed that Reddit was going to tank because it was violating their right to free speech, and that Voat was going to overtake them as a shiny bastion of liberty. Voat's visitor numbers have trended downwards over the past six months (dropping just over 40% in that time frame), while Reddit's visitor numbers have grown 10% in that same period.

Yeah, pretty much. To make another comparison, take a look at multiplayer gaming, a game will live or die on it's community, and a hostile playerbase can be an outright deathknell for a game because it completely puts people off. It's not exactly like for like, but with websites where the focus is discussion, an aggressive and hostile userbase will turn away other users. It would be like going into a pub where a couple of regulars are shouting at everyone else, but the staff won't do anything about it, you'd just leave. Broadly speaking, people just don't want to deal with assholes.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No you can't - if you want to discredit a source, you have to have a valid argument discrediting the source itself (rather than the sources argument).

You don't have to provide a valid argument.

Posters can't just keep crapping out link after link to discreditable agenda-pushing sources, and expect posters to actually be arsed with those sources - that's lazy, and posters should put arguments in their own words.

If posters aren't "arsed" with the sources all they have to do is ignore them.
There's no obligation on anyone to respond to any post.

KomradeBishop

recedite wrote: »

Even if this point was true (which it isn't) you still haven't managed to comply with it because you didn't even try to give a solid argument as to why sources linked to in this thread were discredited. Just saying that you don't like them is not enough.

If you read back, the discussion came up when other posters mentioned a trend of link-dumping, and it became a general topic of discussion in the thread - in my case, my initial comment was referring to this trend, not to specific cases of it.

My point is valid - the reputation of sources is relevant here, on a discussion forum where people are meant to actually discuss i.e. put in their own words, the arguments they want to back - when the reputation of a source is open to question, Ad Hominem is never fallacious.

There are a lot of situations when a sources reputation is open to question, other than just testimony.

Posters aren't obliged to debate with someone who just throws links at them, from a source that is provably discreditable - e.g. who routinely lies all the time - as this places a pretty enormous demand on peoples time, especially if the information is sourced from an institute known for putting out obfuscatory propaganda (not uncommon in economic topics).

So if there is a good enough argument/evidence establishing the unreliability of a source, they and their arguments can be dismissed (without needing to comment one way or another on the validity of their actual argument...).

If a poster then wants to own the arguments their source made, by putting those arguments in their own words (something I try to do with most things I source), then Ad Hominem is invalid.

KomradeBishop

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't paraphrase what you said nor put it in a quote?

I am trying to establish the logic that you are following.

Have I got it correct? - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98867085&postcount=1160

Is that a fair representation of your thoughts?

You did - you're quotes paraphrasing the logic I'm meant to have used. Evidently, since I consider them a misrepresentation, I don't agree that they are a fair representation...

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

You don't have to provide a valid argument.


If posters aren't "arsed" with the sources all they have to do is ignore them.
There's no obligation on anyone to respond to any post.

If you want to discredit a source, with valid argument, you have to provide a valid argument...which means posters can't just ignore sources they don't like, they're still bound by requiring a logical argument discrediting a source.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You did - you're quotes paraphrasing the logic I'm meant to have used. Evidently, since I consider them a misrepresentation, I don't agree that they are a fair representation...

Could you phrase your actual logic accordingly so?

Here was my effort at describing what you were trying to say.

an argument that comes from questionable origins but presented by someone else for consideration can be dismissed offhand...

...but only if the presenter doesn't put the argument into their own words

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

You clipped a relevant piece from the quote



If you want/choose to engage, then you must 'play by the rules' of logic if you want your answers to be in anyway useful.

So I have to wade through crap from a known source of crap in case it provides a pearl, when there are sources of pearls available to all...."logic" allright.

Nodin

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Come to think of it, JPNelsforearm's & Sargon's belief that Twitter is dying because they're taking measures to combat abuse on their platform (I'm not talking about "feminism is dumb because it's about female supremacy", more like threats of violence and filling their inbox with spam such as hardcore porn) is a lot like how the Chimpire/hate subreddit "refugees" claimed that Reddit was going to tank because it was violating their right to free speech, and that Voat was going to overtake them as a shiny bastion of liberty. Voat's visitor numbers have trended downwards over the past six months (dropping just over 40% in that time frame), while Reddit's visitor numbers have grown 10% in that same period.

There should be some sort of AA group for some of those people

'Hi, my name is Mark. It's been three days since I directed all my rage at a woman on the internet.'