Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies
Options
Comments
-
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.
Do tell me where the logic breaks down. Or how on earth what I posted suggests that you have to do anything.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98864665&postcount=11410 -
Mod: Just to clarify - a number of posters in this thread have linked to, or referred to, a number of fringe and extremist websites which provide content which is at best unhelpful, and at worst, inciteful of various kinds of idiocy and hatred. While the number of these links is generally small, the mods are happy enough to leave them go by, so long as it's made broadly clear that they're fringe or extremist, either by the poster themselves or following posters. Religious websites offering similar content are posted all the time on the forum, and there's little appreciable difference between the fundamentalism as practiced by our religious and political friends.
However, excessive linking or quoting of fringe or extremist websites, in a manner which the mods find unhelpful, will result in, at least, posts being edited to remove material which properly belongs in the conspiracy forum or the bin.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Do tell me where the logic breaks down. Or how on earth what I posted suggests that you have to do anything.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98864665&postcount=1141
The sites don't present arguments, they're used to provide alleged incidents on which the supposed "argument" is based.0 -
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!
I think this kind of thing was inevitable. The longer her series of videos goes on the more she is going to have to scape the bottom of the barrel for valid criticisms.
Its one thing to point out that most major releases (especially those from the 90s and early 00s) are aimed at young lads and highlight the some of the more awful examples of that. Its another thing entirely to suggest that the character design in Batman game was specificly intended to cover Batmans butt because straight male gamers don't want to see dat bat ass.
I thought that this was an interesting article
https://medium.com/listen-to-my-story/what-i-learned-as-feminist-critic-sandy-beaches-f1ee45a7e0aa#.u3ydfw8at
Looks like he is trying to make money by pretending to be a "Feminist Critic" online and seeing how much he can get away with.
Next we'll be finding out that FemFreq and Thunderf00t were best buddies, splitting the profits, all along.0 -
The sites don't present arguments, they're used to provide alleged incidents on which the supposed "argument" is based.
Has nothing to do with the logic process followed whatsoever! You're also now dealing in specifics, whereas we were discussing the general theme. I have not defended a single source used by anyone in this discussion. I don't intend to either.
Recall:KomradeBishop wrote: »You don't need to deal with the argument, if the source is discreditable...Deleted User wrote: »Shockingly, even some of the most backward and disgusting people aren't wrong all of the time.
..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?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.Deleted User wrote:..
You make a choice to read and engage. You could always not do that if it is tiringSo 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.Deleted User wrote: »Do tell me where the logic breaks down. Or how on earth what I posted suggests that you have to do anything.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98864665&postcount=1141
Logically, in order to defeat an argument you must show where it is wrong.
Showing that it comes from a place which has a terrible success rate does not show that it is wrong.
If you want to defeat an argument, you cannot simply dismiss the source of that argument.
If an argument is posted that uses a 'bad' source, you can simply ignore it if you wish.
If however you wish to defeat that argument, you must engage the actual argument in order to do so, this might of course mean that you are required to read from sources you hate, but that's what is required to defeat that argument.
Again, feel free to tell me what's wrong with any of that!0 -
Advertisement
-
I think this kind of thing was inevitable. The longer her series of videos goes on the more she is going to have to scape the bottom of the barrel for valid criticisms.
Its one thing to point out that most major releases (especially those from the 90s and early 00s) are aimed at young lads and highlight the some of the more awful examples of that. Its another thing entirely to suggest that the character design in Batman game was specificly intended to cover Batmans butt because straight male gamers don't want to see dat bat ass.
Oh damn you, you're going to get me talking about games, and if there's one thing I can waffle about endlessly, it's games. I hope you're happy now. Anyway, I do find Anita's videos tedious, her criticisms and analysis are just utterly shallow and I can think of loads more critics or youtubers who do far better videogame analysis and commentary. But I don't think her channel is going to go anywhere, even if she does run out of barrel to scrape. In fact, lately I've been much more interested in the channel since Carolyn Petit has started doing reviews, and I've actually subscribed now to their channel. I've been a fan of Carolyn since her Gamespot days, and it's fantastic to see her doing reviews again, her Rise of the Tomb Raider video was excellent, and that's not something I'd expected to say about something on Feminist Frequency, when before I'd watch just to see what people were moaning about this time. Even Anita's own review for Assassin's Creed Syndicate was a decent watch, when normally I'd be
bored to tears by her.
But I think once she's run out of barrel to scrape, they'll finish up the "Tropes" series and keep going with the reviews, because while the views are way down compared to what they were initially, there's still a steady and established audience there. I'm far, far more interested in the reviews than I've been about anything else there, and if there's more content from Carolyn Petit then all the better, that's something I'd actually be interested in and would be quite a draw.
As to dat bat ass, I don't think it's a completely outrageous claim to make, especially considering how focus-tested the AAA market has become. That's not to say it's a substantial claim, don't get me wrong there. But when we consider some of the changes developers have been asked to make by publishers, it doesn't seem too far-fetched either. Dontnod Entertainment had reportedly struggled to get Remember Me published (article about this) being told that having the player character kiss a male character would be awkward for the assumed straight male audience. Their problems finding a publisher for Life is Strange that didn't want them to make changes like make the protagonist male definitely suggests a lot about what the industry thinks of the gaming audiences. So it's really not inconceivable that they might assume audiences don't want to see Batman's ass. Though I'd be more likely to consider that as an indictment of the publishers being out of touch with audiences.I thought that this was an interesting article
https://medium.com/listen-to-my-story/what-i-learned-as-feminist-critic-sandy-beaches-f1ee45a7e0aa#.u3ydfw8at
Looks like he is trying to make money by pretending to be a "Feminist Critic" online and seeing how much he can get away with.
Next we'll be finding out that FemFreq and Thunderf00t were best buddies, splitting the profits, all along.
I think we're both going to take very different things from that article.
As I see it, it's rather condemning of one side that they need to create strawmen to attack and make their point, and it's not just this guy, there's been plenty of other elaborate false-flags. This is quite literally what Joshua Goldberg did. It's what James O'Keefe did. It's what the twitter user Comfortably Smug did. There's been more that I can't even think of right now. There's a lot of spoofers and fakers on the right, and rather than expose the ills of the left, it exposes their own underhandedness and insecurities that they need to manufacture the very arguments they're railing against.
While the thought that Sarkeesian and Mason are in on things together would be a tantalizing piece of drama, I wouldn't consider either of them that cynical. While it could certainly be argued that Thunderf00t flip-flopped in his support of Aurini and Owen's failed documentary, at first supporting it and being happy to appear in it, then distancing himself and criticizing them when he realized just how bad the association makes him look... I think that Anita's most certainly earnest enough in her criticism, and Phil although clearly milking it dry at this point, is equally earnest in his responses.0 -
It's rarely a case of an argument posted, relying on a bad source - it's a bad source posted, and the poster letting it do the arguing for them - which happens all the time.Deleted User wrote: »Has nothing to do with the logic process followed whatsoever! You're also now dealing in specifics, whereas we were discussing the general theme. I have not defended a single source used by anyone in this discussion. I don't intend to either.
Recall:
Logically, in order to defeat an argument you must show where it is wrong.
Showing that it comes from a place which has a terrible success rate does not show that it is wrong.
If you want to defeat an argument, you cannot simply dismiss the source of that argument.
If an argument is posted that uses a 'bad' source, you can simply ignore it if you wish.
If however you wish to defeat that argument, you must engage the actual argument in order to do so, this might of course mean that you are required to read from sources you hate, but that's what is required to defeat that argument.
Again, feel free to tell me what's wrong with any of that!0 -
Deleted User wrote: »............
Logically, in order to defeat an argument ...........................
'Here's a specific incident from www.weh8themuslams.com, therefore all of them are evil' is not really an argument worthy of the name, to be blunt.0 -
'Here's a specific incident from www.weh8themuslams.com, therefore all of them are evil' is not really an argument worthy of the name, to be blunt.
Once you can attribute anything like that to what myself and KomradeBishop were discussing you can feel superior.
However, I'll post it once more for clarity
...KomradeBishop wrote:You don't need to deal with the argument, if the source is discreditable...Deleted User wrote:Logically, in order to defeat an argument you must show where it is wrong.
Showing that it comes from a place which has a terrible success rate does not show that it is wrong.
If you want to defeat an argument, you cannot simply dismiss the source of that argument.
If an argument is posted that uses a 'bad' source, you can simply ignore it if you wish.
If however you wish to defeat that argument, you must engage the actual argument in order to do so, this might of course mean that you are required to read from sources you hate, but that's what is required to defeat that argument.
If you however cannot, kindly give up on this rabbit hole of trying to legitimise Ad Hominem. Surprisingly enough, it is not.0 -
While the thought that Sarkeesian and Mason are in on things together would be a tantalizing piece of drama, I wouldn't consider either of them that cynical. While it could certainly be argued that Thunderf00t flip-flopped in his support of Aurini and Owen's failed documentary, at first supporting it and being happy to appear in it, then distancing himself and criticizing them when he realized just how bad the association makes him look... I think that Anita's most certainly earnest enough in her criticism, and Phil although clearly milking it dry at this point, is equally earnest in his responses.
Some of her arguments have involved cherry picking to the point of dishonesty though . Tf did a video called busted where he ripped apart her use of the game Hit Man in one of her videos. She completely misrepresented the game beyond the point of making an honest mistake. It kind of turns her into a bad actor in all this?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Once you (..........), it is not.
It's been explained to you now by two people, so if you haven't understood it at this stage its probably not going to happen.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »Cool. So we're agreed, Ad Hominem is not legitimate rebuttal. KomradeBishop's assertion that we were discussing is incorrect. The thread can move on..
No, its as I stated before.0 -
Eh, no - as I said:Deleted User wrote: »Cool. So we're agreed, Ad Hominem is not legitimate rebuttal. KomradeBishop's assertion that we were discussing is incorrect. The thread can move on..It's rarely a case of an argument posted, relying on a bad source - it's a bad source posted, and the poster letting it do the arguing for them - which happens all the time.
I actually say this directly as well, in the post you are quoting me from: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".
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.
You know full well I placed that condition - people not putting their argument in their own words, using a link to make their argument - on what I said, so I'm not really going to let you get away with selective blindness here, through ignoring that and taking what I said in its strictest form, to suit your argument.0 -
We have come full circle I see
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98864567&postcount=1139
Your condition is illogical. The requirement that someone rewrite / edit / inherit from an argument that is sourced from a 'bad source' in order for it to come into consideration / require anything more than dismissal to defeat it makes little sense. It is extraneous to the argument.
As dealt with here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98867085&postcount=11600 -
And as I said in response to the latter link:Deleted User wrote: »We have come full circle I see
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98864567&postcount=1139
Your condition is illogical. The requirement that someone rewrite / edit / inherit from an argument that is sourced from a 'bad source' in order for it to come into consideration / require anything more than dismissal to defeat it makes little sense. It is extraneous to the argument.
As dealt with here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98867085&postcount=1160Do 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.
If I just threw links to lengthy articles or even books at people, and used them as my arguments - instead of actually putting an argument in my own words - I'd soon be accused of soapboxing rather than debating, and would have a mod after me.
That's, in my experience, simply not a valid form of argument here on Boards - but usually the other side of a debate looks past this if the source is credible - they certainly don't have to though.0 -
I did not paraphrase what you wrote.
This is very strange.
I shall just copy and paste the same post again too so? Why are we just repeating the same conversation? You gave up after our 'next post' in this train of thoughtDeleted 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?
If I have misrepresented your argument, I am open to hearing about where I have gone wrong in my interpretation of what you are saying. If I have not misrepresented your argument, can you understand that the logic process is demonstrably wrong?0 -
Look, I'm not going to rehash interpretations of past posts - you failed to show any problem with the logic - when we're dealing with people failing to make an argument themselves, and instead letting a link do the arguing for them, the credibility of the source is open to criticism (non-fallacious Ad Hominem) - and no poster is obliged to take a source as credible, and then go on to waste their time with it.
The argument the source makes may be valid (although the extreme infrequency of this is exactly why it's such a waste of time for people to be dealing with such sources), but if the source is of poor quality (i.e. proven track record of putting out bullshít), nobody has to waste their time finding out - unless the poster owns the argument, by putting it in their own words, and actually debating themselves.
Don't try to rewrite my posts into different words - whether you call it 'examining the logic' or not.0 -
hmm. I would regard that as just about totally untrue;KomradeBishop wrote: »Look, I'm not going to rehash interpretations of past posts - you failed to show any problem with the logic - when we're dealing with people failing to make an argument themselves, and instead letting a link do the arguing for them, the credibility of the source is open to criticism (non-fallacious Ad Hominem) - and no poster is obliged to take a source as credible, and then go on to waste their time with it.Deleted User wrote: »Logically, in order to defeat an argument you must show where it is wrong.
Showing that it comes from a place which has a terrible success rate does not show that it is wrong.
If you want to defeat an argument, you cannot simply dismiss the source of that argument.
If an argument is posted that uses a 'bad' source, you can simply ignore it if you wish.
If however you wish to defeat that argument, you must engage the actual argument in order to do so, this might of course mean that you are required to read from sources you hate, but that's what is required to defeat that argument.
Again, feel free to tell me what's wrong with any of that!
See above. This is nonsense. Inheriting from an argument does not give it additional 'power' over the previous argument that now demands that it must be defeated whereas before it could be waved away.KomradeBishop wrote: »The argument the source makes may be valid (although the extreme infrequency of this is exactly why it's such a waste of time for people to be dealing with such sources), but if the source is of poor quality (i.e. proven track record of putting out bullshít), nobody has to waste their time finding out - unless the poster owns the argument, by putting it in their own words, and actually debating themselves.Deleted User wrote: »Your condition is illogical. The requirement that someone rewrite / edit / inherit from an argument that is sourced from a 'bad source' in order for it to come into consideration / require anything more than dismissal to defeat it makes little sense. It is extraneous to the argument.
As dealt with here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98867085&postcount=1160
Bizarre.KomradeBishop wrote: »Don't try to rewrite my posts into different words - whether you call it 'examining the logic' or not.0 -
There you go again, rewording what I said into gibberish, to make it sound like you have a point.Deleted User wrote: »See above. This is nonsense. Inheriting from an argument does not give it additional 'power' over the previous argument that now demands that it must be defeated whereas before it could be waved away.
If a person puts an argument into their own words - i.e. makes the argument themself - then yes, people can't dismiss that with ad hominem.
If someone is just throwing links at you, they don't have anything. You are not obliged to deal with the argument the link presents, if the source is sufficiently discreditable (non-fallacious Ad Hominem - dealing with the sources credibility, not the sources argument).
This is not about the validity of the sources argument, it's about whether the source deserves even being considered in the first place, before even evaluating its argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
How are we still stuck on this loop?
This suggests that if I fully and totally rewrite an argument with the help of a thesaurus so that not a single word remains from the original; that I have now improved that underlying argument from the position of 'can be waved away' to 'must now be defeated by logic & reason'.KomradeBishop wrote: »There you go again, rewording what I said into gibberish, to make it sound like you have a point.
If a person puts an argument into their own words - i.e. makes the argument themself - then yes, people can't dismiss that with ad hominem.
I wasn't aware that semantics was such a powerful tool.0 -
You're deliberately acting dumb here, for the same of nitpicking - you know the difference between copy/pasting an argument, and putting something in your own words.Deleted User wrote: »How are we still stuck on this loop?
This suggests that if I fully and totally rewrite an argument with the help of a thesaurus so that not a single word remains from the original; that I have now improved that underlying argument from the position of 'can be waved away' to 'must now be defeated by logic & reason'.
I wasn't aware that semantics was such a powerful tool.
You full well know the difference between you making an argument, and just linking to someone who can make the argument for you.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »You're deliberately acting dumb here, for the same of nitpicking - you know the difference between copy/pasting an argument, and putting something in your own words.
You full well know the difference between you making an argument, and just linking to someone who can make the argument for you.
That difference is extraneous to the argument.
It has no bearing on the bones of an argument. None.
The argument does not rest upon the deliverer nor the source. It rests upon the arguments own merits. If the argument is wrong, then these merits can be shown to be wrong.
I am not playing dumb, I am rebutting your earlier claim that Ad Hominem is a legitimate debating tool. It's not. It has never been. It will never be.
It is a classical logical fallacy. To be avoided.0 -
We're not talking about the argument - we're talking about the source - as I said in my other post:Deleted User wrote: »That difference is extraneous to the argument.
It has no bearing on the bones of an argument. None.
The argument does not rest upon the deliverer nor the source. It rests upon the arguments own merits. If the argument is wrong, then these merits can be shown to be wrong.
I am not playing dumb, I am rebutting your earlier claim that Ad Hominem is a legitimate debating tool. It's not. It has never been. It will never be.
It is a classical logical fallacy. To be avoided.If someone is just throwing links at you, they don't have anything. You are not obliged to deal with the argument the link presents, if the source is sufficiently discreditable (non-fallacious Ad Hominem - dealing with the sources credibility, not the sources argument).
This is not about the validity of the sources argument, it's about whether the source deserves even being considered in the first place, before even evaluating its argument.
You don't have to say a thing about the validity of a sources argument, to discard the source. If you keep trying to selectively ignore this, I'm going to keep posting it back to you until you address it.
Ad Hominem is non-fallacous when discussing the credibility of a source:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem#False_positives0 -
We are circling a drain here. It's tedious for me, and no doubt others who have the misfortune to stumble upon this.
I'll bow out by linking to my original post, which quotes from the post where you suggested that it was fine to ignore an argument because of who posted it or where it came from. That you can simply dismiss an argument instead of defeating it if it comes from sources you're not happy with (pretty much the definition of Ad Hominem).
The remainder of the 'debate' has been me questioning this and you trying desperately to back down from the logical inferences that this offers, without backing down from the suggestion made.
Your most recent link suggests nothing like what you've suggested it does. It even suggests exactly what I have offered instead
& most clearlyYour RationalWiki Link wrote:Ad hominem attacks are strictly fallacious when the attack has little or no bearing on the argument at handYour RationalWiki Link wrote:The fallacy is a genetic fallacy -- the source of the argument is almost always irrelevant to its truth. Even if the ad hominem attack is true, that fact has no bearing on whether the disputant's argument is logically sound.0 -
Actually no, you'll find that's in exact agreement with what I said, because as I said: "You don't have to say a thing about the validity of a sources argument, to discard the source."
Yes, on a forum like Boards it is fine to ignore an argument, if the source is just a link from someone discreditable - that doesn't mean an argument is false. We're talking about an Internet discussion forum here, where people are expected to actually debate things themselves, not just throw links at people without providing their own take on it.
It's up to you to convince people that a source which looks wholly discreditable, isn't going to be a total waste of their time - under the unlikely suggestion that this may be the 1/100 time that the source is right about something - and if other posters can provide a valid argument that the source is discreditable, that's sufficient justification to discard it out of hand.
Arguably, it's already the case that by just linking garbage without an argument of your own, is already in the wrong, as it's heavily dissuaded by Boards itself, since it's meant to be a discussion forum, and that's not discussing something - going into a thread, and posting "*insert link here* opinions?" is likely to lead you to mod attention - so using that as a method of argument, is already arguably in breach of the spirit of discussion on Boards.0 -
The "false positive" exemption you are linking to here only applies to testimony, as was pointed out many pages back.KomradeBishop wrote: »Ad Hominem is non-fallacous when discussing the credibility of a source:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem#False_positives
Of course you are completely free to ignore an argument from a source you don't like. But that's not the same thing as arguing against it, or proving it wrong, or even engaging in a discussion of it.In cases of testimony the goal is to establish which claim is more likely to be true, so the character of witnesses is a valid subject of discussion.
In fact, this whole ridiculous argument is an example of fully baked left wing cookiness because you are attempting to claim that only arguments from sources you agree with can be discussed. Anything else, and you apparently want it classified as "non-PC" and dismissed. And then you make the ridiculous claim that it has been roundly defeated by "logical argument"0 -
I never claimed anything about 'only arguments from sources agree with', I specifically stated 'discreditable sources' - i.e. you have to provide a solid argument, as to how a source is discreditable.The "false positive" exemption you are linking to here only applies to testimony, as was pointed out many pages back.Of course you are completely free to ignore an argument from a source you don't like. But that's not the same thing as arguing against it, or proving it wrong, or even engaging in a discussion of it.
In fact, this whole ridiculous argument is an example of fully baked left wing cookiness because you are attempting to claim that only arguments from sources you agree with can be discussed. Anything else, and you apparently want it classified as "non-PC" and dismissed. And then you make the ridiculous claim that it has been roundly defeated by "logical argument"
Where the hell are you bringing 'PC' nonsense into this?
Ad Hominem arguments are valid, whenever the credibility of a source is in question - which isn't strictly restricted to testimony - and when we're on a discussion site like Boards, where people are expected to actually discuss/argue things themselves, nobody is obligated to accept someone posting a link or YouTube video, as a method of argument (if they won't discuss the argument in their own words, just link to it, why should you?).
People can legitimately point out issues that discredit such a source, and say - "go find me a better, more credible, source - if you want me to spend time on that" - people don't have to attack the argument in such a situation, it may actually be a perfectly valid argument, but the whole point is it's from a source which is known to put out nonsense.
Essentially, when you reply to an argument posted like that, it allows someone to let the link do the arguing for them, and sometimes it lets them 'argue from authority' through the link, to boost credibility (e.g. if linking to a think-tank and citing the researchers credentials - then opening up that to criticism of credibility) - and then just post one link after the other as counterarguments (where it just becomes a time-wasting 'wild goose chase' exercise) - that's not a discussion.0 -
.............................
In fact, this whole ridiculous argument is an example of fully baked left wing cookiness because you are attempting to claim that only arguments from sources you agree with can be discussed. Anything else, and you apparently want it classified as "non-PC" and dismissed. And then you make the ridiculous claim that it has been roundly defeated by "logical argument"..........
So I can link an article from the back-in-the-news David Duke's racist website with regards to Afro-Americans or Jews and that has to be treated as the same as one from the BBC?0 -
Advertisement
-
It won't be treated the same no, because the moderator of this forum is a fan of the BBC but not of the KKK, so the link would be removed.
But if Duke was making an argument in his back catalogue and you wanted to refute it in a logical way, you would have to argue your position in the same way as if you were disagreeing with a BBC report about Bloody Sunday from 1972.0
Advertisement