Uuuuuuugh, “I don’t like this source” is easily one of my least favorite responses; the respondent may as well not even post since they’re ignoring the content anyway. Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.
There has to be some sort of course that people can take to teach them how to properly scrutinize sources and distinguish between good reporting and rumourmongering, rather than trying to take shortcuts like that.
And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious? It doesn’t make the replier look clever; it’s just extremely embarrassing.
Yes, the Wall Street Journal is puke, but nobody lies 100% of the time. That’s why you need to learn how to read critically.
The point we post explicitly liberal sources is to make liberals think even for just a second. Turns out, it’s still not enough.
And what’s up with all of the repetitive definitions and attempts to accuse you of being logically fallacious?
It’s an old trolling technique, but this guy apparently didn’t even understand how it’s done.
I had a philosophy professor years ago who said that people who make catalogues of logical fallacies don’t really understand logic. The true logician simply examines the argument, notes that it doesn’t follow, and tells you why without using any jargon.
Being on the internet has convinced me this guy was completely correct.
It’s not only an internet, reading philosphy in general i noticed it’s awfully filled with jargon. And it tend to use it in worst possible manner.
