RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads

RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 10:38:02 AM)
Well, if you must know, not everything a liar says is always going to be a lie. This is a possibility So, when you do nothing but discredit the source, you aren't addressing the message. False premis...my question is "if the messenger has a track record of lying then evrything they say must be suspect...see it is not the same. While the message could very well be a lie, you don't stop the message at all. Addressing a message only by discrediting the messenger is an easy attempt to end a discussion. Not so. the messenger has already discredited themself by their history of being a liar. Not admitting lies to the same standing as truth is hardly attempting to end discussion. Rather when one injects lies by citing liars as sources one is seeking to end discussion.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 10:57:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Well, if you must know, not everything a liar says is always going to be a lie. This is a possibility So, when you do nothing but discredit the source, you aren't addressing the message. False premis...my question is "if the messenger has a track record of lying then evrything they say must be suspect...see it is not the same. While the message could very well be a lie, you don't stop the message at all. Addressing a message only by discrediting the messenger is an easy attempt to end a discussion. Not so. the messenger has already discredited themself by their history of being a liar. Not admitting lies to the same standing as truth is hardly attempting to end discussion. Rather when one injects lies by citing liars as sources one is seeking to end discussion. Actually, your question is:Why the fuck should anyone give any creedene to someone who has a track record of lying? Why should any one give any creedence to someone who would use a source that has a track record of lying? The difference between something being suspect, is that the part of it that is suspect is identified and shown why it is suspect. Statements that a message is suspect simply because of the messenger does not actually dispel the message. All it does is attempt to end the discussion of the message.

mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 11:05:14 AM)
Yeah, to what honest consideration and to what end do we owe discourse on lying, factless blowholers? Seems that the situations facing us are better served by clear statements of fact and views that eminate from that, rather than whatiffing some feeble minded opinion buffoon trying to skin the less than mentally able.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 11:17:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, to what honest consideration and to what end do we owe discourse on lying, factless blowholers? Seems that the situations facing us are better served by clear statements of fact and views that eminate from that, rather than whatiffing some feeble minded opinion buffoon trying to skin the less than mentally able. Good idea. Serve up those clear statements of fact and views that emanate therefrom. That should easily dispute the "lying, factless blowholers." That's what is being recommended, actually. Glad you're on board, MN! [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 11:23:38 AM)
As has been done repeatedly. Our next subject: Fiscal responsiblility in the 'conservative' party. (facts are presented by the prima facie absence of them, regarding the topic). Thank you, end of discussion.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 12:00:25 PM)
The difference between something being suspect, Between????nothing is being compared here??????? is that the part of it that is suspect is identified and shown why it is suspect. This assumes that some part of the statement is true which has yet to be shown. In a court of law one of the last instructions the judge give the jury is that if somt witness has been shown to be a liar in one area it is reasonable to conclude that they would be a liar in all areas. So this is all noting more than lipstick on a pig. Statements that a message is suspect simply because of the messenger does not actually dispel the message. Actually it does. The only thing that goebles is believed about is the power of propaganda not his propaganda. How many teachers will accept wiki as a source in student papers? Why is that? Because wiki is known to be suspect. So why quote a known suspect source when citing a non suspect source would better sereve ones purpose ,unless ones purpose is to propound a lie by citing a source that is well known for its disingenuousness? All it does is attempt to end the discussion of the message.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 12:09:23 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, to what honest consideration and to what end do we owe discourse on lying, factless blowholers? Seems that the situations facing us are better served by clear statements of fact and views that eminate from that, rather than whatiffing some feeble minded opinion buffoon trying to skin the less than mentally able. Good idea. Serve up those clear statements of fact and views that emanate therefrom. That should easily dispute the "lying, factless blowholers." That's what is being recommended, actually. Why is it that he is being encouraged in this effort while there is no offer to join in[8\|] Glad you're on board, MN! [:D] This would imply that the ship he is being asked to board has never used one of those suspect sites for validation which we both know is bullshit. No one with a three digit iq and a pulse is on board with citing liars as valid sources.

JeffBC -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 12:32:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, the beat goes on... I disagree. When I know a source (ANY source) to be highly spun what that means is that I need to go look for source material for every single statement in the piece. It's a lot of work. If the issue is worth it then I'll invest that effort but I don't see it as unreasonable to avoid crappy sources whenever possible. The fundamental problem, from my standpoint, is it takes a few minutes for some nutjob (of any persuasion) to pen up a piece of crap and hours to sort it out again. If I play that game then the propagandists win by default. They can ALWAYS saturate my bandwidth with rubbish.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 12:40:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC The fundamental problem, from my standpoint, is it takes a few minutes for some nutjob (of any persuasion) to pen up a piece of crap and hours to sort it out again. If I play that game then the propagandists win by default. They can ALWAYS saturate my bandwidth with rubbish. That is the woof and the warp of it. The punk ass motherfuckers give you a shit load of stuff to search and debunk. When presented with the facts they go off and start another thread with the same lies.

mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 12:43:16 PM)
or derail the current one with other lies and non-sequiturs and red herrings and we are not having a discussion shoot the messenger goto any of the threads here now active to see that is done. And just like a computer, as you say, they reboot and repost and inveigle you to cite the citations again and again so they can run up the next derail into other lies and asswipe blowholing.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 1:51:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, the beat goes on... I disagree. When I know a source (ANY source) to be highly spun what that means is that I need to go look for source material for every single statement in the piece. It's a lot of work. If the issue is worth it then I'll invest that effort but I don't see it as unreasonable to avoid crappy sources whenever possible. The fundamental problem, from my standpoint, is it takes a few minutes for some nutjob (of any persuasion) to pen up a piece of crap and hours to sort it out again. If I play that game then the propagandists win by default. They can ALWAYS saturate my bandwidth with rubbish. There's a difference, though, Jeff. You aren't going to waste your time sorting through the crap, and that's fine. You don't necessarily argue against the message simply based on the messenger. On my Cato Institute thread, you said that you don't waste your time on their posts because they lean too far right for you to trust. No problem. You didn't argue against the message, though. You simply stated that you didn't trust Cato Institute. Others, however, will say they don't trust Cato Institute and then continue to argue against the message without addressing the message. And, just like every thread on P&R, I look at who posted it and quickly peruse the OP. If it's not something I find worth my while, I leave it be and don't jump in. If I come across something I think is worth the bother of P&R, I'll post it. I'll typically use some link that isn't going to shut people off, but not always. Most of the time, I'll use the original report, rather than a story about the report (or make sure there is a link to the original).

mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 1:54:21 PM)
Arguing against the message based upon the messenger is done because the message is with a very high degree of certainty, false, as the messenger has been caught out repeatedly and consistently with lying messages. Why bother discussing asswipe if it has no basis in reality, how does that bring more light than heat?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 2:02:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Arguing against the message based upon the messenger is done because the message is with a very high degree of certainty, false, as the messenger has been caught out repeatedly and consistently with lying messages. Why bother discussing asswipe if it has no basis in reality, how does that bring more light than heat? You have decided that something is asswipe and not worth debunking, based on little more than where it came from. Your choice that you freely do. If you're going to bother with discussing (or bashing) the messenger over several posts, why not just bother discussing the message instead? Oh, that's right. That's not as much fun, and would actually involve some sort of effort.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 2:03:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri There's a difference, though, Jeff. You aren't going to waste your time sorting through the crap, and that's fine. You don't necessarily argue against the message simply based on the messenger. On my Cato Institute thread, you said that you don't waste your time on their posts because they lean too far right for you to trust. No problem. You didn't argue against the message, though. You simply stated that you didn't trust Cato Institute. Others, however, will say they don't trust Cato Institute and then continue to argue against the message without addressing the message. That is not true. What is true is that, first it is pointed out that the site has a history of lying. Then the individual lies and half truths are presented as proof of a lying site telling lies. The troll will then claim yadda yadda yadda...and then go start another thread with similar bullshit.

thompsonx -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 2:09:23 PM)
You have decided that something is asswipe and not worth debunking, based on little more than where it came from. Your choice that you freely do. If you're going to bother with discussing (or bashing) the messenger over several posts, why not just bother discussing the message instead? Oh, that's right. That's not as much fun, and would actually involve some sort of effort. Pick a fucking subject and try it. Is it possible to do this without sniviling about not being allowed to use lies to support a position. Is it possible to do this while acutally defining the terms used? Like the tomcat driver said"any time baby"

mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 2:24:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Arguing against the message based upon the messenger is done because the message is with a very high degree of certainty, false, as the messenger has been caught out repeatedly and consistently with lying messages. Why bother discussing asswipe if it has no basis in reality, how does that bring more light than heat? You have decided that something is asswipe and not worth debunking, based on little more than where it came from. Your choice that you freely do. If you're going to bother with discussing (or bashing) the messenger over several posts, why not just bother discussing the message instead? Oh, that's right. That's not as much fun, and would actually involve some sort of effort. Usually it has been repeatedly debunked, the problem is that to call a fool a fool is an offense here, but that is the point of the matter. Stooges may stand up and drool on this site, and spew any reprehensible lying horseshit from people slightly stupider than them and say, well, even if it is a lie, it should be discussed as if it is less than mentally ill. It is debunked by pointing out that is comes from reprehensible hysterical hallucinatory shitbreathers. Hey, not attacking the messenger, the fuckin Kochs are the message. The Brietbarts and the Boortzes are the message, and they are dogshit. The messenger is the goddamn imbecile that posted the lying shit to waste intelligent peoples time, and you cannot do that here, so it is the message being attacked because its provenance is the message.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 2:35:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Arguing against the message based upon the messenger is done because the message is with a very high degree of certainty, false, as the messenger has been caught out repeatedly and consistently with lying messages. Why bother discussing asswipe if it has no basis in reality, how does that bring more light than heat? You have decided that something is asswipe and not worth debunking, based on little more than where it came from. Your choice that you freely do. If you're going to bother with discussing (or bashing) the messenger over several posts, why not just bother discussing the message instead? Oh, that's right. That's not as much fun, and would actually involve some sort of effort. Usually it has been repeatedly debunked, the problem is that to call a fool a fool is an offense here, but that is the point of the matter. Stooges may stand up and drool on this site, and spew any reprehensible lying horseshit from people slightly stupider than them and say, well, even if it is a lie, it should be discussed as if it is less than mentally ill. It is debunked by pointing out that is comes from reprehensible hysterical hallucinatory shitbreathers. Hey, not attacking the messenger, the fuckin Kochs are the message. The Brietbarts and the Boortzes are the message, and they are dogshit. The messenger is the goddamn imbecile that posted the lying shit to waste intelligent peoples time, and you cannot do that here, so it is the message being attacked because its provenance is the message. Yes, because someone posts something on the board, your time is wasted. [8\|] There is that little "hide" button thingy you can use so that these people won't waste your time anymore.

mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 2:40:34 PM)
But so what if my time is wasted, i only need to see the poster to know it is a waste of time and an ignorant hysterical lie. To say that Koch is full of shit, and not credible citation of how to wipe your ass is a succinct, compact, credible refutation of the ignorance without need for further discourse upon that and we can get down to the real mental illness being spewed and projected.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 2:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But so what if my time is wasted, i only need to see the poster to know it is a waste of time and an ignorant hysterical lie. To say that Koch is full of shit, and not credible citation of how to wipe your ass is a succinct, compact, credible refutation of the ignorance without need for further discourse upon that and we can get down to the real mental illness being spewed and projected. Then you wasted your own time, MN. No one wasted it for you. You made the choice.

mnottertail -> RE: Koch Funded Anti-Obamacare Ads (9/25/2013 2:45:30 PM)
Its a free country and part of that free country is watching imbeciles drool, and come unglued, and I guess here on a kink site, it is a kink I can get behind.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875