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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

Why is it that he is being encouraged in this effort while there is no offer to join in

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, the beat goes on...

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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.



< Message edited by thompsonx -- 9/25/2013 2:10:33 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)