Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
And where exactly is his proof that CNN was 'tipped off' in advance?

From: https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...eply-concerning-how-cnn-found-out-about-stone
Whitaker did not share if the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proof that CNN was told about the Stone raid in advance.

What you have here is a statement, without any sort of evidence, from an individual who has been critical of the Mueller probe in the past and who ignored a suggestion from an ethics advisor that he step aside from being involved in the investigation.

Frankly, you should be worried that an individual who is so keen to be involved in such conspiracy theory nonsense is about to take a key position in the government.
Click to expand...

You kidding right? You do know he is the acting ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America right???

He is literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of this right? If he is concerned about it, that is literally the only thing that freaking matters at this point.

I swear sometimes... posts here make me laugh out loud....
 
The Big Dog said:
Wrong:

"Seth then inflicts on his innocent and bluepilled readers the grossly unfounded claim that the investigation has "shocked the Senate." That is a spectacularly idiotic opinion that is directly at odds with the actual article that he is purporting to interpret for his gullible readers."

Substantive attack on the very argument he makes with citation to the actual article.

Next, it is not fallacious to attack the bias/lack of knowledge/idiocy of someone purporting to provide an opinion about an article.

Say, everyone has a chance to learn something today!
Click to expand...

Ok, my bad. My correction:

It's an ad hominem with a hint of TBD's opinion hidden inside.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Whittaker is a bad person and I'm fine not considering his opinion.
Click to expand...

You are aware that there are certain people who are in certain positions of power whereby their opinions become actions right?

This is one of those situations involving one of those people.

Accordingly, your feelings might be as effective as Xerxes and the Hellespont
 
The Big Dog said:
From: https://thehill.com/
Whitaker did not share if the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proof that CNN was told about the Stone raid in advance.

What you have here is a statement, without any sort of evidence, from an individual who has been critical of the Mueller probe in the past and who ignored a suggestion from an ethics advisor that he step aside from being involved in the investigation.

Frankly, you should be worried that an individual who is so keen to be involved in such conspiracy theory nonsense is about to take a key position in the government.
Click to expand...
You kidding right? You do know he is the acting ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America right???
Click to expand...
Uhh... so?

Trump has a track record of appointing people who are either incompetent or criminal to his cabinet. The fact that he is the acting attorney general does not mean that we should automatically assume that he 1) is competent, 2) is acting with integrity and without bias.
He is literally the single person in the entire world that is best placed to order an investigation of this right?
Click to expand...
The fact that he is in a position to order an investigation does not necessarily mean that it is actually a good idea to order an investigation or that one is warranted.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Now we find out that Adam Schiff was spending time together in Aspen with Glenn Simpson of GPS Fusion, who wrote the fake and discredited Dossier, even though Simpson was testifying before Schiff. John Solomon of
@thehill
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

The mainstream media has refused to cover the fact that the head of the VERY important Senate Intelligence Committee, after two years of intensive study and access to Intelligence that only they could get, just stated that they have found NO COLLUSION between “Trump” & Russia....

...It is all a GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX, developed long before the election itself, but used as an excuse by the Democrats as to why Crooked Hillary Clinton lost the Election! Someday the Fake News Media will turn honest & report that Donald J. Trump was actually a GREAT Candidate!
Click to expand...
Betting this is not Trump's thumbs. Trump can't write much more than his name, and "doesn't do emails", i.e. write long stuff. These have no spelling errors, long complex sentences with correct punctuation, correct(ish) capitalisation, Donny mentioned in third person instead of "ME! ME! ME!". This seems to be more common these days. Is Trump now dictating tweet content and someone else tidying it up for him before sending?
 
Ay, chihuahua! Actually at the point where not liking Trump and his appointments means that they should not investigate potential leaks because reasons.

Que será, será
Whatever will be, will be
The future's not ours to see
Que será, será
What will be, will be
 
The Big Dog said:
You see, you are wrong, what Seth is purporting to do is RESTATE the sentence in the article, and give it his own spin in order to support his conclusions.

Sentence: "[Burr] acknowledges now that the investigation is broader, and perhaps more consequential, than it has long been thought to be."

Restatement: "So America doesn't realize how much troubling material the Senate has found—or how far-flung and important to our future the material is." That is a profound exaggeration of what the actual quote is (particularly in context) and yet you purport to claim it is not controversial?

That is amazing.

I get that am the bad guy for suggesting that people stop letting Seth to tell them what to think with his hysterical hyperbole and web of lies.
Click to expand...

The word "so" indicates he is drawing a conclusion, not restating the sentence. Were he doing the latter, he would've written "in other words" or "i.e.", more than likely.

You are a native speaker, I think. Surely, you should know the various meanings of "so". You can look at a dictionary (see the entry for conjunction, 3a) and see that "so" often means "therefore" or "thus", and does not mean "in other words".

Example: God loves the Penguins and God is almighty. So, the Pens will win the Cup again.

Now, I don't intend to teach you basic reading skills or, indeed, enter anything approximating a long discussion, so this is the last I'll say on the matter.
 
Cabbage said:
Poor reading comprehension? There are remedial classes for that.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, I thought you were just ignoring this part:

"Next, it is not fallacious to attack the bias/lack of knowledge/idiocy of someone purporting to provide an opinion about an article."

You did not comprehend it? Remedial class in understanding critical thinking coming up hot and ready:

It is not fallacious to attack the credibility, bias or credentials of someone offering an opinion of a subject. Indeed, it might be an ad hominem, but it is not fallacious. Indeed, what we see all too often is people inflicting appeals to false experts in lieu of actual analysis. And pointing that out is, as we already covered, not fallacious!

Remedial critical thinking 202.

Your faithfully Professor TBD
 
The Big Dog said:
falls down dead, I am actually surprised that someone tried to actually show how the big dog was wrong! Well done.

Of course you tried to show it by using a definition of formal fallacy (an invalid inference that doesn't necessarily follow from the premises) as opposed to an informal fallacy (an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument) and given that an ad hominem fallacy is an informal fallacy...

Well, at least you tried, and maybe learned something.
Click to expand...

I'd say an ad hominem argument might be a formal or informal fallacy depending on how it's used -- specifically, what conclusion it draws -- but you're dodging the fact that informal "arguments" also consist of premises and conclusions. If you could please identify the "reasoning error" you see in that post, we can argue about how to categorize it.
 
phiwum said:
The word "so" indicates he is drawing a conclusion, not restating the sentence. Were he doing the latter, he would've written "in other words" or "i.e.", more than likely. You are a native speaker, I think. Surely, you should know the various meanings of "so". You can look at a dictionary (see the entry for conjunction, 3a) and see that "so" often means "therefore" or "thus", and does not mean "in other words".

Example: God loves the Penguins and God is almighty. So, the Pens will win the Cup again.

Now, I don't intend to teach you basic reading skills or, indeed, enter anything approximating a long discussion, so this is the last I'll say on the matter.
Click to expand...

Good idea, because oof.
 
The Big Dog said:
You are aware that there are certain people who are in certain positions of power whereby their opinions become actions right?

This is one of those situations involving one of those people.

Accordingly, your feelings might be as effective as Xerxes and the Hellespont
Click to expand...

His concern about the raid adds nothing to the discussion about the raid. Even if he took some action, it doesn't change the reality about the raid.
 
Oh look, it's 90% wasted bandwidth and eye strain day again today.

How are this many of us so helplessly reflexive?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom