Mueller Investigation pt4

[The Big Dog]

Then go ahead and identify the ad hominem in Abramson's thread. Have fun.

SPIT TAKE.

I literally just did, then you came in here and declared "When it comes to spotting fallacies, you are literally the worst person I've ever seen."

I pointed out you repeatedly make that claim but never back that up, and rather than back up your assertion that was your response???

Dreamy.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're assuming his goal is to correctly spot fallacies rather than to attract inflamed responses.

pointing out fallacies leads to... inflamed responses?

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle....

 

[autumn1971]

It is odd, plenty of people have made that claim, but literally none have ever backed it up. Just like you didn't there.

Seth is a charlatan, as i have explained and shown repeatedly. case in point, for some bizarre reason you have chosen to inflict upon the readers of this thread Seth's unrelentingly biased spin on an article rather than the actual honest to god article. 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.

Seth is a charlatan, gifter and deliberate and admitted prevaricator.

ladies and gentlemen here is the actual source article, you don't need Seth to chew it up and dribble it into your gaping maws like birds in a nest:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richar...e-committees-russia-investigation-2-years-on/

I hate twitter feeds, and I hated reading Seth’s feed as well, as it sounded like bombast.

Thank you for linking to the article that, once again, showed the exact opposite of your post’s argument.

The article reports what Seth, in stupid tweet form, says it does, and much more succinctly.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I literally just did

No. You just declared that there was an ad hominem. That's not how it works. If you want to take this seriously, then identify the offending statement, and why it commits the fallacy.

 

[Cabbage]

Seth is a charlatan, as i have explained and shown repeatedly. case in point, for some bizarre reason you have chosen to inflict upon the readers of this thread Seth's unrelentingly biased spin on an article rather than the actual honest to god article. 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.

Seth is a charlatan, gifter and deliberate and admitted prevaricator.

For future reference, THIS is what an ad hominem looks like.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It is odd, plenty of people have made that claim, but literally none have ever backed it up. Just like you didn't there.

Seth is a charlatan, as i have explained and shown repeatedly. case in point, for some bizarre reason you have chosen to inflict upon the readers of this thread Seth's unrelentingly biased spin on an article rather than the actual honest to god article. 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.

Seth is a charlatan, gifter and deliberate and admitted prevaricator.

ladies and gentlemen here is the actual source article, you don't need Seth to chew it up and dribble it into your gaping maws like birds in a nest:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richar...e-committees-russia-investigation-2-years-on/

If this post was intended to be an example of an ad hominem, then perhaps you do understand the term. Still, there's an entire thread dedicated to Abramson's credibility or lack thereof. I suggest that discussion of that subject should occur in that thread, rather than trying to derail this one.

 

[Belz...]

Lol, you keep saying that but have never once shown that.

No, we've demonstrated it numerous times in the past. You're really, really bad at identifying logical fallacies.

In fact, I'd suggest you stop and instead focus on making actual arguments.

 

[Belz...]

pointing out fallacies leads to... inflamed responses?

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle....

Nice try. I'm sure you understood that just fine.

 

[The Big Dog]

I hate twitter feeds, and I hated reading Seth’s feed as well, as it sounded like bombast.

Thank you for linking to the article that, once again, showed the exact opposite of your post’s argument.

The article reports what Seth, in stupid tweet form, says it does, and much more succinctly.

Golly, I guess we will have to take your word for it.

Burr: "If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia."

Seth, 50 idiotic tweets or so deep: "Media—and attorneys like me—have an obligation to contextualize, dissect and explain interviews like Burr's so we can see how they *devastate* both of two key narratives: (1) that the Trump-Russia investigation is almost done *or* (2) that there is *no* evidence of collusion."

Ya see, the Poet is an attorney who can explain things like when Burr says: "we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia" Seth explains that "devastates" the claim because there "is *no* evidence of collusion" because MAGIC!

50 part tweet storm, holy ****...

 

[The Big Dog]

For future reference, THIS is what an ad hominem looks like.

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!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Walter Shaub has been live-tweeting Whitaker's testimony

Probably the most arrogant, entitled, and disrespectful testimony to date, which is going some.

It's all worth reading, but perhaps the most noteworthy for this thread:

Whitaker claims he has not told President Trump or "senior White House officials" about the Special Counsel investigation. Asked if he told any third party about the investigation who he thinks may have conveyed that info to the WH, Whitaker refuses to give a straight answer.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If it was developed before the election why would they wait until after Trump won to perpetrate it. Trump makes no sense at all.

"Well, that's what they did, so they must have had a reason," said every conspiracy theorist ever when unable to assert plausible reasons.

 

[jimbob]

It is odd, plenty of people have made that claim, but literally none have ever backed it up. Just like you didn't there.

Seth is a charlatan, as i have explained and shown repeatedly. case in point, for some bizarre reason you have chosen to inflict upon the readers of this thread Seth's unrelentingly biased spin on an article rather than the actual honest to god article. 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.

Seth is a charlatan, gifter and deliberate and admitted prevaricator.

ladies and gentlemen here is the actual source article, you don't need Seth to chew it up and dribble it into your gaping maws like birds in a nest:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richar...e-committees-russia-investigation-2-years-on/

I hate twitter feeds, and I hated reading Seth’s feed as well, as it sounded like bombast.

Thank you for linking to the article that, once again, showed the exact opposite of your post’s argument.

The article reports what Seth, in stupid tweet form, says it does, and much more succinctly.

looks like a nothingburger - that's what these quotes, for example mean, don't they?

Burr, who is known in Senate hallways for his preference to go sockless and the two-fingered hook that often bears his jacket, has spoken little about the probe he leads. But he thinks deeply about how its conclusions should be presented. And he acknowledges now that the investigation is broader, and perhaps more consequential, than it has long been thought to be.

He made clear that the investigation is not compiling the story of one pivotal election, but of something larger, more complicated and, from a counterintelligence perspective, more nefarious. The final report may be so highly classified, he said, that a meaningful portion may not be made public at all.

ETA: That looks as though it has shocked the Senate committee

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As for The Big Dog's spin, I can only suggest that those who are so inclined read the thread for themselves to understand the context that he is either missing or trying to distract from and make up their own minds.

 

[The Big Dog]

If this post was intended to be an example of an ad hominem, then perhaps you do understand the term. Still, there's an entire thread dedicated to Abramson's credibility or lack thereof. I suggest that discussion of that subject should occur in that thread, rather than trying to derail this one.

No I am good, and super excited to show in detail why Seth's insipid spin on an article anyone can read for themselves is grossly flawed.

Next.

Actual article:

"We'll be judged at the end of this on the product that we produce," he said solemnly. "We'll also be judged on the process that we chose ... None of us ever anticipated that this would be two years."

Seth's spin: ""What [has]...extended the life of the [Senate] investigation...is a better understanding of...how coordinated and organized the effort was." So it was the "coordination" and "organization" of what Russia did—uh, coordinating with *whom*?—that has shocked the Senate.

And "shock" isn't too strong a word, as Burr says "none of us"—meaning *even the Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee who hate Trump the most*—"ever anticipated that this [investigation] would be two years." Burr made this comment to CBS, CBS says, "solemnly." That's eerie."

What the hell? Shock is a hysterical and total exaggeration. Saying that the Senate was shocked is a flat out lie of course.

By the way, look at this grift: "meaning *even the Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee who hate Trump the most*" Those words never appear in the actual article, and Burr does not use any language remotely like that to suggest that there are people on the Committee who hate Trump.

y'all are being played by a professional grifter.

 

[The Big Dog]

As for The Big Dog's spin, I can only suggest that those who are so inclined read the thread for themselves to understand the context that he is either missing or trying to distract from and make up their own minds.

As for Seth's spin, I can only suggest that those who are so inclined read the ARTICLE for themselves to understand the blatant lies and ridiculously unfounded conclusions that Seth tries to foist upon the gullible.

 

[fagin]

...etc.

y'all are being played by a professional grifter.

Seth is Trump's secret identity?

 

[phiwum]

third: rule of so
fourth: rule of so.

Stop trying to make fetch happen. It's not going to happen.

The word "so" in this context means nothing more than "this follows from the preceding", i.e., that from the previous premises, we draw the following conclusion. It is synonymous with "thus", "hence" and "therefore".

The "rule" of so thus is nothing more or less an excuse to dismiss any conclusion that TBD doesn't like, so long as it was introduced by a certain two-letter conclusion indicator. The third paragraph of Seth's thread, for instance, is this:

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

The conclusion indeed follows from the premise (the quoted material) and is utterly uncontroversial.

TBD is, as usual, playing games. Indeed, his previous pretense of being a Bernie supporter was intellectually more honest than this pathetic reliance on his own personal made-up rule. Might as well just shout "La la la la!" to avoid conclusions he doesn't like.

 

[The Big Dog]

Seth is Trump's secret identity?

It has occurred to me on occasions that given the number of credulous and substance free links to Seth's tweets on this forum that Seth is a member here.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is a thread dedicated to whether or not Abramson is a "grifter" (or whatever term was en vogue at the time it was started). I respectfully suggest that any discussion on that subject should go in that thread, rather than trying to derail this one.

I'll just note the following and leave it be thereafter:

As for Seth's spin, I can only suggest that those who are so inclined read the ARTICLE for themselves to understand the blatant lies and ridiculously unfounded conclusions that Seth tries to foist upon the gullible.

The article is embedded in the second tweet, precisely so that people can read it for themselves. Reading the thread implies reading the article.