This might be a new low

[Travis]

Well that is because you had a glaring false statement in your opening post that demanded to be dealt with.

So, if I had written it like this...

It would seem that the not-crazy-at-all folks at Barbwire have hit on a new idea to try and bring down Obama: accuse him of being a good friend of pedophiles.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/guardians-deception-barbwire-runs-fake-nambla-obama-image

Yep, someone photoshopped an image to make it look like Obama has been endorsed by NAMBLA. They then try and use this deception as evidence that homosexuality is somehow linked with pedophilia.

You wouldn't have derailed the thread to make an issue out of that irrelevancy?

Now that I have rewritten that will you at least address the more important issue here?

 

[Meed]

So whether the perps(sic) did the photoshopping themselves or just took advantage of the work of some other miscreant and posted the picture without caring whether or not it was legitimate is THE question that skeptics should be concerned about?

Accuracy is something skeptics should be concerned about, yes. If we're talking skeptic "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" then discouraging factual corrections by dismissing them as irrelevant and ascribing malicious motives to the people making them is something I'd advise putting in the "shouldn't" pile.

So, if I had written it like this...

It would seem that the not-crazy-at-all folks at Barbwire have hit on a new idea to try and bring down Obama: accuse him of being a good friend of pedophiles.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...la-obama-image

Yep, someone photoshopped an image to make it look like Obama has been endorsed by NAMBLA. They then try and use this deception as evidence that homosexuality is somehow linked with pedophilia.

You wouldn't have derailed the thread to make an issue out of that irrelevancy?

Now that I have rewritten that will you at least address the more important issue here?

Nitting it up perhaps, but: The new way you've written it still seems to imply that Barbwire photoshopped the image. When the subject of a sentence is "someone" and the subject of the next sentence is "they" it tends to create the impression that "someone" and "they" refer to the same thing ("they" is technically plural but often gets used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun).

It's not an irrelevancy, because photoshopping an image and then posting it as an attempt to deliberately deceive readers is clearly worse than stumbling across the image without knowing it was a photoshop (or perhaps they did know--this is debatable) and being too lazy to put in the work to verify its accuracy. Both are bad. One is worse. Your OP contains 3 sentences, one of which made the claim that Barbwire photoshopped the image. Pointing out that that claim was inaccurate is directly addressing the OP and cannot be called a derail nor an irrelevancy by any reasonable standards.

Moving on (hopefully).... I hadn't heard of Barbwire before, but they appear to be a fairly stereotypical Christian conservative, gay-hating, liberal-hating politics site that just started this year.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Accuracy is something skeptics should be concerned about, yes. If we're talking skeptic "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" then discouraging factual corrections by dismissing them as irrelevant and ascribing malicious motives to the people making them is something I'd advise putting in the "shouldn't" pile.




Nitting it up perhaps, but: The new way you've written it still seems to imply that Barbwire photoshopped the image. When the subject of a sentence is "someone" and the subject of the next sentence is "they" it tends to create the impression that "someone" and "they" refer to the same thing ("they" is technically plural but often gets used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun).

It's not an irrelevancy, because photoshopping an image and then posting it as an attempt to deliberately deceive readers is clearly worse than stumbling across the image without knowing it was a photoshop (or perhaps they did know--this is debatable) and being too lazy to put in the work to verify its accuracy. Both are bad. One is worse. Your OP contains 3 sentences, one of which made the claim that Barbwire photoshopped the image. Pointing out that that claim was inaccurate is directly addressing the OP and cannot be called a derail nor an irrelevancy by any reasonable standards.
Moving on (hopefully).... I hadn't heard of Barbwire before, but they appear to be a fairly stereotypical Christian conservative, gay-hating, liberal-hating politics site that just started this year.

Hilited part: Body of Work. Both liberals and conservatives tend to look for little nitpicks as a form of well-poisoning. It serves to avoid dealing with the larger question. I'd also question your "one is worse".... You're only comparing the two actions. Let's compare three.

1. Photoshopping/creating a lying image.
2. Not checking the history of and using a convenient (insofar as it supports your agenda) image.
3. Calling anyone, but in this case the POTUS, a paedophile without proof.

One is worse.

The nitpicking, as any conjurer could tell you, is a diversion. As noted by someone else, if your side in a discussion is reduced to winning semantic points in internet gotcha wars, you've already lost.

 

[Meed]

Hilited part: Body of Work. Both liberals and conservatives tend to look for little nitpicks as a form of well-poisoning.

Well-poisoning? Factual corrections are not well-poisoning. And I'm not sure what you mean by "body of work". Are you saying that 16.5's correction was an irrelevant derail because of his/her posts in other threads? I'm not sure that makes any sense.

It serves to avoid dealing with the larger question.

I don't understand. Surely no special effort is required to "avoid dealing with" a question posed by a thread. One could, for instance, simply not post in the thread at all. Or perhaps even not read it. I do this with many threads. The only way I could see this complaint making sense would be if the OP was specifically calling out 16.5 or if 16.5 was a known defender/supporter of "Barbwire", but that does not seem to be the case.

And as for "the larger question" I don't even know what you mean. Did the OP ask a question? Perhaps if you can point me to some posts in this thread that "deal with the larger question" I'll get a better sense of what you mean.

I'd also question your "one is worse".... You're only comparing the two actions. Let's compare three.

1. Photoshopping/creating a lying image.
2. Not checking the history of and using a convenient (insofar as it supports your agenda) image.
3. Calling anyone, but in this case the POTUS, a paedophile without proof.

One is worse.

First off, I missed where anyone called the POTUS a paedophile. Second, your #3 is not mutually exclusive with #1 or #2. If you like just add "and did other bad things" to the end of both #1 and #2.

The nitpicking, as any conjurer could tell you, is a diversion. As noted by someone else, if your side in a discussion is reduced to winning semantic points in internet gotcha wars, you've already lost.

I strongly disagree. This was very far from being a nitpick and there is no reason an unambiguous factual correction should divert a discussion. It wouldn't do so if people simply said "thanks for the correction", or silently noted it, and moved on. It may divert a thread when people attempt to argue that it doesn't matter that the OP was inaccurate and scold the poster who made the correction. Maybe the problem is that you are viewing the discussion in terms of "sides", "points" and "winning/losing", in which case it actually does make sense to denounce corrections that are seen as somehow serving the perceived opposition. But not when you're appealing to people's notions of what proper skepticism is. Finally, I can't imagine what you could mean by "semantic points". The correction in question was clearly not a matter of semantic disagreement.

 

[12AX7]

Note that the conservatives here have yet to denounce the actions of their fellow conservatives in the OP. They're more upset that Travis didn't word his thread title correctly.

 

[Dissolution]

Given the awful quality of the photoshop job on display, we have the option of believing that Jeff Allen was either being intentionally malicious or a total moron when he posted it.
Not much of a choice, really.

 

[newyorkguy]

...It's not an irrelevancy, because photoshopping an image and then posting it as an attempt to deliberately deceive readers is clearly worse than stumbling across the image without knowing it was a photoshop (or perhaps they did know--this is debatable) and being too lazy to put in the work to verify its accuracy. Both are bad. One is worse...

The point is, though, sites like Barbwire do these types of things because they know they won't be universally condemned if caught. They know the people whom they speak for won't really be bothered by the fact if the image turns out to be a hoax.

 

[The Big Dog]

Note that the conservatives here have yet to denounce the actions of their fellow conservatives in the OP. They're more upset that Travis didn't word his thread title correctly.

Given the history of this thread, will pointing out that this is false be deemed a derail?

Probably.

 

[12AX7]

Given the history of this thread, will pointing out that this is false be deemed a derail?

Probably.

Please, demonstrate where, in this thread, conservatives here denounced the actions of their fellow conservatives' behaviors as addressed in the OP.

 

[The Big Dog]

Please, demonstrate where, in this thread, conservatives here denounced the actions of their fellow conservatives' behaviors as addressed in the OP.

Now that is a clever retort! Unfortunately, my posts have been inexplicably moved to AAH.

sad trombone.

 

[Unabogie]

Now that is a clever retort! Unfortunately, my posts have been inexplicably moved to AAH.

sad trombone.

Bummer. Considering how truly odious it is to compare either President Obama or gay people in general to child molesters, here's your opportunity to rectify this gross injustice and voice your condemnation once again.

Ready, set, go!

 

[The Big Dog]

!

Bummer. Considering how truly odious it is to compare either President Obama or gay people in general to child molesters, here's your opportunity to rectify this gross injustice and voice your condemnation once again.

Ready, set, go!

Can't do that BRO! That would be reposting moderated content, which is bad.

I already got a bunch of posts moved because I focused on the factual inaccuracies in the OP.

Maybe in Travis's next "obscure preacher from nowhere says something *********** stupid, reflects on the entirety of the political party that does not share my political beliefs" thread, which should be coming down the pike the NEXT time he reads RIGHTWINGWATCH!

It is a hobby!

 

[gregthehammer]

"there's a vast difference between a loon who posts lies on the Internet through images he hasn't substantiated, and a loon who lies."

But have we truly established which is worse? I would argue that its a bigger sin to lazily pass on whatever talking point is fed to you without checking to see if it is true. (As an aside, Sloth is 1 of the 7 deadly sins.)
The originator of the lie, on the other hand, that guy shows ambition. He just needs a little guidance to channel that ambition.

 

[Unabogie]

Can't do that BRO! That would be reposting moderated content, which is bad.

I already got a bunch of posts moved because I focused on the factual inaccuracies in the OP.

Maybe in Travis's next "obscure preacher from nowhere says something *********** stupid, reflects on the entirety of the political party that does not share my political beliefs" thread, which should be coming down the pike the NEXT time he reads RIGHTWINGWATCH!

It is a hobby!

What moderated content? Simply take this opportunity to explain how you feel about comparing gay people and President Obama to pedophiles. How disgusting that is. Why you feel it's wrong. What bugs you most about such a vile thing.

 

[newyorkguy]

Considering how truly odious it is to compare either President Obama or gay people in general to child molesters, here's your opportunity to rectify this gross injustice and voice your condemnation once again...

Can't do that BRO!...

This is what I said earlier:

...They know the people whom they speak for won't really be bothered by the fact if the image turns out to be a hoax.

It's amazing to me that seemingly intelligent people can have so much hatred for Obama that they CAN'T even write a few words condemning an Internet "news site" for posting a hoax photo as if it was the real thing.

 

[johnny karate]

It's amazing to me that seemingly intelligent people can have so much hatred for Obama that they CAN'T even write a few words condemning an Internet "news site" for posting a hoax photo as if it was the real thing.

In fairness, some of these people might just simply be fans of pedophilia.

 

[12AX7]

Simply take this opportunity to explain how you feel about comparing gay people and President Obama to pedophiles. How disgusting that is. Why you feel it's wrong. What bugs you most about such a vile thing.

And how you feel about your* party having been hijacked by religious nutjobs, idiots (see Idaho gubernatorial debate) and right-wing extremists (ala Bundy et al).


Yes, I realize these folks exist across all political spectrums, but the right seems to have a larger (or perhaps more vocal) following.

ETA: *16.5, not Unabogie.

 

[ABC10]

Must be embarrassing to be a Republican these days.

Not in the Real World, it's not. Is it November 6th yet?

 

[Unabogie]

Not in the Real World, it's not. Is it November 6th yet?

Like most things you say, this is nonsense. You seem to be unable to get even the most basic details of reality correct in your "Real World". But hey, if you'd like to cast your vote on November 6th, please proceed.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is what I said earlier:

It's amazing to me that seemingly intelligent people can have so much hatred for Obama that they CAN'T even write a few words condemning an Internet "news site" for posting a hoax photo as if it was the real thing.

wow, you intentionally deleted the remainder of that line?

Here, just for you:

That would be reposting moderated content, which is bad.

Any more questions, sport?