(November 5, 2022 at 7:07 am)Helios Wrote:

(November 5, 2022 at 6:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Bold mine)

I'd be interested to see how you reconcile those two statements.

Boru

Note the IA never actually addresses your objection more waffles around it

Ok. I take back my objection asking for a source I've heard of. Just maybe don't give me an obscure meme poster and try to pass that off as a news source. See. Here's me admitting I was wrong again, as I have no problem doing so. I probably admit it more than anyone on here.

You know a source I have heard of though? His name is Helios. I've heard of him. Maybe he can debunk the Intercept article himself and provide clear reasoning as to why he's right, rather than doing a quick google search like you did and providing me an obscure meme poster to make your arguments for you? How's that sound?

(November 5, 2022 at 6:56 am)Helios Wrote: His points were not ridiculous unlike your objections so far and throwing in an argument from motivation. Truly the fallacious cherry on top of this shit sundae 

Yet another failed attempt by IA

AI is like charlie brown trying to kick the football.

Argument from motivation? The author you provided literally said there was no evidence that the government has any censorious motives. They gave their opinion on how the government thinks, and I literally just pointed that out. This author trusts the government. I don't see how me pointing out the authors opinion is me committing any type of fallacy.

Quote:Ok. I take back my objection asking for a source I've heard of. Just maybe don't give me an obscure meme poster and try to pass that off as a news source. See. Here's me admitting I was wrong again, as I have no problem doing so. I probably admit it more than anyone on here.

You know a source I have heard of though? His name is Helios. I've heard of him. Maybe he can debunk the Intercept article himself and provide clear reasoning as to why he's right, rather than doing a quick google search like you did and providing me an obscure meme poster to make your arguments for you? How's that sound?

Genetic fallacies and nothing addressed 

Quote:Argument from motivation? The author you provided literally said there was no evidence that the government has any censorious motives. They gave their opinion on how the government thinks, and I literally just pointed that out. This author trusts the government. I don't see how me pointing out the authors opinion is me committing any type of fallacy.

So pointing out your argument from motivation somehow refutes that it's an argument from motivation? 

And you say the authors arguments were bad 

(November 5, 2022 at 6:55 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(November 5, 2022 at 6:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Bold mine)

I'd be interested to see how you reconcile those two statements.

Boru

I did judge based on what he said, Boru. I came in with an open mind, and that's all you can really ask for. All of the authors points were ridiculous and the author simply has complete trust in the motives of the government.

The authors main point was basically that there weren't literal documents from the government saying "you better submit to us completely social media companies, or we'll fuck you up good." Well, that generally not how things go in life. When the Mob comes around, they don't have to be so boisterous. A wink and a nod is usually all that's needed for both parties to know what's up.

But first you judge people based on what they say, not who they are. Then, you want to be referred to well-known sources, which is a who-they-are standard.

Which is it?

Boru

(November 5, 2022 at 11:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 5, 2022 at 6:55 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I did judge based on what he said, Boru. I came in with an open mind, and that's all you can really ask for. All of the authors points were ridiculous and the author simply has complete trust in the motives of the government.

The authors main point was basically that there weren't literal documents from the government saying "you better submit to us completely social media companies, or we'll fuck you up good." Well, that generally not how things go in life. When the Mob comes around, they don't have to be so boisterous. A wink and a nod is usually all that's needed for both parties to know what's up.

But first you judge people based on what they say, not who they are. Then, you want to be referred to well-known sources, which is a who-they-are standard.

Which is it?

Boru

I addressed this to Helios. I said I take that back and I'm fine with someone I haven't heard of, but please make it someone other than a meme poster who is making the case that there is no reason to mistrust government motives.

And I like how you just nitpicked at the smallest most irrelevant point in my post and ignored all of the substance where I showed how wrong the author was. How about you debunk the Intercept article for me, Boru? I consider you ten times as intelligent as the source that Helios linked me, so you will be fine to do the job. Which of the points from Helios article do you agree with personally? Do you blanket agree with the entire article?

This is blatant opinion shopping. Refusing to accept anything until you find an account which is agreeable to you. It's pathetic. The person who regularly sources info from Youtube is complaining about sources. It's laughable.

Where did I miss the 'substance' posted by our nut from the north?

(November 5, 2022 at 11:43 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(November 5, 2022 at 11:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But first you judge people based on what they say, not who they are. Then, you want to be referred to well-known sources, which is a who-they-are standard.

Which is it?

Boru

I addressed this to Helios. I said I take that back and I'm fine with someone I haven't heard of, but please make it someone other than a meme poster who is making the case that there is no reason to mistrust government motives.

And I like how you just nitpicked at the smallest most irrelevant point in my post and ignored all of the substance where I showed how wrong the author was. How about you debunk the Intercept article for me, Boru? I consider you ten times as intelligent as the source that Helios linked me, so you will be fine to do the job. Which of the points from Helios article do you agree with personally? Do you blanket agree with the entire article?

No, I’m not going to debunk that article for you. Apart from the obvious reasons why, I’m just not that interested.

I gleefully accept the charge of nitpicking.

Boru

(November 5, 2022 at 3:10 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 5, 2022 at 11:43 am)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I addressed this to Helios. I said I take that back and I'm fine with someone I haven't heard of, but please make it someone other than a meme poster who is making the case that there is no reason to mistrust government motives.

And I like how you just nitpicked at the smallest most irrelevant point in my post and ignored all of the substance where I showed how wrong the author was. How about you debunk the Intercept article for me, Boru? I consider you ten times as intelligent as the source that Helios linked me, so you will be fine to do the job. Which of the points from Helios article do you agree with personally? Do you blanket agree with the entire article?

No, I’m not going to debunk that article for you. Apart from the obvious reasons why, I’m just not that interested.

I gleefully accept the charge of nitpicking.

Boru

Note his only objection really has been a "meme poster" and an argument from motivation (because the poster doesn't the government has nefarious goals he's somehow not credible) Also he never showed the author was wrong in his post he just babbled on so you were wise to ignore it and criticize him on an actual point.