So, go ahead and demonstrate that what it says is false otherwise you have to accept the information on our source as reliable according to your own argument.

(To break it down for you:

If you think that in order for us to reject the information on a source as reliable we must demonstrate that it's false then until such a time as you demonstrate that the information on our source is false then you need to accept it, i.e. you need to accept that Horowitz's website is "A questionable source that exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news."

But given that your argument then requires you to accept that your source is untrustworthy, you've made our argument for us.)

Your only alternative is to admit that there is no positive reason for us to consider the source you provided as legitimate. And again, your case falls apart.

So, go ahead and demonstrate that what it says is false otherwise you have to accept the information on our source as reliable according to your own argument. — Baden

When did I say that? Now you're putting words in my mouth. Michael's site did not purport to document things people said or real world events that occurred. When I have spoken of my site's reliability, it has always been in the context of the quotes and events it compiled, not the reliability of the author's opinions, which are clearly biased and on the right. Because the page I linked to isn't anything like Michael's site, your attempt to trap me in hypocrisy won't work.

The events compiled and edited and presented by an author you now admit is "clearly biased and on the right". So, obviously it's reasonable to suspect he may not have compiled and edited and presented that information in an unbiased way. QED.

In other words, information compiled, edited and presented by someone who is clearly biased is clearly unreliable. That's self-evident.

(I want to reiterate that I am still not taking a position on how much if any of the information is true or false. We can't know that for sure. I'm restricting myself to making a point about reliability).

So, you have our reasons. But you have still provided no reason to doubt the information on the site Michael presented. What is your reason?

Or try this formulation if you like (both amount to the same thing):

Information compiled, edited and presented by someone who is clearly biased (on any side) is significantly more likely to present a biased viewpoint than that compiled, edited and presented by someone who is not clearly biased. Again, self-evident.

On the other hand, I don't concede that Michael's source is clearly biased. In fact, because it presents criticism of both the right and the left, it would seem more likely to be unbiased.

you now admit — Baden

Again, I haven't ever denied this.

So, obviously it's reasonable to suspect he may not have compiled and edited and presented that information in an unbiased way. — Baden

Again, you're missing the point. I have been talking about the reliability of the information itself. Now you have shifted to talking about how the presentation of that information might be biased. I'm sure it is, as it comes from a position of opposition to BLM, but I haven't ever denied that either. And one would expect that a source opposed to BLM would compile information about it that cast it in a negative light, so the bias isn't surprising. But that doesn't mean the information it compiles is false. You accuse me of not reading your posts, but you apparently don't read mine.

On the other hand, I don't concede that Michael's source is clearly biased. In fact, because it presents criticism of both the right and the left, it would seem more likely to be unbiased. — Baden

Irrelevant. Apples to oranges.

I have been talking about the reliability of the information itself. Now you have shifted to talking about how the presentation of that information might be biased. — Thorongil

There is no shift at all. Is it hard for you to understand that the way you collect (compile), present and edit information can change the content, context and reliability of the information? For example, you might collect information that was not true or properly vetted, or you might change the context of some true information through selective editing to make it appear in a different light etc etc. This is done all the time by governments and news organizations the world over. It's called propaganda. To put it another way, would you consider news that came from a left-wing website that explicitly set out to attack the right reliable?



Just present your objections to Michael's source. I've asked you several times for them. Or, we'll have to presume you don't have any.

To put it another way, would you consider news that came from a left-wing website that explicitly set out to attack the right reliable? — Baden

Yes, in conjunction with right wing sources on the same topics.

Just present your objections to Michael's source. I've asked you several times for them. Or, we'll have to presume you don't have any. — Baden

I'm not doing that until you acknowledge you understand the distinction I made between the two websites, although it should be obvious why I dismiss it.

Yes, in conjunction with right wing sources on the same topics. — Thorongil

And I'll consider the information you presented as reliable in conjunction with left wing sources on the same topics. Please present them and we can continue.

'm not doing that until you acknowledge you understand the distinction I made between the two websites, although it should be obvious why I dismiss it. — Thorongil

I acknowledge that there is a distinction in the format of the information (one is in the format of "news" and the other in the format of a review). Now give me your objections. Why is this website unreliable in your view?

And I'll consider the information you presented as reliable in conjunction with left wing sources on the same topics. Please present them and we can continue. — Baden

You mean to tell me you haven't done so already? You're just a blank slate with respect to BLM? Come now. The left wing view of BLM is not hard to find or being suppressed. It is, in fact, the default view of most media outlets. You already adopt it. It's just a question of admitting it.

Now give me your objections? Why is this website unreliable in your view? — Baden

David Horowitz is not on the "extreme right." Nor does he support any "hate group."

You can cut the nonsense now. You've just admitted I should consider your right-wing source unreliable until there is another left-wing source to back it up. That's your problem. It's not my job to find reliable evidence to support your claims.

So, go get the specific left wing sources for the specific information you presented in your posts or you have no reliable evidence to present by your own determination, and you've wasted four pages of both our time before admitting that.

David Horowitz is not on the "extreme right." Nor does he support any "hate group." — Thorongil

Meaningless bare assertion. To consider a site unreliable solely on the basis that you disagree with its conclusion is obviously to say nothing at all unless you can present evidence as to why you are right and it is wrong.

"Under Horowitz's direction, the Freedom Center has launched a network of projects giving anti-Muslim voices and radical ideologies a platform to project hate and misinformation. Funding these figures and ideas fits into Horowitz's multi-front information war against the political left, which he claims has a stranglehold on mainstream culture."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/david-horowitz

go get the specific left wing sources — Baden

No, go to hell. This is becoming farcical. You know very well what the left wing position on BLM is and where one might easily find it. I'm not going to submit to such a ludicrous demand.

Meaningless bare assertion. To consider a site unreliable solely on the basis that you disagree with its conclusion is obviously to say nothing at all unless you can present evidence as to why you are right and it is wrong. — Baden

It is a fact that Horowitz is not on the extreme right. Here's your precious Wikipedia on the extreme right: "The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions." None of that applies to Horowitz. Say what you want about the man, and I'm not actually the biggest fan, but to apply that label to him is sheer slander.

"Media Matters partnered with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Center for New Community, and ReThink Media to release a journalist's guide to the network of anti-Muslim activists and surrogates spreading vitriolic rhetoric in the media and the best practices for countering these extremists’ misinformation.

The report “profiles 15 prominent anti-Muslim extremists, many of whom are associated with organizations identified by the SPLC as hate groups,” who appear frequently in the media, “where they spread falsehoods that too often go untested.”

The 15 anti-Muslim extremists profiled in the report are Ann Corcoran, Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney Jr., Pamela Geller, John Guandolo, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Horowitz, Ryan Mauro, Robert Muise, Maajid Nawaz, Daniel Pipes, Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer, and David Yerushalmi."

https://www.mediamatters.org/people/david-horowitz

The reason you expect not to learn anything new is because of the biased nature of the compilers and sources of the information. Ergo, genetic fallacy. — Thorongil

That's not what the genetic fallacy is. Look it up.

Good lord, Baden. Not even the left takes the SPLC seriously anymore.

Why care about David Horowitz? The man can't even count : he publish a book titled the 101 most dangerous academics, but only includes 100... :vomit:

I mean, you don't have to get past the title to put the fact-checking meter in the negative!

No, go to hell. This is becoming farcical. You know very well what the left wing position on BLM is and where one might easily find it. I'm not going to submit to such a ludicrous demand. — Thorongil

Have you blown a fuse or something? You said I cannot trust your source unless it's backed up by a left-wing source. So, your source as it stands is unreliable. That's not my problem.

Ad hom. Genetic fallacy. (According to your definitions). And let's add in (disingenuous) "appeal to authority".

That's not what the genetic fallacy is. Look it up. — andrewk

I have. You're wrong. Why don't you look it up?

I am already aware of the left wing position on it, so no, it doesn't stand as unreliable re: my claim.

“Horowitz has gone even further than his conspiracy-minded colleagues by alleging that Islamic extremism has infiltrated our education system, beginning in kindergarten.” Both Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch and the conspiracy-laden FrontPage Magazine are projects of Horowitz’s Freedom Center."

http://www.islamophobia.org/islamophobic-individuals/david-horowitz/83-david-horowitz.html

A genetic fallacy would be if I said that a claim made on the website was wrong, because the website is biased, and produced no other reason for believing it to be wrong. Show me where I or Baden did that.

Saying it's not worth wasting time on the website is not saying that all its claims are wrong. Indeed, I expect that some of them will be right, just as some of the statements in the physics crank's 100-page perpetual motion machine design will be right. But I'm not going to waste my time looking for them.

I did explain this several times. He keeps getting confused over the issue of reliability of information which pertains to the likely level of truth in a source and a specific determination of the truth of a particular argument or claim based on its source. I don't think he's ever going to get it tbh.

How'd you go from being a professor to being a janitor? — Buxtebuddha

I think you are mixing up Baden with unenlightened. I'm not aware that un was ever a prof. Based on the depth of insight displayed by un's posts on here, I reckon he could have been if he'd wanted to aim at that, but he chose a different path.

BB was just trolling. He refers to all the mods as janitors. He needs some new material. He doesn't have anything to add to this conversation.

Show me where I or Baden did that. — andrewk

Baden's very first comment was: "David Horowitz who has a history of misinformation and on top of that is an alleged racist." And then he quoted from Wikipedia. That's it. I don't know what else he wanted me to infer from saying such a thing.

Saying it's not worth wasting time on the website is not saying that all its claims are wrong. — andrewk

Which induces one to ponder just why you believe it not worth your time, if not because you think its claims are false. I was asked to substantiate a claim. I did. You don't want to address the evidence I offered? Fine, then stop replying.

CAIR? Are you serious? I almost suspect I'm being trolled at this point.

CAIR? Are you serious? I almost suspect I'm being trolled at this point. — Thorongil

David Horowitz? Are you serious? I suspect I'm being trolled at this point.

You really are an odd individual. You expect us to take your sources as reliable and even accuse us of committing fallacies when we don't accept them, and then scream indignantly at every source we present as if somehow your biased sources are fine when you won't even give our sources a second look. The level of hypocrisy is so farcically high that there's nowhere else to go with the discussion. So, if your goal was to shut this thread of argument down, you've succeeded.

CAIR? Are you serious? I almost suspect I'm being trolled at this point. — Thorongil

The fuck is wrong with CAIR?