You are once again making a false equivalency. You are now comparing “well-founded criticism” with “information.”
Why is it so hard for you to just talk about the thing at hand? You keep making abstractions where it isn’t some straightforward example of criticism, but instead some other thing. It is incredibly disingenuous.
Your statement also seems faulty. I do not trust information given by a professor due to their status as a professor. The reason I would trust a history professor is because they back up their statements with verifiable sources, not because they are a history professor.
The stories of Abu Ghraib were first published in an Australian tabloid. News media lies all the times.
So yes I would trust information found in tabloid media, if it were presented with verifiable data and corroborating sources, as I do with all sources. I would likewise treat information shared by any other in the same way, no matter the loudness of their voices - Though I assume you tried to allude to them talking weirdly, but that makes no sense, since we have already established we are talking about reasonable critique of the democrat party, not ramblings of some mentally unwell individual. So since it cannot be ramblings, then it can only refer to them being louder than normal. And I talk to italians all the time.
You keep making up situations that aren’t related to the discussion at hand in order to make your point make sense. I also address your point after addressing this fallacy. The only one ignoring things is you, since you never respond to any questions, nor do you address when these faults of your analogies are pointed out.
You are once again making a false equivalency. You are now comparing “well-founded criticism” with “information.”
Why is it so hard for you to just talk about the thing at hand? You keep making abstractions where it isn’t some straightforward example of criticism, but instead some other thing. It is incredibly disingenuous.
Your statement also seems faulty. I do not trust information given by a professor due to their status as a professor. The reason I would trust a history professor is because they back up their statements with verifiable sources, not because they are a history professor.
The stories of Abu Ghraib were first published in an Australian tabloid. News media lies all the times.
So yes I would trust information found in tabloid media, if it were presented with verifiable data and corroborating sources, as I do with all sources. I would likewise treat information shared by any other in the same way, no matter the loudness of their voices - Though I assume you tried to allude to them talking weirdly, but that makes no sense, since we have already established we are talking about reasonable critique of the democrat party, not ramblings of some mentally unwell individual. So since it cannot be ramblings, then it can only refer to them being louder than normal. And I talk to italians all the time.
You keep ignoring my point to extrude a lot of words.
People assess what people say in part based on the reputation of the speaker. That’s it.
You keep making up situations that aren’t related to the discussion at hand in order to make your point make sense. I also address your point after addressing this fallacy. The only one ignoring things is you, since you never respond to any questions, nor do you address when these faults of your analogies are pointed out.
Once again, you have ignored what I’m saying to argue against something imaginary. You’re not worth engaging with.
Sure buddy, come back to this thread some day when you’ve grown enough as a person to see how embarrasingly you’ve been behaving.