Nolte: Movies Are About to Suck Like ‘Captain Marvel’ for a Very Long Time

[Orange_Crush]

It’s a pretty essential critical thinking tool. You should try it.

It's actually a logical fallacy. It's one of the things they're trying to cure and prevent when they teach actual critical thinking. lol

 

[kcvols1]

It's actually a logical fallacy. It's one of the things they're trying to cure and prevent when they teach actual critical thinking. lol

I had that class many moons ago in the Humanities building. Ill go out on a limb and assume you’re talking about the ad hominem fallacy. I agree that’s a category of fallacy. Of course, such arguments cease to be fallacious where they illustrate questionable motives, hypocrisy, or other aspects indicating whether the argument (or speaker) at issue is sound (or trustworthy).

 

[kcvols1]

I think you just failed your own claim.

All sources just aren’t equal, brother.

Mad magazine and the Wall Street Jornal may have similar positions in certain things, but one is clearly more trustworthy as a news source.

For the record, I’d trust Mad over Breitbart any day.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I had that class many moons ago in the Humanities building. Ill go out on a limb and assume you’re talking about the ad hominem fallacy. I agree that’s a category of fallacy. Of course, such arguments cease to be fallacious where they illustrate questionable motives, hypocrisy, or other aspects indicating whether the argument (or speaker) at issue is sound (or trustworthy).

They never cease to be a fallacy as long as they are an argument about the messenger and not the facts of the message. Go dust off your old textbooks and make an argument about the facts in question.

 

[luthervol]

They never cease to be a fallacy as long as they are an argument about the messenger and not the facts of the message. Go dust off your old textbooks and make an argument about the facts in question.

Not true.
If something is known to be false 90% of the time and it is then stated that there is a 90% chance that the next piece of information is false, there is absolutely no fallacy.

 

[Roustabout]

All sources just aren’t equal, brother.

Mad magazine and the Wall Street Jornal may have similar positions in certain things, but one is clearly more trustworthy as a news source.

For the record, I’d trust Mad over Breitbart any day.

Not at all my point. And this is hillarious coming form a side that considers Comendy Central and late night hosts as reliable news sources.

A satire source and a news source have different expectations.

Since I watch the main news sources I see far more unreliable and subtly distorted news from them. Id rather it be worn on the sleeve, then I can filter and fact check. I saw the same attacks on OAN and spent the last two weeks watching their morning news and it’s far less skewed than that bitch Gail King and her crew.

 

[Roustabout]

Not true.
If something is known to be false 90% of the time and it is then stated that there is a 90% chance that the next piece of information is false, there is absolutely no fallacy.

It’s a freaking open piece based around a quote from a Hollywood icon. Get over it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not true.
If something is known to be false 90% of the time and it is then stated that there is a 90% chance that the next piece of information is false, there is absolutely no fallacy.

lol

Keep digging. The ad hominem is a fallacy as long as it deals with the messenger in absence of dealing with the message. Your attempts at statistical analysis don't change that, Einstein.

 

[kcvols1]

Not at all my point. And this is hillarious coming form a side that considers Comendy Central and late night hosts as reliable news sources.

I saw the same attacks on OAN and spent the last two weeks watching their morning news and it’s far less skewed than that bitch Gail King and her crew.

You’re assuming which side I’m on, but whatever.

FWIW, you’re falling into the actual ad hominem fallacy stating that Gail King is a b*tch and therefore, untrustworthy.

Do you feel the same way about Kellyanne Conway?


“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true— and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.”

- George Washington

Happy Independence Day!

 

[luthervol]

lol

Keep digging. The ad hominem is a fallacy as long as it deals with the messenger in absence of dealing with the message. Your attempts at statistical analysis don't change that, Einstein.

In honor of the Fourth of July and our great country that the left loves just as much as the right...........

You are correct!!! With the caveat of "in absence of dealing with the message."
However.
The "lol.....look at your source, there is a 90% chance it is BS." is perfectly appropriate.
There would be a greater onus on the original poster to prove the message true than on the poster questioning the validity to prove it false.

With no additional data provided by either side, the logical conclusion would be that the message is probably false.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I liked Captain Marvel. It helps if you shut your brain off and don’t go into a movie looking to be offended.

I just wanted to see Captain Marvels clothes fall off. Had to google that instead.

 

[FLVOL_79]

In honor of the Fourth of July and our great country that the left loves just as much as the right...........

You are correct!!! With the caveat of "in absence of dealing with the message."
However.
The "lol.....look at your source, there is a 90% chance it is BS." is perfectly appropriate.
There would be a greater onus on the original poster to prove the message true than on the poster questioning the validity to prove it false.

With no additional data provided by either side, the logical conclusion would be that the message is probably false.

LOL. Glad you added the extra ...... so everyone knew you were full of sh!t right off the bat.

 

[Orange_Crush]

In honor of the Fourth of July and our great country that the left loves just as much as the right...........

You are correct!!! With the caveat of "in absence of dealing with the message."
However.
The "lol.....look at your source, there is a 90% chance it is BS." is perfectly appropriate.
There would be a greater onus on the original poster to prove the message true than on the poster questioning the validity to prove it false.

With no additional data provided by either side, the logical conclusion would be that the message is probably false.

That was my argument all along, chief. It was no "caveat". It's THE DEFINITION of the fallacy.

And if those made up statistics are so promising, it should encourage one to debate the facts instead of ignoring them. But alas, the ad hominem is usually an indication that one is afraid of the debate.

Odd, considering the supposed assurances they have in their side of the argument.

 

[luthervol]

LOL. Glad you added the extra ...... so everyone knew you were full of sh!t right off the bat.

I added it specifically for you and all of the other like minded in the PF.
The whole "the left hates America" nonsense is comical.
The fact that some morons actually buy into it is Twilight Zone worthy.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I added it specifically for you and all of the other like minded in the PF.
The whole "the left hates America" nonsense is comical.
The fact that some morons actually buy into it is Twilight Zone worthy.

It is comical, yet so very, very true.

 

[luthervol]

That was my argument all along, chief. It was no "caveat". It's THE DEFINITION of the fallacy.

And if those made up statistics are so promising, it should encourage one to debate the facts instead of ignoring them. But alas, the ad hominem is usually an indication that one is afraid of the debate.

Odd, considering the supposed assurances they have in their side of the argument.

Chief?
Not surprising that you miss the point Cletus (one of '69's favorites)
When "information" is provided from a known unreliable source, the onus of verification falls on the original poster.
If no supporting data is provided, it is logical to discount the message and illogical to accept the message.
The reliability of the source determines where the onus lies.
So the logical fallacy is in believing the message, not in questioning the message.
Clear it up for you Cletus? (2 Cletuses in one post; not bad)

 

[luthervol]

It is comical, yet so very, very true.

You're nothing if not 100% predictable.

 

[Roustabout]

You’re assuming which side I’m on, but whatever.

FWIW, you’re falling into the actual ad hominem fallacy stating that Gail King is a b*tch and therefore, untrustworthy.

Do you feel the same way about Kellyanne Conway?


“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true— and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.”

- George Washington

Happy Independence Day!

Yes, I feel similar about Conway. I’m not a Trump supporter. You’re assuming which side I’m on, but whatever: However, Conway doesn’t have a daily platform sponsored by a major network. Huge difference. But thanks for the whataboutism. My thoughts on King are based on years of watching her and what’s she’s actually said. I don’t dismiss her opinion because she’s a bitch. I’ve concluded she’s a bitch based on her opinion.

Let’s stay on point. You’re attempting to move the argument. The point was the op-Ed piece quoting Nolte. You should be lecturing Luther not me. He’s the one who dismissed the piece without consideration. Get back to me after you’ve consistently lectured him.

 

[luthervol]

Yes, I feel similar about Conway. I’m not a Trump supporter. You’re assuming which side I’m on, but whatever: However, Conway doesn’t have a daily platform sponsored by a major network. Huge difference. But thanks for the whataboutism. My thoughts on King are based on years of watching her and what’s she’s actually said. I don’t dismiss her opinion because she’s a bitch. I’ve concluded she’s a bitch based on her opinion.

Let’s stay on point. You’re attempting to move the argument. The point was the op-Ed piece quoting Nolte. You should be lecturing Luther not me. He’s the one who dismissed the piece without consideration. Get back to me after you’ve consistently lectured him.

And where exactly did I dismiss the piece? Oh yeah, that's right, I didn't.
Apology accepted.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Chief?
Not surprising that you miss the point Cletus (one of '69's favorites)
When "information" is provided from a known unreliable source, the onus of verification falls on the original poster.
If no supporting data is provided, it is logical to discount the message and illogical to accept the message.
The reliability of the source determines where the onus lies.
So the logical fallacy is in believing the message, not in questioning the message.
Clear it up for you Cletus? (2 Cletuses in one post; not bad)

The onus is always on the one offering an argument. Thus, they've offered facts in the referenced article.

The fallacy discounts the referenced material (which I guess you're claiming hasn't been offered?) in favor of attacking the vehicle of the facts.

As I said, it's by definition to the fallacy, and it's not that complicated. You're not doing yourself any favors with whatever it is you're doing right now.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

The irony is indeed rich that for 8 years those on the left were considered snowflakes, yet we have people on the right literally crying because a fictional character on a ****ing superhero movie hurts their fragile male ego.

Or a Trans person is a model for Calvin Klein.

Or the constant bitching that participation trophies are the downfall of society yet we have people crying about a flag from a losing side being ridiculed.

Or because even one negative statement about Trump causes their fragile egos to implode.

 

[luthervol]

The onus is always on the one offering an argument. Thus, they've offered facts in the referenced article.

The fallacy discounts the referenced material (which I guess you're claiming hasn't been offered?) in favor of attacking the vehicle of the facts.

As I said, it's by definition to the fallacy, and it's not that complicated. You're not doing yourself any favors with whatever it is you're doing right now.

Nope.
You are making an assumption that they offered facts.
The better and more accurate assumption is that they offered falsehoods.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nope.
You are making an assumption that they offered facts.
The better and more accurate assumption is that they offered falsehoods.

You're making an assumption based on the source, and ignoring the facts? Which you and I have both agreed is the fallacy.

Exactly what are you trying to argue here? That you're justified in using fallacious logic? Geez. You sure got one over on critical thinking that time.

 

[luthervol]

You're making an assumption based on the source, and ignoring the facts? Which you and I have both agreed is the fallacy.

Exactly what are you trying to argue here? That you're justified in using fallacious logic? Geez. You sure got one over on critical thinking that time.

LOL......
You're willingly accepting that they are offering facts. Based on the source, that's an illogical assumption.
Everyone must take the original offering and make an assumption.
That it is factual.
That it is false.
That it is probably factual.
That it is probably false.
That it is almost assuredly factual.
That it is almost assuredly false.
That initial assumption logically has to be based largely on the credibility of the source.

My position is that the credibility of the source dictates the burden of proof or disproof.

 

[Orange_Crush]

LOL......
You're willingly accepting that they are offering facts. Based on the source, that's an illogical assumption.
Everyone must take the original offering and make an assumption.
That it is factual.
That it is false.
That it is probably factual.
That it is probably false.
That it is almost assuredly factual.
That it is almost assuredly false.
That initial assumption logically has to be based largely on the credibility of the source.

My position is that the credibility of the source dictates the burden of proof or disproof.

I genuinely don't understand your convulsions here, luther.

I am doing no such thing. I am merely saying that to reject something based merely on its source AND REFUSE TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE PROPOSITION is a logical fallacy.

I've never once said that anyone must make any assumption at all, or stop with their original assumptions. I've proposed just the opposite. A debate of any claims.

You actually agreed with me.

I'm not sure if you've hit your head, skipped a meal, missed a dose of meds, or accidentally taken an extra dose of meds, but you're basically having seizures right now.