0
0

[–] 16307244? ago 

This was just to show you the pattern of what he was doing. Like I said you have to know logical fallacies to really understand it. It seems like you can't break it down but maybe you were focused on using other points. Besides the ad hominem arguments he was making at first, he then goes into a whole "guilt by association" ad hominem by lumping Norris in with Paul starting with "Today's brainless isolationists are no different from the brainless isolationists of the past." In that whole thing he barely mentions any real reasons to be against what he is actually trying to argue against. It's the same as if they tried to compare Trump to Hitler and just began listing why Hitler is so bad. It's trying to hook people emotionally so they ignore the actual substance. It's similar to what John Oliver does with his "comedic" bits. The pacing and cut off points going from 1 aspect to the next are designed to try to get people to forget about the weaknesses of the proceeding claim. In both cases it's not something intellectually honest people do to that extent. You will however find it in a lot of propaganda. (this also is just addressing the surface level issues with the piece and not even getting into other aspects)

0
0

[–] 16308221? ago 

I get all that. I'm aware of his 'patterns'. You make valid points regarding this 'presentation'. And I appreciate your love of logic.

Thomas Wictor (to my knowledge) has made no claims of being logical, OR always presenting logically flawless -- or intellectually honest -- pubs.

If I only sourced intellectually honest and logically flawless information, I'd have almost nothing to read. AND if I spent my time logically dissecting everything I see, hear, and read, I'd either not have time for anything else...OR I'd have to stop looking, hearing, and reading. Being human is a bitch.

Rock on. You are a valuable asset. I hope it's benefiting you immensely.

0
0

[–] 16313489? ago 

Yeah I am not advocating a stance where everything needs to be flawless. I believe strongly in giving the benefit of the doubt. When there is enough there to see it's purposeful, it's only then where I become critical. With Wictor my problem is this: I have seen enough on the issues I know a lot about to know he is giving one-sided information to the extent it's akin to propaganda on a couple of his main topics. (Saudi, GCC, Syria, Yemen, etc.) It's consistent enough you can clearly identify the faction he is siding with. (normally for an avg joe you are going to see some conflicting stands because the middle east is a cluster**** in general) His is pro Sunni regime Saudi/Israel. (since they are joined at the hip.) As Q has told us "be careful who you follow" and to specifically look at independent journalist types. I am not saying it's wrong to follow Wictor but you have to go into it knowing it's a particularly propagandized viewpoint. Like watching CNN or any other MSM source. I guess the biggest issue for me is that he does try to project this image that he is giving the real information and it sickens me how easily people fall into it because they take it at face value and trust him too much as an "expert" source because he is basically a good storyteller.