A serious question for Sam Stone on Factual Errors

We literally had Trump pressure the president of Ukraine to drum up a scandal and lo and behold, Hunter’s laptop is the (possibly unwitting) result.

And three years later not a single person has made anything close to a convincing case that this laptop… or Hunter Biden… is a serious threat to anyone not named Hunter Biden.

But an anonymous person in a secret proceeding was asked a question about it. Checkmate liberals.

Fuck. Got me.

It may not be the good way of saying it, but if someone makes a baseless accusation about another person, defamation, the appropriate way of dealing with it isn’t to repeat the defamation 10,000 times while countering it with logic and facts. It isn’t to have journalists sit down and respectfully discuss the accusation as though it was anything other than a thoroughly baseless attack on an innocent person. The only way to stop defamation from harming someone is to not repeat it, do not give it respect it doesn’t deserve.

Some of the things Sam wants to “discuss” aren’t baseless claims about a person, but are baseless claims about a document, a laptop, an election, the shape of the planet. In a case of defamation, people are left questioning the nature of a person, in these others, people question the nature of just about anything that happens around us.

Baby steps folks!
Let’s start with the difference between lamb and veal.

Lamb is a baby veal right? If we repeat that enough, then it becomes true.

If you had Sam’s extensive experience in the food industry :cough: as a stock boy :cough: you’d know how stupid this question is.

No, no, all veal is baby lamb, but not all baby lamb is veal. That’s how it works, right?

I’ve heard so many people wondering if veal is baby lamb lately. There must be something to that point of view. It would be foolish to casually dismiss something that so many people take seriously.

And they dragged him away, as he called out “Veal is mutton! Veal is mutton!”

(Not sure if my mental image comes across clearly, think Charlton Heston in the end of Soylent Green)

I haven’t had any issues. But I just use proper cites and real math.

If you make a Republican argument using nonsense as your foundation then you end up with nonsense. If you make the same argument, using real live data and logic then you end up with a good, solid Republican argument that, while debated, isn’t going to get pitted nor get you mocked.

If you have to use nonsense to make your arguments, though, then fundamentally you must not trust right-wing arguments enough to go hunting for real data.

Is that like a good Republican cloth coat?*

And, cite?

*ancient Pat Nixon reference.

Is this a syllogism?

Here, let me try…

  1. God is Love
  2. Love is Blind

Therefore, it logically follows that:

  1. Ray Charles is God.

Having sampled some of those posts of yours and followup, I’d agree that you made well-constructed arguments (whether or not I agreed with them) and weren’t pitted or mocked for them.

They were however not phrased as being Republican positions (and they tend to be well outside of mainstream Republican thought). It’s hard to imagine a Doper explicitly citing the party platform and G.O.P. leaders who support his/her views and getting a respectful hearing, no matter how factually and logically their posts are presented.

Particularly when they “live” in Canada. :roll_eyes:

Most of the intelligentsia have either gone silent, gone crazy, or switched sides. Probably, most are quiet or pretending. But you’ll notice how Alaska is on the forefront of electoral reform, despite being a Republican state, so we’re certainly active behind the scenes.

Since it seems near and dear to @Sam_Stone’s heart, how about this: Sam and JohnT have a factual debate regarding the validity of the information on Hunter’s laptop but per Sam’s suggestion they flip the sides.

It shouldn’t be morally repugnant, because it’s a (comparatively) low stakes enterprise, and even most ‘liberal’ individuals acknowledge that Hunter is likely not a being of strong moral fiber. And Sam seems to have done a great deal of research on it.

Would that be a fair debate? Sam should do his best to prove that the laptop argument is a nothingburger, and JohnT that it is a massive coverup to protect Biden?

It would be very hard for me to keep the snark out of my arguments. It would also require me to promote a chain of events which didn’t happen, and, yeah, I just don’t want to go there. I would do better arguing the success of Reaganomics, to be fair.

But that’s the whole point. You just need to lie and obfuscate and make shit up, and then if you win the debate (based on public opinion I guess), then all of your points become TRUTH. Doesn’t even matter if you believe the crap you spew.

In this worldview, there is no such thing as objective reality.