I am ideologically neutral in this pissing match you and anigbrowl are projecting. Is Hegseth dumb enough to make such a mistake? Yes. Is Goldberg a known fabricator? Yes. I reminded people of the latter, since most of you already accept the former. If the tables were turned, I'd have asked a similar question about Hegseth.
Distorting a "gentle reminder" of a fact (not an argument) into a fallacy is a slime ball move, worthy of the most shameless press operatives; only real difference being that the aforementioned operatives are smart enough to demand a dear price for their shamelessness, whereas anigbrowl does it for free!
edit: and to answer ipython since i've been rate limited:
As previously stated, it was not an argument, but a fact, and a signpost to the "Jeff Goldberg is a POS" monument, commonly referred to as his wikipedia page.
I guess I don't understand the point of your argument, if even the administration admits that this conversation was genuine? Please avoid the ad hominem attacks.
Why are you accusing me of projecting? If you feel skeptical of Goldberg over his journalism leading up to the Iraq war, that's fine. I do not consider him totally trustworthy either, for my own reasons. I find this story credible because he appears to have the receipts.
My point about fallacies was that there were a lot of people advocating for the Iraq war at the time, it's ridiculous to argue that it was caused by one article written by Goldberg. Your original post was not a 'gentle reminder', it was a simplistic attack that distracted from the topic. If you had made the same point without the drama I would have had no disagreement.
Thank you for taking the time to remind us that everything is black and white, and there are no shades or grey.
I am ideologically neutral in this pissing match you and anigbrowl are projecting. Is Hegseth dumb enough to make such a mistake? Yes. Is Goldberg a known fabricator? Yes. I reminded people of the latter, since most of you already accept the former. If the tables were turned, I'd have asked a similar question about Hegseth.
Distorting a "gentle reminder" of a fact (not an argument) into a fallacy is a slime ball move, worthy of the most shameless press operatives; only real difference being that the aforementioned operatives are smart enough to demand a dear price for their shamelessness, whereas anigbrowl does it for free!
edit: and to answer ipython since i've been rate limited:
As previously stated, it was not an argument, but a fact, and a signpost to the "Jeff Goldberg is a POS" monument, commonly referred to as his wikipedia page.
I guess I don't understand the point of your argument, if even the administration admits that this conversation was genuine? Please avoid the ad hominem attacks.
Why are you accusing me of projecting? If you feel skeptical of Goldberg over his journalism leading up to the Iraq war, that's fine. I do not consider him totally trustworthy either, for my own reasons. I find this story credible because he appears to have the receipts.
My point about fallacies was that there were a lot of people advocating for the Iraq war at the time, it's ridiculous to argue that it was caused by one article written by Goldberg. Your original post was not a 'gentle reminder', it was a simplistic attack that distracted from the topic. If you had made the same point without the drama I would have had no disagreement.
1 reply →
Stay mad.