After all, Trumpians certainly can't do self-deprication.

No one says potahto.

Tomahto?

Tomahto? — NOS4A2

Of course. Change the subject. Whataboutism at its most ludicrous. :lol:

I prefer anti-Trumpism because it better reflects the ideological aspect of their dogma and fanaticism — NOS4A2

True that. Only a dogmatic fanatic could think there's anything the matter with Trump. :lol:

I can't see how Trump's disinfectant comments could be understood as sarcastic. — Banno

He was 'thinking out loud' - obviously. 'If only we could zap the virus with light and disinfectant while it's in the body!' Just like any child.

I can't see how Trump's disinfectant comments could be understood as sarcastic. — Banno

Sarcasm isn't Trump's style. He makes his point by repetition, statements he repeats; he's a repeater; he's a great repetitious unstable moron. His style is bombast, pomposity, ranting, verbosity, blathering, lying, vague generalizations, and worse.

Dump Trump at the earliest possible opportunity.

And he repeats himself.

And he repeats himself. — Banno

Ad nauseam.

And then some.

And they love it.

If an authority figure repeats something enough times people will begin to believe it. It’s like a Jedi mind trick, only it doesn’t require any talent or skill.

It’s like a Jedi mind trick, only it doesn’t require any talent or skill — praxis

The force is strong in you, praxis.

Word-police and pedants. I’m sure you all are great public speakers.

The woman who ate fish tank cleaner with her husband is now under investigation for murder. Of course she blamed Trump and is a prolific Democrat donor.

https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/police-investigating-death-of-arizona-man-from-chloroquine-phosphate/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

"Overall, we rate the Washington Free Beacon Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to misleading and false claims."

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking or championing its source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Finally. So there's no lame street media either and you can accept all those facts reported in the past years.

Trump makes himself look bad. There's no need for women to kill their husbands.

Its not an argument that's being dismissed here, it's the reliability of the information. A simple distinction. That's why we don't credit stuff from, for example, conspiracy sites. Some of it could be true, but the onus is on the poster of the information to use an acceptable source. If that were not true, every examiner of an academic paper would be guilty of the genetic fallacy for directing their students to use academic sources and for rejecting information that did not come from these sources. We don't require academic sources here, but we do require minimally credible ones. Yours was not.

Nothing like the old "fake news"-super-hypocrisy-trap to concentrate a mind.

What was wrong with the story?

The answer is in my post. You don't get to post stuff from clearly biased sites with a consistent history of spreading misinformation and expect people to waste their time on it. Life's too short. If there's anything true in that story, it should be available from a reasonably reliable news outlet. Go find a reliable source if you want to be taken seriously.

So it’s not the information, it’s who said it. That is fallacious thinking, but if you’re fine with that, I have no problem.

No, it's not, because the claim is not that the information is false but that it's unreliable and that relates to who is providing it. It's why, for example, we are likely to accept a doctor's diagnosis that a mole we have is cancerous and reject a random drunk's. Of course, the drunk might accuse us of fallacious thinking, but he is a moron who knows no more about philosophy than he does about medicine, so why should we listen to him?

and is a prolific Democrat donor. — NOS4A2

is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history

Simple version:

An argument cannot be considered valid or invalid nor a claim true or false purely on the basis of its source. [Genetic Fallacy]

Information can (and should be) considered more or less reliable depending on its source.

(The drunk / right wing rag could be right but it's legitimate to demand a more reliable source.)



Hard to be both completely wrong and a complete hypocrite at the same time, but he's managed it

Hard to be both completely wrong and a complete hypocrite — Baden

Oh no it isn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb8AGuD2uOI

I believe it’s wise to be careful and diligent with any information, but I don’t think it’s wise to discount a story just because it comes from a left or right-wing source, or has in the past made mistakes. Even the National Enquirer has broken news. So though I appreciate the totally impartial and unbiased gatekeeping, I’m a big boy and can figure it out for myself.

I believe it’s wise to be careful and diligent with any information, — NOS4A2

If only you were. Again with the hypocrisy. Here's your heuristic in a nutshell: negative of Trump - - > unreliable, must go out of my way to discredit. Untrustworthy right wing rag publishes story favourable of Trump - - > must tell the world.

If only you were. Again with the hypocrisy. Here's your heuristic in a nutshell: negative of Trump - - > unreliable, must go out of my way to discredit. Untrustworthy right wing rag publishes story favourable of Trump - - > must tell the world.

That’s not true. I’ve cited CNN, the New York Times, WaPo, the WSJ, The Guardian, more than I have Fox News or “right wing rags”, because I know this is exactly how you would react. It’s just too predictable.