6 ms·

>We can't trust Amnesty international not to toe the US party line on China...because the US government thinks they're biased against the US government. >I've b

>We can't trust Amnesty international not to toe the US party line on China...because the US government thinks they're biased against the US government. >I've been on HN since 2011. This is without a doubt the single worst argument I have ever seen. Well yes, that is a pretty bad argument. I wonder who would claim such a thing? I certainly never have. Anyway, this is not a very substantive post and it feels as though you’re just struggling to get the last word now. I’m going to copy and paste my previous comment because everything I’ve said still applies here and you have still failed to address it: > Again with the arguing against straw-men. Show me the part where I say Amnesty International is biased towards the US. I simply state that there is precedence of bias, and my source [2] clearly demonstrates this. The purpose of that reference was that these are not organizations which are 100%, indisputably neutral and without bias. It's unproductive to put words in my mouth only to argue against them. If you require further clarification to aid in your comprehension, I will do my best to break it down for you. > r/iamverysmart is that way. I like how you came back 15 minutes later to add this line. That was a great comeback. I liked it, why delete it?

learc83 7y ago
Because it was too snarky. So your point is that we shouldn't trust Amnesty International because they aren't 100% indisputably neutral. And as evidence that they don't meet that standard, you've pointed out that countries that they've criticised don't agree with that criticism. I don't think that's what you meant because it's too stupid to comprehend. I think you were trying discredit Amnesty International, but you lacked the evidence, so you tried to tie them to the accusations against HRW. You put a statement that Amnesty International and HRW are biased in the middle of a paragraph associating Amnesty International and HRW with the CIA, followed by a quote accusing HRW of pro US bias. It's another well known shitty debate tactic. "Bob and Jane are involved with conflict diamonds." Then you provide a quote that shows Bob is a diamond smuggler and a link with more supporting evidence. Followed by a link that shows Jane investigates diamond smugglers. You hope that no one will read the link, but if they do and they call you on it, you whine about how you weren't actually lying. Jane is involved with conflict diamonds. You never explicitly said she was a smuggler. If feel like you're projecting with your comments about needing to get the last word btw.
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  You’re attempting to double down on your one Amnesty International point because I’ve proven you wrong on the 100 other unsubstantiated arguments you’ve to put forth and were subsequently unable to defend. I suppose it’s because this is the only one you think you’ve found some leverage on but again, you are wrong. I’ll ask you again for the third time, show me the part where I accuse Amnesty of bias in favour only of the US. Let’s say you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said and then I proceed to clarify it. Is it honest of you or productive to continue arguing on the basis of your original misinterpretation? I’ve asked you many such questions in previous comments pointing out logical inconsistencies such as this and you’ve failed to respond to any of them, so I expect more of the same here. The fact is, your interpretation of what I’ve said is not what I’ve said does not represent reality. This is what I’ve said: >As for Amnesty International and HRW, many of their sources are affiliated with Radio Free Asia which is directly funded by the US government and has roots with the CIA. There has been precedence of bias in both organizations as found here [1] and here [2] Claims: Amnesty International has sources affiliated with Radio Free Asia: True Human Rights Watch has sources affiliated with Radio Free Asia: True Radio Free Asia is funded by the US government and has roots in the CIA: True There has been precedence of bias in both organizations: True Fact: Both articles I’ve linked show that there has been precedence of bias both for and against the US. Maybe you got upset that I pulled an example of bias in favour of the US from the HRW article which caused you to conflate with bias in favour of the US from the AI article. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. It’s simply desperate nitpicking because both articles show precedence of bias both for and against the US: exactly what I’ve said. From the article [2]: >Criticism of Amnesty International (AI) includes claims of selection bias, as well as ideology and foreign policy bias against either non-Western countries or Western-supported countries. Governments that have criticised AI include those of Israel,[1][2] the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[3] China,[4] Vietnam,[5] Russia,[6] and the United States,[7]” You accuse me of trying to discredit Amnesty. No. Both AI and HRW do good work, but they are not the infallible arbiters of truth that you presented them to be. To make my point crystal clear, if I wanted to say “Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are biased in favour of the US”, that would have been just as much effort as writing “Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both have a precedence of bias”. No matter how much you wish I did, I didn’t write the former. Why? Because words matter and I chose deliberate words to express what I intended to say. You tunnel vision on your one point and insist on debating against self-erected straw-men over and over again because you have no other valid talking points. > If feel like you're projecting with your comments about needing to get the last word btw. No, because clearly your posts have been low in effort, stooping to name calling, accusations of lying, Gish Galloping, arguments from fallacy and claims that you "don't have the time or inclination to fact check all of them". You’ve contributed nothing substantive to the conversation for many comments now, instead choosing to nitpick with weak ‘gotchas’. This is in contrast to my posts which are still arguing the main topic of discussion and providing facts and citations. All of these are signs that you are unable to carry on the debate, and yet you are still here. Therefore, it’s only reasonable to assume that you are trying to get the last word.

learc83 7y ago

Because it was too snarky. So your point is that we shouldn't trust Amnesty International because they aren't 100% indisputably neutral. And as evidence that they don't meet that standard, you've pointed out that countries that they've criticised don't agree with that criticism. I don't think that's what you meant because it's too stupid to comprehend. I think you were trying discredit Amnesty International, but you lacked the evidence, so you tried to tie them to the accusations against HRW. You put a statement that Amnesty International and HRW are biased in the middle of a paragraph associating Amnesty International and HRW with the CIA, followed by a quote accusing HRW of pro US bias. It's another well known shitty debate tactic. "Bob and Jane are involved with conflict diamonds." Then you provide a quote that shows Bob is a diamond smuggler and a link with more supporting evidence. Followed by a link that shows Jane investigates diamond smugglers. You hope that no one will read the link, but if they do and they call you on it, you whine about how you weren't actually lying. Jane is involved with conflict diamonds. You never explicitly said she was a smuggler. If feel like you're projecting with your comments about needing to get the last word btw.

tepidandroid 7y ago
You’re attempting to double down on your one Amnesty International point because I’ve proven you wrong on the 100 other unsubstantiated arguments you’ve to put forth and were subsequently unable to defend. I suppose it’s because this is the only one you think you’ve found some leverage on but again, you are wrong. I’ll ask you again for the third time, show me the part where I accuse Amnesty of bias in favour only of the US. Let’s say you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said and then I proceed to clarify it. Is it honest of you or productive to continue arguing on the basis of your original misinterpretation? I’ve asked you many such questions in previous comments pointing out logical inconsistencies such as this and you’ve failed to respond to any of them, so I expect more of the same here. The fact is, your interpretation of what I’ve said is not what I’ve said does not represent reality. This is what I’ve said: >As for Amnesty International and HRW, many of their sources are affiliated with Radio Free Asia which is directly funded by the US government and has roots with the CIA. There has been precedence of bias in both organizations as found here [1] and here [2] Claims: Amnesty International has sources affiliated with Radio Free Asia: True Human Rights Watch has sources affiliated with Radio Free Asia: True Radio Free Asia is funded by the US government and has roots in the CIA: True There has been precedence of bias in both organizations: True Fact: Both articles I’ve linked show that there has been precedence of bias both for and against the US. Maybe you got upset that I pulled an example of bias in favour of the US from the HRW article which caused you to conflate with bias in favour of the US from the AI article. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. It’s simply desperate nitpicking because both articles show precedence of bias both for and against the US: exactly what I’ve said. From the article [2]: >Criticism of Amnesty International (AI) includes claims of selection bias, as well as ideology and foreign policy bias against either non-Western countries or Western-supported countries. Governments that have criticised AI include those of Israel,[1][2] the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[3] China,[4] Vietnam,[5] Russia,[6] and the United States,[7]” You accuse me of trying to discredit Amnesty. No. Both AI and HRW do good work, but they are not the infallible arbiters of truth that you presented them to be. To make my point crystal clear, if I wanted to say “Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are biased in favour of the US”, that would have been just as much effort as writing “Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both have a precedence of bias”. No matter how much you wish I did, I didn’t write the former. Why? Because words matter and I chose deliberate words to express what I intended to say. You tunnel vision on your one point and insist on debating against self-erected straw-men over and over again because you have no other valid talking points. > If feel like you're projecting with your comments about needing to get the last word btw. No, because clearly your posts have been low in effort, stooping to name calling, accusations of lying, Gish Galloping, arguments from fallacy and claims that you "don't have the time or inclination to fact check all of them". You’ve contributed nothing substantive to the conversation for many comments now, instead choosing to nitpick with weak ‘gotchas’. This is in contrast to my posts which are still arguing the main topic of discussion and providing facts and citations. All of these are signs that you are unable to carry on the debate, and yet you are still here. Therefore, it’s only reasonable to assume that you are trying to get the last word.