5 ms·

CPS could well be the spawn of Satan. But with the exception of a minor (Breitbart-like rag) Tennessee Star article, 100% of the references I can find on the G

CPS could well be the spawn of Satan. But with the exception of a minor (Breitbart-like rag) Tennessee Star article, 100% of the references I can find on the Google appear to be postings and promotions from Pacific Legal and its partner, the Goldwater Institute. There does not appear to be a single non-ultra-biased source reporting this story. Which means, as far as we know, it could be entirely nonsense.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
You have a closed loop there: no media outlet I like is reporting on it, so it must not be true. So if Big Media ignores the story, by definition it never happened?
- SeanLuke 4y ago
  Hmmm, did i use the words "must" or "never"? Essentially no media outlet is reporting on it. At all. Heck, the link provided to HN is directly from the PR of the legal firm itself: that would be the definition of an ultra biased source. They haven't even gone to court yet. In short: we have zero evidence that these events occurred the way being claimed.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    > Essentially no media outlet is reporting on it Shall I compile a list of stories that major media outlets have buried? Maybe reported once, and then forgotten about? Supposing they do go to court, but major media outlets still don't cover it?
    - SeanLuke 4y ago
      > Shall I compile a list of stories that major media outlets have buried? This is relevant how? You do understand the logical error you just made, right? > Supposing they do go to court, but major media outlets still don't cover it? Then we will have some evidence of the truthfulness (or falsehood) of the plaintiff's case.
      - Cupertino95014 4y ago
        > You do understand the logical error you just made, right? No. Help me out. You said "There does not appear to be a single non-ultra-biased source reporting this story. Which means, as far as we know, it could be entirely nonsense." Which means that since there are no sources you like, you choose to disbelieve it entirely. Therefore, I pointed out that many stories are not covered in major media outlets but are nonetheless true. So where's the logical error?
        SeanLuke 4y ago
        > You do understand the logical error you just made, right? > No. Help me out. > You said "There does not appear to be a single non-ultra-biased source reporting this story. Which means, as far as we know, it could be entirely nonsense." > Which means that since there are no sources you like, you choose to disbelieve it entirely. You seem to know what sources I "like" (you have no idea at all), and that therefore I think they "must" be lying and I think it "never" happened, and I "choose to disbelieve it entirely" (you have no idea if I disbelieve it, and in fact I never said any such thing) -- you really like ad hominem, don't you? It's like your M.O. You've now hit me with like five ad hominem attacks. It's not a good look. This isn't an opinion: there are literally no non-biased sources. This is a simple declaration of fact. By biased I don't mean conservative or even politically motivated. I mean a source with a high incentive to simply lie if necessary in order to promote their claim: that is, a legal team and their PR firm. At present all we have is a claim made by a legal team and a single article which largely copied the legal team's claim verbatim. We have no independent verification of the story, no opportunity to hear the CPS's side of the story, no analysis or fact-checking, and in fact we don't even know if the case even has enough validity to avoid getting thrown out. All we have is a filing and a PR posting. Claims require evidence before we get out the pitchforks, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So to the logic error. I point out that the media has not covered the story (one opportunity for evidence). Your response is: "Shall I compile a list of stories that major media outlets have buried?", as if this excuses the need for evidence. Even if this were true, it's not relevant: the lack of independent media coverage, for whatever reason, is a primary reason we have no evidence for the claim. You can't excuse a lack of evidence by spinning conspiracy stories for why the evidence is missing
- User23 4y ago
  This is observably the prevailing folk epistemology in the USA.
  - tsol 4y ago
    Which is strange, because simultaneously trust in news agencies is at an all time low since polling began.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      On average yes but that average hides wide disparities. Republicans have only 10% trust but democrats have much higher rates, independents are in the middle.
astura 4y ago
In this case a primary source is available. Here's a copy of the suit filed with the court - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-07-18-sarra-l-v-faust-stay-motion.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwifuJXEkJL5AhUehIkEHXu7CvgQFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3j_u96VQjk9_CxkZf5T9uP https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/... I didn't read it so idk what it says

Cupertino95014 4y ago

You have a closed loop there: no media outlet I like is reporting on it, so it must not be true. So if Big Media ignores the story, by definition it never happened?

SeanLuke 4y ago
Hmmm, did i use the words "must" or "never"? Essentially no media outlet is reporting on it. At all. Heck, the link provided to HN is directly from the PR of the legal firm itself: that would be the definition of an ultra biased source. They haven't even gone to court yet. In short: we have zero evidence that these events occurred the way being claimed.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  > Essentially no media outlet is reporting on it Shall I compile a list of stories that major media outlets have buried? Maybe reported once, and then forgotten about? Supposing they do go to court, but major media outlets still don't cover it?
  - SeanLuke 4y ago
    > Shall I compile a list of stories that major media outlets have buried? This is relevant how? You do understand the logical error you just made, right? > Supposing they do go to court, but major media outlets still don't cover it? Then we will have some evidence of the truthfulness (or falsehood) of the plaintiff's case.
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      > You do understand the logical error you just made, right? No. Help me out. You said "There does not appear to be a single non-ultra-biased source reporting this story. Which means, as far as we know, it could be entirely nonsense." Which means that since there are no sources you like, you choose to disbelieve it entirely. Therefore, I pointed out that many stories are not covered in major media outlets but are nonetheless true. So where's the logical error?
      - SeanLuke 4y ago
        > You do understand the logical error you just made, right? > No. Help me out. > You said "There does not appear to be a single non-ultra-biased source reporting this story. Which means, as far as we know, it could be entirely nonsense." > Which means that since there are no sources you like, you choose to disbelieve it entirely. You seem to know what sources I "like" (you have no idea at all), and that therefore I think they "must" be lying and I think it "never" happened, and I "choose to disbelieve it entirely" (you have no idea if I disbelieve it, and in fact I never said any such thing) -- you really like ad hominem, don't you? It's like your M.O. You've now hit me with like five ad hominem attacks. It's not a good look. This isn't an opinion: there are literally no non-biased sources. This is a simple declaration of fact. By biased I don't mean conservative or even politically motivated. I mean a source with a high incentive to simply lie if necessary in order to promote their claim: that is, a legal team and their PR firm. At present all we have is a claim made by a legal team and a single article which largely copied the legal team's claim verbatim. We have no independent verification of the story, no opportunity to hear the CPS's side of the story, no analysis or fact-checking, and in fact we don't even know if the case even has enough validity to avoid getting thrown out. All we have is a filing and a PR posting. Claims require evidence before we get out the pitchforks, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So to the logic error. I point out that the media has not covered the story (one opportunity for evidence). Your response is: "Shall I compile a list of stories that major media outlets have buried?", as if this excuses the need for evidence. Even if this were true, it's not relevant: the lack of independent media coverage, for whatever reason, is a primary reason we have no evidence for the claim. You can't excuse a lack of evidence by spinning conspiracy stories for why the evidence is missing
User23 4y ago
This is observably the prevailing folk epistemology in the USA.
- tsol 4y ago
  Which is strange, because simultaneously trust in news agencies is at an all time low since polling began.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    On average yes but that average hides wide disparities. Republicans have only 10% trust but democrats have much higher rates, independents are in the middle.

astura 4y ago

In this case a primary source is available. Here's a copy of the suit filed with the court - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-07-18-sarra-l-v-faust-stay-motion.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwifuJXEkJL5AhUehIkEHXu7CvgQFnoECBAQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3j_u96VQjk9_CxkZf5T9uP https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/... I didn't read it so idk what it says