4 ms·

> 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 report

> 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

Cupertino95014 4y ago
OK, you're right about the single source (the law firm) and the incentive to lie. Let's suppose, though, that the trial does happen, but only Fox News and right-wing news sources choose to cover it. Then what do you think? Is your answer still: no non-biased news sources so it may not have happened? And if your answer is "that scenario would not occur" then I offered to disprove that. Calling that a "conspiracy story" is also not a good look.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >Let's suppose, though, that the trial does happen, but only Fox News and right-wing news sources choose to cover it. Then what do you think? Is your answer still: no non-biased news sources so it may not have happened? You're missing GPs point. They aren't saying that "no center-right media outlets like CNN or MSNBC are covering this, so we have no corroboration." IIUC, they're saying that "no news outlets have covered this, and the only sources are the law firm filing suit and a think tank regurgitating the law firms press release." They made no mention of what sorts of media outlets they consider biased, just that the actors providing the press release aren't media outlets at all. Rather, they are interested parties with an obvious viewpoint/agenda. And if/when the case is adjudicated (however that turns out), perhaps it will be covered by a few/some/many/most (regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of any of them) media outlets. And the outcome of the case will speak for itself, regardless of who reports (or doesn't) what. tl;dr: you made assumptions about GP that aren't supported by what they said. That's why your argument appears to be specious.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    A local news station covered it https://www.12news.com/amp/article/news/local/arizona/arizona-mom-left-son-at-park-to-buy-groceries-now-shes-fighting-to-stay-off-department-of-child-safety-watch-list/75-d3791ff4-184e-44b0-86b4-f399caa208d2 https://www.12news.com/amp/article/news/local/arizona/arizon... Hard to find due to the sheer volume of cases against the CPS but wasn’t difficult enough to start a mini-rage.
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    I'm sorry, but there are certain stories that are just not covered by "respectable" media outlets at all, and never will be. How much have you read about Nancy Pelosi's husband, for example? Or AOC's fake handcuffs? GP is right about it SO FAR, as I admitted. However, most of the media these days, respectable and otherwise, are just "regurgitating press releases" which makes it difficult to separate Alex Jones-type conspiracies from the Hunter Biden laptop "conspiracies" which turn out to be true. Absence of stories doesn't mean there isn't a story there. Unfortunately.

Cupertino95014 4y ago

OK, you're right about the single source (the law firm) and the incentive to lie. Let's suppose, though, that the trial does happen, but only Fox News and right-wing news sources choose to cover it. Then what do you think? Is your answer still: no non-biased news sources so it may not have happened? And if your answer is "that scenario would not occur" then I offered to disprove that. Calling that a "conspiracy story" is also not a good look.

nobody9999 4y ago
>Let's suppose, though, that the trial does happen, but only Fox News and right-wing news sources choose to cover it. Then what do you think? Is your answer still: no non-biased news sources so it may not have happened? You're missing GPs point. They aren't saying that "no center-right media outlets like CNN or MSNBC are covering this, so we have no corroboration." IIUC, they're saying that "no news outlets have covered this, and the only sources are the law firm filing suit and a think tank regurgitating the law firms press release." They made no mention of what sorts of media outlets they consider biased, just that the actors providing the press release aren't media outlets at all. Rather, they are interested parties with an obvious viewpoint/agenda. And if/when the case is adjudicated (however that turns out), perhaps it will be covered by a few/some/many/most (regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of any of them) media outlets. And the outcome of the case will speak for itself, regardless of who reports (or doesn't) what. tl;dr: you made assumptions about GP that aren't supported by what they said. That's why your argument appears to be specious.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  A local news station covered it https://www.12news.com/amp/article/news/local/arizona/arizona-mom-left-son-at-park-to-buy-groceries-now-shes-fighting-to-stay-off-department-of-child-safety-watch-list/75-d3791ff4-184e-44b0-86b4-f399caa208d2 https://www.12news.com/amp/article/news/local/arizona/arizon... Hard to find due to the sheer volume of cases against the CPS but wasn’t difficult enough to start a mini-rage.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but there are certain stories that are just not covered by "respectable" media outlets at all, and never will be. How much have you read about Nancy Pelosi's husband, for example? Or AOC's fake handcuffs? GP is right about it SO FAR, as I admitted. However, most of the media these days, respectable and otherwise, are just "regurgitating press releases" which makes it difficult to separate Alex Jones-type conspiracies from the Hunter Biden laptop "conspiracies" which turn out to be true. Absence of stories doesn't mean there isn't a story there. Unfortunately.