4 ms·

>because the couch fucker sure is known to be trustworthy Just because he's a "couch fucker", doesn't mean he's wrong in that case. Some EU countries do have g

>because the couch fucker sure is known to be trustworthy Just because he's a "couch fucker", doesn't mean he's wrong in that case. Some EU countries do have genuine issues with free speech. He's right about that one. People should use critical thinking and judge WHAT is being said independent of WHO is saying it. Unfortunately people do not use critical thinking anymore to judge topics in a nonpartisan way, because of fear of being attacked/ostracized by the colective groupthink mob based solely on adherence to a political ideology.

c420 1y ago
Isn't it using critical thinking to be able to know that a particular source of information is not credible after said source admitted to be "willing to create stories” after falsely claiming a certain population was eating people's pets?
- dylan604 1y ago
  Ah yes, but were they really people's pets? They just claimed people were eating animals commonly owned as pets. Even in my neighborhood, there are plenty of cats that are not owned by anyone. "They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats." That's the quote I'm familiar. I've never heard "They're eating the pet dogs. They're eating the pet cats." Isn't that a difference that a critical thinker would be able to notice?
  - miltonlost 1y ago
    Claiming they're eating cats and dogs, regardless of pet status, is incredibly racist. Trying to say "Nooo he meant strays" is not critical thinking. It's excusing horribly racist ideology and talking points.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  So if he'd come out and say "the sky is blue", you'd consider it false without thinking twice just because to you he's not a credible source? That's exactly what not using critical thinking means, when you just blindly agree or disagree with information based on the source alone.
  - dpkirchner 1y ago
    I think it'd be worth double- and triple-checking anything he says, yes, beyond trivial examples about the color of the sky. He's a known liar. He lies for political gain. He is disgusting.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >I think it'd be worth double- and triple-checking anything he says That's what I'm advocating for, but people I was replying to didn't even want to do that and were dismissing anything out of the box just because they don't like the source, which is detrimental to any honest and useful debate. >He's a known liar. He lies for political gain. He is disgusting. I never said he doesn't lie, of course he does, he's a politician, all of them lie, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I said some of the things he says are bang on the money and shouldn't be discarded on the basis that the information comes from a mouth you don't like, as that's just closed minded partisan zealotry and not using critical thinking.
      - dpkirchner 1y ago
        But of course they should be discarded. Why shouldn't they? There are better sources and better people sharing opinions. Maybe we can take what he says seriously if he comes clean about his past dangerous lies. Until then, he should at the very least be shunned if not ignored entirely.
        FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >But of course they should be discarded. Why shouldn't they? I rest my case. There's no point in arguing with zealots who don't want to even listen to reason let alone critically analyze information shared with them, but choose to automatically believe and disbelieve it based on their favorite or hated source. >There are better sources and better people sharing opinions Your "better sources" might be someone else's "worst sources". Where is that universal ground truth located at? Isn't that discovered though conversation, argumentation and debate like in university campuses, instead of blindly trusting your favorite partisan source? That's no different than religious zealotry that burned Galileo at the stake for saying thins considered "untrue" at the time.

c420 1y ago

Isn't it using critical thinking to be able to know that a particular source of information is not credible after said source admitted to be "willing to create stories” after falsely claiming a certain population was eating people's pets?

dylan604 1y ago
Ah yes, but were they really people's pets? They just claimed people were eating animals commonly owned as pets. Even in my neighborhood, there are plenty of cats that are not owned by anyone. "They're eating the dogs. They're eating the cats." That's the quote I'm familiar. I've never heard "They're eating the pet dogs. They're eating the pet cats." Isn't that a difference that a critical thinker would be able to notice?
- miltonlost 1y ago
  Claiming they're eating cats and dogs, regardless of pet status, is incredibly racist. Trying to say "Nooo he meant strays" is not critical thinking. It's excusing horribly racist ideology and talking points.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
So if he'd come out and say "the sky is blue", you'd consider it false without thinking twice just because to you he's not a credible source? That's exactly what not using critical thinking means, when you just blindly agree or disagree with information based on the source alone.
- dpkirchner 1y ago
  I think it'd be worth double- and triple-checking anything he says, yes, beyond trivial examples about the color of the sky. He's a known liar. He lies for political gain. He is disgusting.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >I think it'd be worth double- and triple-checking anything he says That's what I'm advocating for, but people I was replying to didn't even want to do that and were dismissing anything out of the box just because they don't like the source, which is detrimental to any honest and useful debate. >He's a known liar. He lies for political gain. He is disgusting. I never said he doesn't lie, of course he does, he's a politician, all of them lie, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I said some of the things he says are bang on the money and shouldn't be discarded on the basis that the information comes from a mouth you don't like, as that's just closed minded partisan zealotry and not using critical thinking.
    - dpkirchner 1y ago
      But of course they should be discarded. Why shouldn't they? There are better sources and better people sharing opinions. Maybe we can take what he says seriously if he comes clean about his past dangerous lies. Until then, he should at the very least be shunned if not ignored entirely.
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >But of course they should be discarded. Why shouldn't they? I rest my case. There's no point in arguing with zealots who don't want to even listen to reason let alone critically analyze information shared with them, but choose to automatically believe and disbelieve it based on their favorite or hated source. >There are better sources and better people sharing opinions Your "better sources" might be someone else's "worst sources". Where is that universal ground truth located at? Isn't that discovered though conversation, argumentation and debate like in university campuses, instead of blindly trusting your favorite partisan source? That's no different than religious zealotry that burned Galileo at the stake for saying thins considered "untrue" at the time.