Should attacking source be a "fallacy"?

@vivify said
Okay. Mea culpa. I stopped reading at your first line.

Bias? I try not to have one. I always aim for objectivity.

Everybody has bias, or at least can be accused of having bias. Where is the line between political opinions and bias? That makes this sort of thing difficult.

@athousandyoung said
Everybody has bias, or at least can be accused of having bias. Where is the line between political opinions and bias? That makes this sort of thing difficult.

Bias has to be determined, usually from the type of positions a person supports combined with why.

For example: If someone believes Biden shouldn't be president because of his past record as a politician, it's not really clear if that position is biased or not. If someone believes Biden shouldn't be president because he stole the election, then pretty obvious.

Bias can be most easily determined when a poster supports arguments that lack validity for fallacious reasons. The closer to this end that someone's argument falls, the more apparent bias is.

@athousandyoung said
Everybody has bias, or at least can be accused of having bias. Where is the line between political opinions and bias? That makes this sort of thing difficult.

TRUE FACTS..........
Reliable sources, we are all
aware what a 'reliable source' is.

@vivify said
Attacking a source used for an argument is considered fallacious. I think this needs to be rethought.

Suppose there's a periodical called "Liars Weekly", where the stated goal is to lie about any topic. If someone posts a thread citing "Liars Weekly", why isn't attacking the source a valid point of contention?

I agree that it's not valid to simply attack the source ...[text shortened]... dered fallacious if combined with logical points against the argument drawn from the source. Right?

"Attacking a source shouldn't be considered fallacious if combined with logical points against the argument drawn from the source. Right?"
That's no longer a fallacy you are actually just arguing on point.

@jimm619 said
I disagree...If a story is legitimate it will
be carried by the 'reputable' sources.
If a source is unreliable once, to me, it
is ALWAYS unreliable. Like the old saying,
'Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.'
Sure, but it's wrong hundreds of times a day
Why would anyone use an unreliable
source to advance a valid argument?

MBFC is an unreliable source, yet you rely on it to attack sources since that is all they do. They don't prove any of the sources wrong, just try to convince people they are wrong purely by perception.

@metal-brain said
MBFC is an unreliable source, yet you rely on it to attack sources since that is all they do. They don't prove any of the sources wrong, just try to convince people they are wrong purely by perception.

Just saying it's unreliable doesn't mean it is unreliable. They've made some calls I disagree with, however, I find them to be reliable based on track record.

@athousandyoung said
Vivify is a black liberal who doesn't want to logically discuss topics with white cons. That's why he wants to be able to attack the sources of information instead of discussing the topic at hand.

https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/

In everyday language, the term ‘ad hominem argument’ is primarily used to refer to a fallacious personal attack ag ...[text shortened]... nable, since this is relevant to the discussion.[/b]

Now that last line is interesting...

For decades the tobacco companies
paid doctors and medical associations
to publish papers that supressed
of, the very real, hazards of smoking.
https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-prevention-efforts/5-ways-tobacco-companies-lied-about-dangers-smoking

@metal-brain said
MBFC is an unreliable source, yet you rely on it to attack sources since that is all they do. They don't prove any of the sources wrong, just try to convince people they are wrong purely by perception.

Media Bias/Fact Check i
s a reliable source to everyone but you.
Don't blame them...........They're your sources.
.........ZEROHEDGE, ...........indeed

@vivify said
Okay. Mea culpa. I stopped reading at your first line.

Bias? I try not to have any. I always aim for objectivity.

and your objectivity consists of copy and pasting from a biased fact checker claiming the other is biased. yep objective alright

@mott-the-hoople said
and your objectivity consists of copy and pasting from a biased fact checker claiming the other is biased. yep objective alright

Amigo, some are pretty obvious. A question;
which would you, more likely believe;
THE NEW YORK TIMES or
ZEROHEDGE.....................?

@jimm619 said
Amigo, some are pretty obvious. A question;
which would you, more likely believe;
THE NEW YORK TIMES or
ZEROHEDGE.....................?

Amigo? is u trying to sound cool or something?

@vivify said
Attacking a source used for an argument is considered fallacious. I think this needs to be rethought.

Suppose there's a periodical called "Liars Weekly", where the stated goal is to lie about any topic. If someone posts a thread citing "Liars Weekly", why isn't attacking the source a valid point of contention?

I agree that it's not valid to simply attack the source ...[text shortened]... dered fallacious if combined with logical points against the argument drawn from the source. Right?

Attacking the source is fine if you're challenging the veracity of the report. Where you run into logical fallacies is when you attack an argument made based on existing facts based on the source.

"Liars Weekly said it's going to rain"

- You can use Liars Weekly's history to question the proposition that it's going to rain.

"Liar's Weekly says that government should pay for everyone's umbrellas because otherwise people will get wet."

- Using Liars Weekly's history to question the soundness of its argument is fallacious.

@mott-the-hoople said
Amigo? is u trying to sound cool or something?

Using Spanish does make a person more cool no doubt about it iVerdad!

@athousandyoung said
Using Spanish does make a person more cool no doubt about it iVerdad!

Claro, que si.

@jimm619 said
Media Bias/Fact Check i
s a reliable source to everyone but you.
Don't blame them...........They're your sources.
.........ZEROHEDGE, ...........indeed

https://www.deviantart.com/onlytheghosts/journal/Mediabiasfactcheck-com-is-another-lie-machine-789059039

MBFC is known for lying.

Self proclaimed fact checkers are merely opinion pieces. Facebook admitted in court their fact checkers don't represent facts at all and that they are "protected opinions". Attacking a source with opinion pieces that are not transparent in their ratings system is a fallacy.

I shouldn't even day "their" since Dave Van Zandt is MBFC. Dave Van Zandt is one person that runs the whole website.
Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

Van Zandt fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.