Perjury Charges Looming? Run Weiner's Weiner Story!

originally posted by: facedye
You've been dodging my point pretty noticeably.

What point? You have a hard time processing multiple current events and you feel misled. I get it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
You've been dodging my point pretty noticeably.

What point? You have a hard time processing multiple current events and you feel misled. I get it.

So news stories ran by the mainstream media have never been timed nor presented in such a way as to divert attention from other, more serious and noteworthy events. Got it.

You're right - this is meaningful to me only because I have a one track mind and I'm confusing myself.

originally posted by: facedye
So news stories ran by the mainstream media have never been timed nor presented in such a way as to divert attention from other, more serious and noteworthy events. Got it.

To completely suborn them to the diverting topic in question would require every single news outlet to be in on the scheme. Being that I can read about Pant Suit's issues today I got a feeling this is not happening.

You're right - this is meaningful to me only because I have a one track mind and I'm confusing myself.

It's cool. People can get confused, try writing things down, it can help with recall.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
So news stories ran by the mainstream media have never been timed nor presented in such a way as to divert attention from other, more serious and noteworthy events. Got it.

To completely suborn them to the diverting topic in question would require every single news outlet to be in on the scheme. Being that I can read about Pant Suit's issues today I got a feeling this is not happening.

You're right - this is meaningful to me only because I have a one track mind and I'm confusing myself.

It's cool. People can get confused, try writing things down, it can help with recall.

Who's talking about completely suborning them?

And you have a REALLY funny way of dodging direct answers to rebuttals.

Me: The news has been used in the past to divert attention and mislead people.

You: Everyone would have had to be in on it. Write things down because you're dumb.

originally posted by: facedye
Me: The news has been used in the past to divert attention and mislead people.

Maybe, this ain't one of those cases.

You: Everyone would have had to be in on it. Write things down because you're dumb.

Something like that.

Hmmm, makes one wonder how much Weiner knows, how soon he will meet with an unfortunate accident and/or start singing like a canary to Congress about what he does know ...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

"Maybe."

LOL

originally posted by: facedye
"Maybe."

Yup, because to suppress the news you need a concerted effort across multiple outlets and media forms. In this day and age it is not happening.

We have this thing called the internet. I thank Al Gore every day for his brilliance.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
"Maybe."

Yup, because to suppress the news you need a concerted effort across multiple outlets and media forms. In this day and age it is not happening.

We have this thing called the internet. I thank Al Gore every day for his brilliance.

None of my posts have been concerned with suppressing news reports.

Your previous reply is making the same point I'm making.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Hmmm, makes one wonder how much Weiner knows, how soon he will meet with an unfortunate accident and/or start singing like a canary to Congress about what he does know ...

No, he'll commit suicide before that happens. He'll shoot himself twice in the head like Vince Foster.

a reply to: facedye

How, in this day and age, can anyone looking for news be 'misled' by a new story hitting the wire? Just go on the damn internet and search to your heart's content.

Anyone who is 'misled' is being purposefully obtuse.

A safe bet Wiener knows of most if not all the skeletons in the Clinton closet.Hopes his life insurance is paid up.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: facedye

How, in this day and age, can anyone looking for news be 'misled' by a new story hitting the wire? Just go on the damn internet and search to your heart's content.

Anyone who is 'misled' is being purposefully obtuse.

Let's agree to disagree.

Sensational headlines are still impactful and *useful* in the day and age of the internet. This is not a far out claim.

EDIT: And how would I even know what to look for? Looks like one needs to be informed to stay informed by that logic.

originally posted by: facedye
Let's agree to disagree.

Okay. I agree that you feel people are trying to mislead you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: facedye
Let's agree to disagree.

Okay. I agree that you feel people are trying to mislead you.

Oh but you're not choosing to answer my two points of rebuttal for the logic you just tried to use?

Looks like you're arguing just to argue. I never personally stated that I was misled by any of what I posted.

Now, not only are you off track, but off topic as well.

a reply to: facedye

Your point is a logical fallacy. You think people are being misled when it would require all news outlets to participate in this disinformation tactic yet you claim you are not misled. Then you want to agree to disagree.

Your Original Post is poorly thought out and reasoned and there is no way you can argue it since you are not speaking for everyone else. If you were misled you may have a point but your own claim that you are not disproves your premise that the media is misleading people.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't care about the personal relationships of these people in higher positions.

It's their business, not mine. It's sad that their personal drama makes for popular news.

It's my business. Oral sex in the oval office is my business. Do it on your time. Sexual texts with a child involved my business. Do it on your own without including a helpless child in the background.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: facedye

Your point is a logical fallacy. You think people are being misled when it would require all news outlets to participate in this disinformation tactic yet you claim you are not misled. Then you want to agree to disagree.

Your Original Post is poorly thought out and reasoned and there is no way you can argue it since you are not speaking for everyone else. If you were misled you may have a point but your own claim that you are not disproves your premise that the media is misleading people.

"you think people are being misled when it would require all news outlets to participate in this disinformation tactic yet you claim you are not misled."

You think it would require ALL news outlets to participate? What are you basing that on?

What logical fallacy am I committing?

Pick One:

List Of Logical Fallacies

There would certainly be a fallacy if I believed (without fact or good reason) that it would require all media outlets to successfully run a story meant to divert and mislead from the big news stories of the day. I'd have no way of proving that, and neither would you.

Unfortunately it looks like you misunderstood the intent and meaning of my inquiry. Being as offensive as you are makes it difficult to square this away.

You cannot within good conscience state that the media has never timed nor delivered a news story with an ulterior motive, looking to divert attention or mislead the general public.

Basing this on your own assertions, my interest to connect this instance to current events is legitimate.

originally posted by: facedye
You think it would require ALL news outlets to participate? What are you basing that on?

If you can still find information on a previous day's topic how are you being misled?

What logical fallacy am I committing?

Several, actually, but we can start with Presumptive.

You cannot within good conscience state that the media has never timed nor delivered a news story with an ulterior motive, looking to divert attention or mislead the general public.

Give me an example(s) where you were misled.

Let's see.He's off team Clinton,wife suing him for divorce,publicly humiliated and last but not least knows of a lot of Clintons sins.A prime example for a"Suicide".