People who are accused of wrongdoing tend to deny it.
not disproof. Argument Still Stands.
"His account cannot be independently verified."
Not disproof.
Your first 'source'
"individuals with connections" connections is not proof. I've got heaps of 'connections' and does not mean *****!!! If Australia does bomb Syrian army locations and allow ISIS to make ground, I am connected to that but I am not responsible for that. When I rar, I was going on anti-foreign intervention.
Second source
"believe are spies..." belief is not proof.
Third 'source' NY times, has been supporting WOMD lies. It is bias. I don't even wanna know what you want to quote from this.... just looks like a bunch of ifs and buts....
People who are accused of wrongdoing tend to deny it.
"His account cannot be independently verified."
Not disproof.
On the contrary it is your own source admitting that he is not sure that it is true. Hence he is concerned that the person who told him hte story is lying to him yet he has been forced to print the story anyway due to editorial pressure.
Your first 'source'
"individuals with connections" connections is not proof. I've got heaps of 'connections' and does not mean *****!!! If Australia does bomb Syrian army locations and allow ISIS to make ground, I am connected to that but I am not responsible for that. When I rar, I was going on anti-foreign intervention.
And are your connections in anyway related to the Austrailian intelligence agencies and willing to tell you classified information? If they aren't they are not in the same league as the sorts of people the CIA, NSA, MI6 etc are going to be talking to. So I'm not entirely sure how relevant this is to proving or disproving the veracity of the Washington posts story.
Second source
"believe are spies..." belief is not proof.
On its own no. When taken in to consideration with the piles and piles of other information that Russians has carried out similar actions in other countries like Georgia and Estonia. And as for them not having official backing of the Russian state to quote Jim Lewis of the Centre of Strategic and International Studies, 'If a hacker in St. Petersburg tried to break into the Kremlin system, that hacker could count the remaining hours on one hand". With that capability we can presume the reason why the Russians were unwilling to provide culprits for other times they have been caught with their citzens hacking into computer systems owned by other nations/ multinational corportations is that there is some significant connection to the state and theya are using the image 'citzen hactivist' as a smokescreen.
Third 'source' NY times, has been supporting WOMD lies. It is bias. I don't even wanna know what you want to quote from this.... just looks like a bunch of ifs and buts....
So your argument against this source is that the New York times printed stories that Iraq had WMD? If so can we use it as well as in addition to is well documented support of Hitler, continuing support of Russia and China it also printed similar stories of that the New York Times. And unlike the NYT they are yet to apologise for them.
However as we have responded directly to your specific source it behoves you to do the same. What specifically do you take issue with about the source.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
You asked for discreditation, and it is that. If a statement by someone who has every reason to lie cannot be independently verified, we cannot trust it -- i.e., we cannot credit it -- thus it is discredited. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false, but it's not proof of anything.
Your first 'source'
"individuals with connections" connections is not proof....
Second source
"believe are spies..." belief is not proof.
Do you notice how, for your arguments, you're saying the argument stands if it is not disproven, but for my arguments, you're saying the argument fails if it is not proven? That's called a "double standard". By your own standard for yourself, we should believe my sources, because you have not disproven their claims. And by your own standard for me, we should not believe your sources, because you have not proven their claims. Either way, you lose.
Third 'source' NY times, has been supporting WOMD lies. It is bias.
Now, this is an actual ad hominem argument. You are using discredit a claim based on a(n alleged) fact about the source that is not relevant to the claim. Is any claim the Times makes about Assange untrue? If so, which ones, and what's your evidence that they're untrue?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First off learn how to quote properly it isn't hard and it makes it easier to work out what you are attempting to refute.
Cause stuff gets lost when ever I try and use the Quote thing properly. I was replying to BS now I have lost it wanting to add you to the same post... The system is heaps messy when quoting.
On the contrary it is your own source admitting that he is not sure that it is true. Hence he is concerned that the person who told him hte story is lying to him yet he has been forced to print the story anyway due to editorial pressure.
I am sure he would not want to put his life at risk and jail time for a lie. What motivation does he have to lie?
And are your connections in anyway related to the Austrailian intelligence agencies and willing to tell you classified information? If they aren't they are not in the same league as the sorts of people the CIA, NSA, MI6 etc are going to be talking to. So I'm not entirely sure how relevant this is to proving or disproving the veracity of the Washington posts story.
And how do people know that these 'Russian' hackers are. How would you know if i am not "in the same league as the sorts of people the CIA, NSA, MI6"? But my point is there are lots of people with connections, and having a connection is not proof.
"some significant connection to the state" connection is not proof
"other information that Russians has carried out similar actions"
So has Russia admitted to these similar actions? Similar actions does not mean they have hacked it now. Lots of hackers use 'similar actions'.
So your argument against this source is that the New York times printed stories that Iraq had WMD? If so can we use it as well as in addition to is well documented support of Hitler, continuing support of Russia and China it also printed similar stories of that the New York Times. And unlike the NYT they are yet to apologise for them.
My argument against the source is that Julian has come out and said that it was not the Russians. There is no evidence but speculation to suggest it was the Russians. Someone with a 100% truthful rating, it to be trusted over a source that has been known to lie and spread propaganda such as WoMDs.
From the article: "what they say are Russian", them saying does not prove it was the Russians.
"a group that insists on public anonymity" "say independent researchers" Who are they, they want to claim Russians spread Propaganda, yet they do not want to be identified. What evidence do they have? Claiming an independent researcher found this out with no evidence or name is not proof. I can keep going through this 'airy-fairy' article and bring out 'key words' that are not proof of Russian hacking, if you don't get the argument yet.
"undermine American democracy and interests." American democracy is built on free speech, this should be allowable. In what way has it undermined it? It got Trump elected who wants to work with Russia. If it is in Americas interests to destroy ISIS then working with Russia, is in American interests. Trading with another country the likes of Russia can be in Americas interests.
Ergo, Bill Clinton really did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, I guess.
So Bill has admitted guilt and confessed. Julian has denied the claims. Innocent till proven guilty... Can you see the difference?
If a statement by someone who has every reason to lie cannot be independently verified, we cannot trust it
Julian has 100% accuracy rating with Wikileaks, he has every reason not to lie to maintain his record. cannot be independently verified =/= we cannot trust it. Even when independently verified the likes of the WP has claimed, they still give no evidence or names. This is not proof of Russian Hacking.
Do you notice how, for your arguments, you're saying the argument stands if it is not disproven, but for my arguments, you're saying the argument fails if it is not proven?
Doesn't an argument still stand if it is not disproven? And if you can't prove an argument, then it's not an argument. They are different things that you are trying to make the same thing... *goal posts moving*
Maybe it's true, maybe it's false, but it's not proof of anything.
If a witness says something in a court of law, it will be held to be true until it can be disproven. Why would someone risk their life and jail for a lie?
Do you notice how, for your arguments, you're saying the argument stands if it is not disproven, but for my arguments, you're saying the argument fails if it is not proven?
Are you saying that belief and connections are proof then? I do not want double standards that the opposing side in this debate has with the likes of not correcting.
Either way, you lose.
Are you debating or moderating. If you want to be the moderate please be neutral and then you can claim that I lose at the end of the debate.
Now, this is an actual ad hominem argument. You are using discredit a claim based on a(n alleged) fact about the source that is not relevant to the claim. Is any claim the Times makes about Assange untrue? If so, which ones, and what's your evidence that they're untrue?
You have done the same with the Bill argument. And Lithl had done the same with the "It's an extremely biased right-wing rag with "institutional racism," to quote one of their own reporters." argument. Why did you not correct him? I think we need to set up some standards in order to continue this debate. One argument works for your side, but when I use the same tactic it is not viable. this is **goal posts moving**
The Times is a big site, you are going to have to be more "specific" about which claims you want to be argued.
And its not fake if its been Hacked!!! We should be more worried about the content of the hack rather than who did it, with the Clinton foundation fraud among other things.
I wonder whether the (accredited by a non-partisan organisation and required to be transparent with regard to sources) fact-checking organisations will now be accused of bias.
"Will they be accused of bias?" Does a bear crap in the woods? Is the Pope reptiloid?
But I'm more concerned with what effect they think a nannying little message like "Before you share this story, you might want to know that independent fact-checkers disputed its accuracy" is going to have. That tone is only going to piss off people predisposed to believe the story.
It would be weird if there was some sort of bias in 'fact' checking.
Them being left-leaning doesn't inherently mean that they're wrong with what they're doing, the important part is proper sourcing. A bias, in and of itself, doesn't mean you can't present unbiased information, being aware of your biases in general can at times even help with that. If you want to critique them as fact checkers the goal should be to attack their sourcing, not that they have a bias of any sort.
So Bill has admitted guilt and confessed. Julian has denied the claims. Innocent till proven guilty... Can you see the difference?
Has anybody that you believe was responsible for the 9/11 attacks admitted guilt and confessed? Or does "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to the people you want to be innocent?
Julian has 100% accuracy rating with Wikileaks, he has every reason not to lie to maintain his record.
If Assange admits he is a catspaw for Russian intelligence, don't you think that would ruin his record just a little bit more? Nobody's going to say, "Oh, this person we thought was an independent crusader for freedom of information is actually a Kremlin spy, but at least he's honest about it! What a great guy!" (Oh, and the Russians probably won't be happy he outed their operation either. And remember, the Russians kill journalists.)
Even when independently verified the likes of the WP has claimed, they still give no evidence or names.
It's probable that they don't know the names of the individual hackers, any more than you know my name or I yours. But they do have the name of the groups -- "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" -- and the evidence consists of the classic triad of means, motive, and opportunity.
Means: The DNC hack was performed by the same malware code, written by a Russian-speaker in the Moscow time zone, used by Fancy Bear in previous attacks, and it sent information back to the same server. The Podesta hack was performed with the same Bit.ly spearphishing tactic used by Cozy Bear in previous attacks. Motive: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear's attacks have consistently targeted enemies of the Russian state, and this attack against a presidential candidate who is resistant to Russia's neo-imperialist interests and whom Putin seems personally to dislike is no exception. Opportunity: We can see the malware in the DNC's servers that have Fancy Bear access to them. We can see the very spearphishing email that was sent to Podesta, and the email from his tech support accidentally telling him it was "legitimate". We know he clicked the link, giving Cozy Bear the opportunity to access his emails. We know they were in there.
And if you can't prove an argument, then it's not an argument.
Yes, basically. Arguments require credible evidence. Which we have.
So to sum up, if an argument cannot be "proven" (more precisely, "supported with evidence"), it doesn't need to be disproven or discredited. It doesn't have any proof or credit to begin with.
And Lithl had done the same with the "It's an extremely biased right-wing rag with "institutional racism," to quote one of their own reporters." argument. Why did you not correct him?
I'm not debating with Lithl. I'm debating with you. If I corrected every logical fallacy on this site, I'd be working full time at it. But for the record, yes, Lithl's statement does not constitute discreditation. So you shouldn't do what he did.
I think we need to set up some standards in order to continue this debate. One argument works for your side, but when I use the same tactic it is not viable. this is **goal posts moving**
Even if your accusation is true, it's not moving the goalposts, it's a double standard again. Please, please, please have some idea what the terms you're using mean before you use them.
The Times is a big site, you are going to have to be more "specific" about which claims you want to be argued.
Please stop trying to be clever by echoing me. You only ever faceplant. I didn't point you to the Times, I pointed you to a single article by the Times. If you can't read one article, that's on you.
And its not fake if its been Hacked!!! We should be more worried about the content of the hack rather than who did it, with the Clinton foundation fraud among other things.
What Clinton foundation fraud? Where's your evidence for that? All the emails have been out in the open for a while now, and the FBI has certified that they've gone through them. If there were evidence that the Clinton Foundation was engaging in fraud, well, that's a crime, and they should have indicted her. So I want to see a specific document where Clinton admits to criminal behavior. Or else -- by your own standard -- she is innocent until proven guilty.
*Sigh* If I had a nickel every time someone attacked Snopes with unsubstantiated claims, I'd be a billionaire.
First, the DailyCaller is an unreliable site with questionable ethics in of itself. Quite honestly, even before I went digging for its reliability on the internet, its ad tactics raised red flags. Then there's the fact that Daily Caller has hit Snopes regularly for not liking when Snopes fact checks them. Do you have any other sources to evaluate Snopes off of?
Second, Snopes has been accused of being biased in every direction. In fact, they chronicled it themselves. Feel free to keep digging, but I'm not buying into this particular source you presented.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
*Sigh* If I had a nickel every time someone attacked Snopes with unsubstantiated claims, I'd be a billionaire.
First, the DailyCaller is an unreliable site with questionable ethics in of itself. Quite honestly, even before I went digging for its reliability on the internet, its ad tactics raised red flags. Then there's the fact that Daily Caller has hit Snopes regularly for not liking when Snopes fact checks them. Do you have any other sources to evaluate Snopes off of?
Second, Snopes has been accused of being biased in every direction. In fact, they chronicled it themselves. Feel free to keep digging, but I'm not buying into this particular source you presented.
So all the Tweets they posted from employees from snopes are fake also?
So Bill has admitted guilt and confessed. Julian has denied the claims. Innocent till proven guilty... Can you see the difference?
Has anybody that you believe was responsible for the 9/11 attacks admitted guilt and confessed? Or does "innocent until proven guilty" only apply to the people you want to be innocent?
Well neither 9/11 or Bill are reasons to discredit Assange on source of Hacked emails. But I look at evidence and judge the people who I want to be innocent. This is why I am defending Assange because he has proven to be a reliable source while the Washington Post and other corporate media outlets have not(WoMD).
If Assange admits he is a catspaw for Russian intelligence, don't you think that would ruin his record just a little bit more?
A little bit more than what? You have not disproven anything from Wikileaks. And your if case is not disproof either. Do you have documents with a money trail or a sound recording or...
Means: The DNC hack was performed by the same malware code, written by a Russian-speaker in the Moscow time zone, used by Fancy Bear in previous attacks, and it sent information back to the same server. The Podesta hack was performed with the same Bit.ly spearphishing tactic used by Cozy Bear in previous attacks.
If it has been used before, it could have been easily copied from someone else to use to make it look like the Russians. Coming from a time zone does not mean anything, you can re-rout around the world.
Motive: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear's attacks have consistently targeted enemies of the Russian state, and this attack against a presidential candidate who is resistant to Russia's neo-imperialist interests and whom Putin seems personally to dislike is no exception.
If it was them it is still not the Russians. Do you have a money trail or tape recording or.... email or...
Opportunity: We can see the malware in the DNC's servers that have Fancy Bear access to them. We can see the very spearphishing email that was sent to Podesta, and the email from his tech support accidentally telling him it was "legitimate". We know he clicked the link, giving Cozy Bear the opportunity to access his emails. We know they were in there.
Someone can access it to if they used the same programs that these 2 groups have in the past.
These 3 arguments are nothing but speculation and no evidence.
Yes, basically. Arguments require credible evidence. Which we have.
So to sum up, if an argument cannot be "proven" (more precisely, "supported with evidence"), it doesn't need to be disproven or discredited. It doesn't have any proof or credit to begin with.
"Your first 'source'
"individuals with connections" connections is not proof....
Second source
"believe are spies..." belief is not proof."
It is not credible and there is no evidence, it is all speculation.
How?
How is bill relevant to discrediting Assange?
Please stop trying to be clever by echoing me. You only ever faceplant. I didn't point you to the Times, I pointed you to a single article by the Times. If you can't read one article, that's on you.
Was just using the same standards. There is no evidence in there, that the Russians done it. All speculation. What evidence are you claiming that they have?
They are even in support of Assange; "American officials say Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services."
Well Ron Paul has come and and said that Hillary had a private server, and its an anonymous source. And there is no evidence to verify the claims made by the CIA. The CIA had meddled with many other countries elections.... Enjoy!
Well neither 9/11 or Bill are reasons to discredit Assange on source of Hacked emails.
Your logic is, "He didn't do it because he said he didn't do it."
By that logic, Bill Clinton also didn't do it because he said he didn't do it.
And the hypothetical 9/11 conspirators didn't do it because they said they didn't do it.
If you think that Clinton did it, or that the 9/11 conspirators did it, you acknowledge the possibility that someone can do something even if they've said they didn't do it. Therefore, it is possible that Assange did it even though he's said he didn't do it. Therefore, Assange saying he didn't do it does not constitute evidence that he didn't do it.
This is why I am defending Assange because he has proven to be a reliable source while the Washington Post and other corporate media outlets have not(WoMD).
Assange started WikiLeaks promising to focus on revealing the state secrets of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.
You said he has every reason not to lie because lying would ruin his record. If the truth is that he is working for Russia, telling the truth would ruin his record more than lying about it.
These 3 arguments are nothing but speculation and no evidence.
If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as documented tactics, tools, server addresses, and online accounts used in the attack that are distinctive to a covert operations group known to be sponsored by the U.S. government and act in its interests, you would be shouting it from the rooftops.
You really weren't. I quipped that WikiLeaks is a big site because you hadn't directed me to anything in particular on that site. For that matter, you still haven't. (Complain all you like about moving the goalposts, but it's a bit rich when you haven't even passed the initial goalposts.) So when you say that the Times is a big site when I have directed you to a particular article... like I said, faceplant.
They're chronicling Assange's public actions. All the evidence is out in the open, they're simply aggregating it to show that there's a pattern. Do you dispute any of what they say Assange has done, or that there's a pattern? I repeat: where are the promised state secrets from Russia and China?
They are even in support of Assange; "American officials say Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services."
They go on to explain how exactly they believe Assange is being used by Russian intelligence services. But that doesn't work as well for your position as an out-of-context quotation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So all the Tweets they posted from employees from snopes are fake also?
Their tweets are not their work they publish on Snopes. I need evidence that their biases are bleeding into their writing on Snopes, not their Twitter accounts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
So all the Tweets they posted from employees from snopes are fake also?
Their tweets are not their work they publish on Snopes. I need evidence that their biases are bleeding into their writing on Snopes, not their Twitter accounts.
So all the Tweets they posted from employees from snopes are fake also?
Their tweets are not their work they publish on Snopes. I need evidence that their biases are bleeding into their writing on Snopes, not their Twitter accounts.
Yeah. Doubt they show any bias..
Feel free to actually show us examples of Snopes articles that show biases.
Seriously, attack the arguments they make for their jobs, not the individuals in their personal lives.
Snopes gets called partisan by people on every possible political side because people on every side do dumb ***** and then they get called out by Snopes, but the articles are usually well sourced.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
If i came up with 50 articles that proved my point every one of them would be shot down as a bias or fake web site.
Libs are well known for their unbiased reporting and acceptance of views that dont reflect their own..
Public Mod Note
(osieorb18):
Warning for trolling.
If i came up with 50 articles that proved my point every one of them would be shot down as a bias or fake web site.
Libs are well known for their unbiased reporting and acceptance of views that dont reflect their own..
So your argument is, there is no point making an argument?
That's a good one.
If i came up with 50 articles that proved my point every one of them would be shot down as a bias or fake web site.
Libs are well known for their unbiased reporting and acceptance of views that dont reflect their own..
I feel like this is a cop out. If you feel like we're going to shoot down every website you give us, then dig into Snopes yourself, find fifty or so examples on their website you feel bias, then come back to us with how you personally feel you were biased against.
PS. Discrediting a source without discrediting an argument is a logical fallacy. I admit I committed it when I attacked Daily Caller without additionally attacking their article, but to be clear, I think using a Twitter feed instead of article examples from Snopes is a mistake Daily Caller's made for me to dismiss their argument.
PPS. Additionally, if you feel we're attacking your sources, double check them first to make sure we can't. There's a reason I never source Addicting Info, which is a liberal click bait site.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Well neither 9/11 or Bill are reasons to discredit Assange on source of Hacked emails.
Your logic is, "He didn't do it because he said he didn't do it."
By that logic, Bill Clinton also didn't do it because he said he didn't do it.
And the hypothetical 9/11 conspirators didn't do it because they said they didn't do it.
If you think that Clinton did it, or that the 9/11 conspirators did it, you acknowledge the possibility that someone can do something even if they've said they didn't do it. Therefore, it is possible that Assange did it even though he's said he didn't do it. Therefore, Assange saying he didn't do it does not constitute evidence that he didn't do it.
I am saying there is no evidence to suggest other wise. He has his 100% accuracy record to defend.
Assange started WikiLeaks promising to focus on revealing the state secrets of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.
Where are those state secrets, exactly?
Not relevant to this exposure of Hillary's emails. Maybe nobody from China or Russia, has come forward.
You said he has every reason not to lie because lying would ruin his record. If the truth is that he is working for Russia, telling the truth would ruin his record more than lying about it.
Is he working for Russia, that is yet to be proven. You calling it the truth means nothing.
Do you? For this, or literally anything you claim?
Hillary's emails from Wikileaks...
Or it could have been the Russians.
"Could" is not Proof.
Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear are Russian.
Still not the Russian Government.
They didn't just use the same program, they used the same Bit.ly account.
It COULD have been them. But still no definite links to the Russian Government. No money trail...
If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as documented tactics, tools, server addresses, and online accounts used in the attack that are distinctive to a covert operations group known to be sponsored by the U.S. government and act in its interests, you would be shouting it from the rooftops.
So you believe this one with its 'evidence', yet disbelieve 9/11 with its evidence? But still not relevant to this case.
If you're absolutely determined not to credit it, then I can't make you. But it is credible.
It's only credible cause they use words like COULD, possibly, if, connections, links... there is no solid evidence, so they can speculate using these terms and still be credible.
Parallel logic, like I showed above.
Still going to need more than Bill lied about Monica so that discredits Julian.
They're chronicling Assange's public actions. All the evidence is out in the open, they're simply aggregating it to show that there's a pattern. Do you dispute any of what they say Assange has done, or that there's a pattern? I repeat: where are the promised state secrets from Russia and China?
What promise? Assange COULD just be going for a candidate that might pardon him. These Secrets don't matter to this case, he might have a bias in those that want to help him live.
They go on to explain how exactly they believe Assange is being used by Russian intelligence services. But that doesn't work as well for your position as an out-of-context quotation.
Their belief is not proof. They could probably make that same case for me. I supported Trump cause I thought he was the most peaceful candidate that wanted to work with Russia to help defeat ISIS. Hillary wants to go to war with Russia and Take out President Assad. The US is interfering in other countries elections. Maybe Russia was maybe it wasn't but it was still using free speech, which is part of the US constitution. The opposing side should have used arguments to try and defeat them, but now they are silencing them and just calling them 'fake' without reason. The emails are real!!!
Isn't this 100% accuracy record from Wikileaks itself? So Assange's own company is giving him a 100% accuracy record? That seems... questionable.
Maybe he has lied in the past. But yes you are right, it is Wikileaks with the 100% rating, but if he is lying now it would hurt the Wikileaks reputation. But still need solid evidence to say it was the Russians. Maybe a Russian insider will come out and bring some evidence/witness to the US corporate media...
Isn't this 100% accuracy record from Wikileaks itself? So Assange's own company is giving him a 100% accuracy record? That seems... questionable.
Maybe he has lied in the past. But yes you are right, it is Wikileaks with the 100% rating, but if he is lying now it would hurt the Wikileaks reputation. But still need solid evidence to say it was the Russians. Maybe a Russian insider will come out and bring some evidence/witness to the US corporate media...
Way to not answer the question. Which I will put in simple terms. Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Isn't this 100% accuracy record from Wikileaks itself? So Assange's own company is giving him a 100% accuracy record? That seems... questionable.
Maybe he has lied in the past. But yes you are right, it is Wikileaks with the 100% rating, but if he is lying now it would hurt the Wikileaks reputation. But still need solid evidence to say it was the Russians. Maybe a Russian insider will come out and bring some evidence/witness to the US corporate media...
Way to not answer the question. Which I will put in simple terms. Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?
Isn't this 100% accuracy record from Wikileaks itself? So Assange's own company is giving him a 100% accuracy record? That seems... questionable.
Maybe he has lied in the past. But yes you are right, it is Wikileaks with the 100% rating, but if he is lying now it would hurt the Wikileaks reputation. But still need solid evidence to say it was the Russians. Maybe a Russian insider will come out and bring some evidence/witness to the US corporate media...
Way to not answer the question. Which I will put in simple terms. Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?
What has been discredited?
Don't know don't care. The question wasn't about anything being discredited. Are you going to stop spamming this forum and actually answer it which was: Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?
Its a fairly simple question and only needs a yes or a no as an answer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Don't know don't care. The question wasn't about anything being discredited. Are you going to stop spamming this forum and actually answer it which was: Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?
Its a fairly simple question and only needs a yes or a no as an answer.
It's not spam, it answers your question as well. If there is something that has been discredited then that is going to make Wikileaks not have 100% accuracy/Truth. I guess organizations that have him on or report about him support his claim, such as RT, The Belfast Telegraph, dailymail, AMTV, Alex Jones, President Elect of the USA.
Now on the flip side, is there any organization that claims that the Washington post has a 100% accuracy/truthful rating?
But even if he is lying that still does not prove that Russia done it. The fact is Hillary had an illegal private email server that was open to anyone, and destroyed evidence under subpoena.
We live in a global world, with US Freedom of speech there is no reason why Russia should not be able to support a candidate that they think is more peaceful and will work with them.
not disproof. Argument Still Stands.
Not disproof.
Your first 'source'
"individuals with connections" connections is not proof. I've got heaps of 'connections' and does not mean *****!!! If Australia does bomb Syrian army locations and allow ISIS to make ground, I am connected to that but I am not responsible for that. When I rar, I was going on anti-foreign intervention.
Second source
"believe are spies..." belief is not proof.
Third 'source' NY times, has been supporting WOMD lies. It is bias. I don't even wanna know what you want to quote from this.... just looks like a bunch of ifs and buts....
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
On the contrary it is your own source admitting that he is not sure that it is true. Hence he is concerned that the person who told him hte story is lying to him yet he has been forced to print the story anyway due to editorial pressure.
And are your connections in anyway related to the Austrailian intelligence agencies and willing to tell you classified information? If they aren't they are not in the same league as the sorts of people the CIA, NSA, MI6 etc are going to be talking to. So I'm not entirely sure how relevant this is to proving or disproving the veracity of the Washington posts story.
On its own no. When taken in to consideration with the piles and piles of other information that Russians has carried out similar actions in other countries like Georgia and Estonia. And as for them not having official backing of the Russian state to quote Jim Lewis of the Centre of Strategic and International Studies, 'If a hacker in St. Petersburg tried to break into the Kremlin system, that hacker could count the remaining hours on one hand". With that capability we can presume the reason why the Russians were unwilling to provide culprits for other times they have been caught with their citzens hacking into computer systems owned by other nations/ multinational corportations is that there is some significant connection to the state and theya are using the image 'citzen hactivist' as a smokescreen.
So your argument against this source is that the New York times printed stories that Iraq had WMD? If so can we use it as well as in addition to is well documented support of Hitler, continuing support of Russia and China it also printed similar stories of that the New York Times. And unlike the NYT they are yet to apologise for them.
However as we have responded directly to your specific source it behoves you to do the same. What specifically do you take issue with about the source.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
You asked for discreditation, and it is that. If a statement by someone who has every reason to lie cannot be independently verified, we cannot trust it -- i.e., we cannot credit it -- thus it is discredited. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false, but it's not proof of anything.
Do you notice how, for your arguments, you're saying the argument stands if it is not disproven, but for my arguments, you're saying the argument fails if it is not proven? That's called a "double standard". By your own standard for yourself, we should believe my sources, because you have not disproven their claims. And by your own standard for me, we should not believe your sources, because you have not proven their claims. Either way, you lose.
Now, this is an actual ad hominem argument. You are using discredit a claim based on a(n alleged) fact about the source that is not relevant to the claim. Is any claim the Times makes about Assange untrue? If so, which ones, and what's your evidence that they're untrue?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Cause stuff gets lost when ever I try and use the Quote thing properly. I was replying to BS now I have lost it wanting to add you to the same post... The system is heaps messy when quoting.
I am sure he would not want to put his life at risk and jail time for a lie. What motivation does he have to lie?
And how do people know that these 'Russian' hackers are. How would you know if i am not "in the same league as the sorts of people the CIA, NSA, MI6"? But my point is there are lots of people with connections, and having a connection is not proof.
"some significant connection to the state" connection is not proof
"other information that Russians has carried out similar actions"
So has Russia admitted to these similar actions? Similar actions does not mean they have hacked it now. Lots of hackers use 'similar actions'.
My argument against the source is that Julian has come out and said that it was not the Russians. There is no evidence but speculation to suggest it was the Russians. Someone with a 100% truthful rating, it to be trusted over a source that has been known to lie and spread propaganda such as WoMDs.
From the article: "what they say are Russian", them saying does not prove it was the Russians.
"a group that insists on public anonymity" "say independent researchers" Who are they, they want to claim Russians spread Propaganda, yet they do not want to be identified. What evidence do they have? Claiming an independent researcher found this out with no evidence or name is not proof. I can keep going through this 'airy-fairy' article and bring out 'key words' that are not proof of Russian hacking, if you don't get the argument yet.
"undermine American democracy and interests." American democracy is built on free speech, this should be allowable. In what way has it undermined it? It got Trump elected who wants to work with Russia. If it is in Americas interests to destroy ISIS then working with Russia, is in American interests. Trading with another country the likes of Russia can be in Americas interests.
So Bill has admitted guilt and confessed. Julian has denied the claims. Innocent till proven guilty...
Julian has 100% accuracy rating with Wikileaks, he has every reason not to lie to maintain his record. cannot be independently verified =/= we cannot trust it. Even when independently verified the likes of the WP has claimed, they still give no evidence or names. This is not proof of Russian Hacking.
Doesn't an argument still stand if it is not disproven? And if you can't prove an argument, then it's not an argument. They are different things that you are trying to make the same thing... *goal posts moving*
If a witness says something in a court of law, it will be held to be true until it can be disproven. Why would someone risk their life and jail for a lie?
Are you saying that belief and connections are proof then? I do not want double standards that the opposing side in this debate has with the likes of not correcting.
Are you debating or moderating. If you want to be the moderate please be neutral and then you can claim that I lose at the end of the debate.
You have done the same with the Bill argument. And Lithl had done the same with the "It's an extremely biased right-wing rag with "institutional racism," to quote one of their own reporters." argument. Why did you not correct him? I think we need to set up some standards in order to continue this debate. One argument works for your side, but when I use the same tactic it is not viable. this is **goal posts moving**
The Times is a big site, you are going to have to be more "specific" about which claims you want to be argued.
And its not fake if its been Hacked!!! We should be more worried about the content of the hack rather than who did it, with the Clinton foundation fraud among other things.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
It would be weird if there was some sort of bias in 'fact' checking.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/
If Assange admits he is a catspaw for Russian intelligence, don't you think that would ruin his record just a little bit more? Nobody's going to say, "Oh, this person we thought was an independent crusader for freedom of information is actually a Kremlin spy, but at least he's honest about it! What a great guy!" (Oh, and the Russians probably won't be happy he outed their operation either. And remember, the Russians kill journalists.)
It's probable that they don't know the names of the individual hackers, any more than you know my name or I yours. But they do have the name of the groups -- "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" -- and the evidence consists of the classic triad of means, motive, and opportunity.
Means: The DNC hack was performed by the same malware code, written by a Russian-speaker in the Moscow time zone, used by Fancy Bear in previous attacks, and it sent information back to the same server. The Podesta hack was performed with the same Bit.ly spearphishing tactic used by Cozy Bear in previous attacks.
Motive: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear's attacks have consistently targeted enemies of the Russian state, and this attack against a presidential candidate who is resistant to Russia's neo-imperialist interests and whom Putin seems personally to dislike is no exception.
Opportunity: We can see the malware in the DNC's servers that have Fancy Bear access to them. We can see the very spearphishing email that was sent to Podesta, and the email from his tech support accidentally telling him it was "legitimate". We know he clicked the link, giving Cozy Bear the opportunity to access his emails. We know they were in there.
No. You yourself say why:
Yes, basically. Arguments require credible evidence. Which we have.
So to sum up, if an argument cannot be "proven" (more precisely, "supported with evidence"), it doesn't need to be disproven or discredited. It doesn't have any proof or credit to begin with.
How?
I'm not debating with Lithl. I'm debating with you. If I corrected every logical fallacy on this site, I'd be working full time at it. But for the record, yes, Lithl's statement does not constitute discreditation. So you shouldn't do what he did.
Even if your accusation is true, it's not moving the goalposts, it's a double standard again. Please, please, please have some idea what the terms you're using mean before you use them.
Please stop trying to be clever by echoing me. You only ever faceplant. I didn't point you to the Times, I pointed you to a single article by the Times. If you can't read one article, that's on you.
What Clinton foundation fraud? Where's your evidence for that? All the emails have been out in the open for a while now, and the FBI has certified that they've gone through them. If there were evidence that the Clinton Foundation was engaging in fraud, well, that's a crime, and they should have indicted her. So I want to see a specific document where Clinton admits to criminal behavior. Or else -- by your own standard -- she is innocent until proven guilty.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
*Sigh* If I had a nickel every time someone attacked Snopes with unsubstantiated claims, I'd be a billionaire.
First, the DailyCaller is an unreliable site with questionable ethics in of itself. Quite honestly, even before I went digging for its reliability on the internet, its ad tactics raised red flags. Then there's the fact that Daily Caller has hit Snopes regularly for not liking when Snopes fact checks them. Do you have any other sources to evaluate Snopes off of?
Second, Snopes has been accused of being biased in every direction. In fact, they chronicled it themselves. Feel free to keep digging, but I'm not buying into this particular source you presented.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
So all the Tweets they posted from employees from snopes are fake also?
Well neither 9/11 or Bill are reasons to discredit Assange on source of Hacked emails. But I look at evidence and judge the people who I want to be innocent. This is why I am defending Assange because he has proven to be a reliable source while the Washington Post and other corporate media outlets have not(WoMD).
A little bit more than what? You have not disproven anything from Wikileaks. And your if case is not disproof either. Do you have documents with a money trail or a sound recording or...
If it has been used before, it could have been easily copied from someone else to use to make it look like the Russians. Coming from a time zone does not mean anything, you can re-rout around the world.
If it was them it is still not the Russians. Do you have a money trail or tape recording or.... email or...
Someone can access it to if they used the same programs that these 2 groups have in the past.
These 3 arguments are nothing but speculation and no evidence.
"Your first 'source'
"individuals with connections" connections is not proof....
Second source
"believe are spies..." belief is not proof."
It is not credible and there is no evidence, it is all speculation.
How is bill relevant to discrediting Assange?
Was just using the same standards. There is no evidence in there, that the Russians done it. All speculation. What evidence are you claiming that they have?
They are even in support of Assange; "American officials say Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services."
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQN8zct-ow
Also this is a possibility
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/julian-assange-hints-murdered-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-was-source-of-damaging-email-leaks/news-story/40cabac21d722f1f8d4d115f7788c460
Another example of how the Media believed the state lies instead of investigating for themselves. And therefore spreading fake news themselves.:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-wrong-iraq-saddam-hussein-cia-interrogator-john-nixon-george-w-bush-invasion-a7482456.html
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
By that logic, Bill Clinton also didn't do it because he said he didn't do it.
And the hypothetical 9/11 conspirators didn't do it because they said they didn't do it.
If you think that Clinton did it, or that the 9/11 conspirators did it, you acknowledge the possibility that someone can do something even if they've said they didn't do it. Therefore, it is possible that Assange did it even though he's said he didn't do it. Therefore, Assange saying he didn't do it does not constitute evidence that he didn't do it.
Assange started WikiLeaks promising to focus on revealing the state secrets of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.
Where are those state secrets, exactly?
You said he has every reason not to lie because lying would ruin his record. If the truth is that he is working for Russia, telling the truth would ruin his record more than lying about it.
Do you? For this, or literally anything you claim?
Or it could have been the Russians.
Or it could have been the Russians.
In case you missed it somehow: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear are Russian.
They didn't just use the same program, they used the same Bit.ly account.
If you had evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy as solid as documented tactics, tools, server addresses, and online accounts used in the attack that are distinctive to a covert operations group known to be sponsored by the U.S. government and act in its interests, you would be shouting it from the rooftops.
If you're absolutely determined not to credit it, then I can't make you. But it is credible.
Parallel logic, like I showed above.
You really weren't. I quipped that WikiLeaks is a big site because you hadn't directed me to anything in particular on that site. For that matter, you still haven't. (Complain all you like about moving the goalposts, but it's a bit rich when you haven't even passed the initial goalposts.) So when you say that the Times is a big site when I have directed you to a particular article... like I said, faceplant.
They're chronicling Assange's public actions. All the evidence is out in the open, they're simply aggregating it to show that there's a pattern. Do you dispute any of what they say Assange has done, or that there's a pattern? I repeat: where are the promised state secrets from Russia and China?
They go on to explain how exactly they believe Assange is being used by Russian intelligence services. But that doesn't work as well for your position as an out-of-context quotation.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Yeah. Doubt they show any bias..
Seriously, attack the arguments they make for their jobs, not the individuals in their personal lives.
Snopes gets called partisan by people on every possible political side because people on every side do dumb ***** and then they get called out by Snopes, but the articles are usually well sourced.
Art is life itself.
Libs are well known for their unbiased reporting and acceptance of views that dont reflect their own..
So your argument is, there is no point making an argument?
That's a good one.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I feel like this is a cop out. If you feel like we're going to shoot down every website you give us, then dig into Snopes yourself, find fifty or so examples on their website you feel bias, then come back to us with how you personally feel you were biased against.
PS. Discrediting a source without discrediting an argument is a logical fallacy. I admit I committed it when I attacked Daily Caller without additionally attacking their article, but to be clear, I think using a Twitter feed instead of article examples from Snopes is a mistake Daily Caller's made for me to dismiss their argument.
PPS. Additionally, if you feel we're attacking your sources, double check them first to make sure we can't. There's a reason I never source Addicting Info, which is a liberal click bait site.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I am saying there is no evidence to suggest other wise. He has his 100% accuracy record to defend.
Not relevant to this exposure of Hillary's emails. Maybe nobody from China or Russia, has come forward.
Is he working for Russia, that is yet to be proven. You calling it the truth means nothing.
Hillary's emails from Wikileaks...
"Could" is not Proof.
Still not the Russian Government.
It COULD have been them. But still no definite links to the Russian Government. No money trail...
So you believe this one with its 'evidence', yet disbelieve 9/11 with its evidence? But still not relevant to this case.
It's only credible cause they use words like COULD, possibly, if, connections, links... there is no solid evidence, so they can speculate using these terms and still be credible.
Still going to need more than Bill lied about Monica so that discredits Julian.
What promise? Assange COULD just be going for a candidate that might pardon him. These Secrets don't matter to this case, he might have a bias in those that want to help him live.
Their belief is not proof. They could probably make that same case for me. I supported Trump cause I thought he was the most peaceful candidate that wanted to work with Russia to help defeat ISIS. Hillary wants to go to war with Russia and Take out President Assad. The US is interfering in other countries elections. Maybe Russia was maybe it wasn't but it was still using free speech, which is part of the US constitution. The opposing side should have used arguments to try and defeat them, but now they are silencing them and just calling them 'fake' without reason. The emails are real!!!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Isn't this 100% accuracy record from Wikileaks itself? So Assange's own company is giving him a 100% accuracy record? That seems... questionable.
Maybe he has lied in the past. But yes you are right, it is Wikileaks with the 100% rating, but if he is lying now it would hurt the Wikileaks reputation. But still need solid evidence to say it was the Russians. Maybe a Russian insider will come out and bring some evidence/witness to the US corporate media...
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Way to not answer the question. Which I will put in simple terms. Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
What has been discredited?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Don't know don't care. The question wasn't about anything being discredited. Are you going to stop spamming this forum and actually answer it which was: Is Wikileaks the only organisation that is giving Wikileaks a 100% truthfulness rating or is there a third party that is doing the same thing?
Its a fairly simple question and only needs a yes or a no as an answer.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
It's not spam, it answers your question as well. If there is something that has been discredited then that is going to make Wikileaks not have 100% accuracy/Truth. I guess organizations that have him on or report about him support his claim, such as RT, The Belfast Telegraph, dailymail, AMTV, Alex Jones, President Elect of the USA.
Now on the flip side, is there any organization that claims that the Washington post has a 100% accuracy/truthful rating?
But even if he is lying that still does not prove that Russia done it. The fact is Hillary had an illegal private email server that was open to anyone, and destroyed evidence under subpoena.
We live in a global world, with US Freedom of speech there is no reason why Russia should not be able to support a candidate that they think is more peaceful and will work with them.
Just some thoughts not a part of the argument:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-23/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-democrats-rigged-primary-reveal-extensive-media-collusion
*I wonder how Bernie supporters feel about this. I wonder which side they voted for and are arguing for now. Or have they over looked the content of the emails and gone along with this Russia propaganda fear campaign set out by the corporate media and US government who are bought off by the same people. And who also own the Military industrial complex and want to go to war with Russia for more money. Maybe Bernie being a sell-out is part of the evil Russian Propaganda campaign*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial%E2%80%93media_complex
"General Electric (which owns, but is in the process of divesting, 49% of NBC) is a subcontractor for the Tomahawk cruise missile and Patriot II missile..."
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/
Thought I would include this one for a bit of a laugh... How times have changed
Why has the left gone from peaceful protesters to rioters and warmongers?
Here is some developing news:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0 -No links
http://observer.com/2016/11/liberals-are-suddenly-experts-in-russian-espionage/
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru