Quote
stlramz
In fact, "consider the source" is an argument that is well accepted in the Courts where the whole point is to try and eliminate bias.
The fact that someone has been shown to have given materially false testimony in the past, has committed a crime of moral turpitude, has been convicted of a felony, are all relevant to what the "source" is saying now i.e., that it should be viewed with distrust or skeptically.
I am sure when you review posts here at the herd, you "consider the source".
In fact, there are certain posters that I absolutely read religiously because they are a "source" that has been shown to be reliable and worthy of reading while others . . . not so much.
I don't think an analogy with a court of law holds. For one thing you're using the word "source" too liberally. The other is, an article and whether or not it's valid has very little in common with testimony in a court of law.
"Consider the source" in cases like this are a distraction, and a weak one, when that venue (it's a venue not a source) provides multiple
actual sources. You don't dismiss real evidence by showing a prejudice against the venue.
And of course in this case there is nothing remotely similar to saying the venue in this case, Bleacher Report, OR the particular reporter, have given materially false testimony of any kind in the past. So that part of the analogy does not hold either.
What we have here is ignoring actual evidence because of the venue, when in fact there is no evidence that the venue (BR) has regularly published materially false articles.
It's a bad analogy all the way around I am afraid.
The equivalent in a court of law would be to dismiss the evidence of any witnesses from San Diego BECAUSE they are from San Diego.
On top of it bad arguments everywhere of all kinds in all contexts are often driven by the "smear and discredit" move. That's why boards like this have rules against ad hominem attacks, since those are not real arguments. Again, you cannot dismiss ACTUAL evidence that way. Not without showing a bias of your own.
A poster is not a "source" either. A poster offers opinions and interpretations. Yes we all have our biases when it comes to that and prefer some over others and for different reasons. That too does not hold as an analogy in this case to an article that provided lots of different first-hand accounts. What has to be dealt with in this case is those first-hand accounts from insiders, not the fact that a particular venue published it.
....
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2019 05:09AM by zn.
