Are you also annoyed by this tactic in discussions and debates?

Question

I'm sick of the supposed brilliance of rejecting the validity of statements because their sources and the organisations that provide them venues for expression aren't perfect, or don't match with ideologue's perspectives.

What does it mean to proclaim something as propaganda when many times it's apparent that proof of the propaganda either doesn't exist, or the evidence doesn't pertain to the issue at hand?

The tactic is so incredibly fallacious to me, that I believe its very use, seeming to stem from cynicism, borders on being unethical. From FNC to BBC, these venues are rejected, regardless of relevant evidence of distortion, by associations and stereotypes. Even if there's evidence or proof of patterns of distortion, any given statement's validity must be individually assessed. Without evidence to support a claim that a statement is invalid, any given source and venue must be called a propagandist; for without evidence, that capacity is resident in any source and venue.

Incase my point is missed, proclaiming something as propaganda is clearly an opponent demonizing tactic if you don't have pertinent evidence.

augy30, that's nice, but what does that have to do with my question, or do New Zealanders not have to deal with the problem?

Greg, my point is not to deny the existence of propaganda, but to get people to focus on facts in their reasoning, not flawed assumptions.

INBRED TOOTHLESS NEOCONS, it's my form of expression, and is actually an edit from my first draft. I assume you have better things to do than make sarcastic comments, perhaps addressing my question is one of them?

BeachBum, I have done no such thing. I did not say any evidence is flawed, I said it needs to exist and be relevant. And I am not a Republican, and have never been a part of rejecting Frontline.

Dolf-Wolf, no, I have not seen that movie. I know what laconic means, and after your answer, could I be blamed if responded as such?

Kevin W, I agree. I want the source too, but I also want to be open to accepting facts when presented, as I trust you do. My problem is as I stated in my question, proclamations of propaganda and rejections for what I feel are flawed and unfair reasons.

Answer 1

No no no you are falling for what they want you to fall for .. the argument that your evidence is flawed. They do not care to examine the evidence. They are all about making you be on the defense. Get it?

The fact of the matter is that republicans do not want the truth. Many times I have given sources from Frontline that almost every year wins the truth in journalism award and republicans have said to me, 'u gotta do better than that.'

I mean come on... That tells me they do NOT want to truth.

If you pay close attention here on these boards, it is the democrats who offer sources and back up our arguments and claims with fact. Facts they are welcome to examine and make up their own minds.

It is the republicans if you notice, that just come on here saying stuff like, 'why do liberals hate american' etc... They never give any valid argument to any question they ever ask. And when they can't argue with your valid factual answer, they will attack you or say your source is bull.

Don't fall for it. I truly feel sorry for them. Most of them couldnt name their congressional members if there were ask. The vast majority of them don't know 1% of what I have researched.

HEY SILLY I was defending you NOT attacking you. HEHE Read what I typed again. I AM ON YOUR SIDE

Answer 2

The key to debate (or negotiations) are facts. In order to have a reasoned conversation, "facts" must be determinable, or they are simply opinions based on, well, nothing.

If I say that there are 10 BILLION people in the world starving, so we should send food to Africa, my point (we should send food to Africa) might be valid. My argument is not. There are not 10 people in the world starving (there are not 10 billion people in the world). An opinion on what should occur, based on facts, relies on the accuracy of facts to support the argument.

There are some sources that I reject as unworthy of trust. Some I will double check. And some I trust. If you site to a source that is unworthy of trust (for example, al jeezera (sp?) for the validity of US policy, I would require some other source for the fact. Otherwise, your premise (the fact/problem) is wrong. And no person in such a discussion should allow you to reach a conclusion based upon a faulty premise.

Answer 3

When discussing a news item....or referring to something that has happened in the world, and it is something important, it should be covered by the news...so, there should be some evidence......for instance, IF you said "Iran says they are going to send a missile to USA, and blow up New York, what do you think?" I would want to know where you heard that, and what is the source....{or evidence}...sometimes wanting the source or evidence is the way of learning...don't be so upset, give the source, or state it is your opinion

Answer 4

Say something long enough and loud enough and people will believe it. That has always been the tactic of those that can not rely on the truth of facts. And it is way an agendized media is a dangerious thing.

Answer 5

Did you ever watch the movie "Goodwill Hunting" ? What a waste of words letters and time you just did. Try looking for the word "laconic" in the dictionary.

Answer 6

Every source for every argument can be disputed. Is that what you're getting at? Prpaganda exists, be certain of that.

Answer 7

I THINK YOU COULD HAVE USED ABOUT LESS THAN HALF THE WORDS YOU USED TO GET THE SAME POINT ACROSS. ARE YOUR FINGERS TIRED AFTER TYPING THAT?

Answer 8

propaganda is propaganda
a lie supporting a lie is still a lie

Answer 9

not at all, im new zealand citizen