I think this is the science the tucker fans prefer to suck onIf I may add- a page of some scientific data they can suck on.
I think this is the science the tucker fans prefer to suck onIf I may add- a page of some scientific data they can suck on.
Most people either watch the exact news (not opinions) or other TV programs not related to news. We know that Tucker Carlson and the rest of the Fox Cronies blatant lies regarding the spiel that they put out to a fundamentally very right wing audience.Carlson continues to host the undisputably best political commentary show on television.
You know why there are so few threads/posts here on TERB about other shows? Because practically no one watches those shows, and certainly no one cares what the hosts of those shows are saying (until one says something un-woke, like Don Lemon)!
Wait, HOLD ON, please don't ruin Dutchie's hero AKA the best political pundit everrrrrMost people either watch the exact news (not opinions) or other TV programs not related to news. We know that Tucker Carlson and the rest of the Fox Cronies blatant lies regarding the spiel that they put out to a fundamentally very right wing audience.
That was very obvious in the Court Filings by Dominion against Fox where all the personal texts etc. proved that Fox journalists / Hosts like Tucker, Ingraham, Watters, Hannity and Pirro have no journalistic integrity......... PERIOD!!
What viewers are these, Mitch?
Rupert Murdoch testified that Fox News hosts ‘endorsed’ stolen election narrative
ROTFLMAO!! Fighting back by admitting that they deliberately broadcast lies including about The Dominion Voting machines? Again, have you read the link that you posted?Fox is fighting back, against Dominion!!
![]()
Five top revelations from Dominion’s explosive court filing in Fox News lawsuit
A filing in Delaware state court by Dominion Voting Systems as part of the company’s blockbuster lawsuit against Fox News and its parent company contains never-before-revealed vignettes from inside…thehill.com
They are far more honest than Fox. Do you trust Fox after what even their boss Murdoch admitted in Court?Sorry, I don't trust CNN.
They fired Chris Cuomo. Yet all these liars like Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson, and Pirro still have their jobs in spite of Murdoch admitting in court that Fox deliberately pedalled the Lies after the 2020 elections and then following the Jan 6th Insurrection!!What about that whole Chris Cuomo fiasco?? CNN didn't look too good, in this situation??
Good luck with him trying to get that amount from CNN. This $1.6 Billion by Dominion instead will hold a lot of substance for actual defamation against their Voting Machines including these blatantly lies that have already been admitted in Court. But tell us what exactly are Cuomo's arguments in court especially as it was a real conflict of interest with his brother's defence? After all CNN have proved that they will not tolerate what Fox are admittedly permitting........ i.e. LIES!!Yes, but Chris Cuomo, is suing CNN for $125 million!!
![]()
Chris Cuomo: ‘I Was Going to Kill Everybody Including Myself’ After CNN Firing
Chris Cuomo contemplated suicide after CNN fired him in 2021.variety.com
![]()
Chris Cuomo Wants WarnerMedia, CNN to Pay Him $125 Million in Damages
Chris Cuomo alleges he is owed as much as $125 million in damages in an arbitration filing against CNN and WarnerMediavariety.com
That is the fallacy of origins or genetic fallacy, not the appeal to authority fallacy.It is an appeal to authority fallacy, and it is a demonstration of the fallacy on at least 2 levels. One, on its primary level it purports to dismiss the truth of a proposition based solely on the person who said it and their personal characteristics (perhaps you conflate the concepts of doubt with rejection of truth?).
Are you arguing that there is no such thing as facts or any appeal based on the factual truth of a statement is an appeal to authority and therefore wrong? (Since any arbiter of facts would have to be an authority and therefore to use them is a fallacy?)On a secondary level, it implies that there is some personal characteristic or qualification, absent in the speaker of the statement, that WOULD provide AUTHORITY to establish the truth of the statement - a proposition which is patently false, given that the subject of the statement is a question of mixed opinion and fact, not fact.
Of course it can't be "divorced" from logic.If you are suggesting that critical thinking is a concept that can be divorced from logic, I am not aware of that usage of the term.
No one ever has perfect information and only a fool thinks that strict logic defines being correct.If you are suggesting that people make judgements on other than logical analysis, I would heartily agree, but I would say that happens far too often. Of course, sometimes a decision is required within a limited time, or must be based on limited resources. Often a decision maker simply cannot have perfect information. In those circumstances, the decision maker must try to extrapolate from the information available to conclusions which may not be supportable by strict logic. However, this reality is not any excuse for lazy, undisciplined thinking in the normal course of events.
Fox admitted lying to you, I don't see CNN doing so. Actually, they apologize when they have a story wrong.Sorry, I don't trust CNN.
Your post simply conflates doubt with rejection of truth.That is the fallacy of origins or genetic fallacy, not the appeal to authority fallacy.
Are you arguing that there is no such thing as facts or any appeal based on the factual truth of a statement is an appeal to authority and therefore wrong? (Since any arbiter of facts would have to be an authority and therefore to use them is a fallacy?)
Either way, "Tucker is saying a mix of facts and opinion, therefore dismissing him is an appeal to authority fallacy" just doesn't cohere.
Trust me, the fact I am dismissing him and even moreso I am saying that it is right to dismiss him because he is a known liar and propagandist who cannot be considered trustworthy is the Fallacy of Origins.
Of course it can't be "divorced" from logic.
I am pointing out that people who think the formal logical fallacies are the only measure of critical thinking or that reasoned discussion of an issue requires adherence to formal logic and all arguments that are logically fallacious are wrong or bad are incorrect and in fact doing themselves a deep disservice by limiting their ability to think critically.
No one ever has perfect information and only a fool thinks that strict logic defines being correct.
I don't think Carlson's humour is too subtle for you, so you must think there are readers here who don't know how to interpret his presentation. I've never found it that amusing or interesting to seek an audience of stupid people here on TERB. What would be the point?Well, quoting Dutch,
so hell, I can see ABRAM tanks coming dammit. I have to go look for bear spray, and buy a pair of steel-toe boots and a helmet because no way the best political pundit can be wrong!![]()





