Tucker Carlson on Rogan

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

What about this? He has been very disingenuous

Can you lay out what he has been disingenious about?

You can't pretend that using an Ihypocrite hitpiece video as a source is a good faith way to  try to critique him.

Edited April 24 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

I am not going to get dragged into Destiny drama.

From everything I have heard Destiny say, he has reasonable, grounded, and nuanced positions, moreso than most leftists.

You don't have to agree with him on everything to acknowledge that. Destiny does a good job of understanding conservative positions, unlike much of the left who act like the left is always correct no matter what.

Edited April 24 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Can you lay out what he has been disingenious about?

You can't pretend that using an Ihypocrite hitpiece video as a source is a good faith way to  try to critique him.

Rather than attack the source, what in the video was an unfair critique of him?

Edited April 25 by Raze

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Raze said:

Rather than attack the source, what in the video was an unfair critique of him?

Thats a slimy move there - thats not how this going to work.

If you think that bait is going to work on me - (shifting the burden of proof) , where I need to lay out why I disagree with any kind of criticism that is made in or outside of the video - you are mistaken , Im not going to do the work for you.

You have made a claim and then you linked an almost 1 hour long video, without clearing up which criticism in that video you agree or disagree with.

The question is, do you have any criticism that you agree with  in the video or do you have any critique that is not even in the video ?  Pick one that you agree with or create one, that you think can substantiate your claim about him being disingenious.

I will engage with the source that you linked - if you clarify which criticisms you agree with in the video.

Edited April 25 by zurew

[Raze]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Thats a slimy move there - thats not how this going to work.

If you think that bait is going to work on me - (shifting the burden of proof) , where I need to lay out why I disagree with any kind of criticism that is made in or outside of the video - you are mistaken , Im not going to do the work for you.

You have made a claim and then you linked an almost 1 hour long video, without clearing up which criticism in that video you agree or disagree with.

The question is, do you have any criticism that you agree with  in the video or do you have any critique that is not even in the video ?  Pick one that you agree with or create one, that you think can substantiate your claim about him being disingenious.

I will engage with the source that you linked - if you clarify which criticisms you agree with in the video.

It’s not shifting the burden of proof. I am giving proof by linking a video with examples of what I’m talking about. You said I shouldn’t link to this video without addressing it, that’s attacking the source to avoid the argument.

As far as I know everything in the video is a valid example of him being either disingenuous, uninformed, or extremely biased. 

[Bobby_2021]

The problem with using proof is that it's a burden. One that no one wants to take.

No one changes their mind over a proof. No one even takes rhe effort to go through the proof even if it's provided. Proof takes a lot of work from both sides.

If you are not willing to put in that work, then don't make it all about proofs. 

[Bobby_2021]

I don't listen to destiny. But if he is supporting Israel, as someone said in this thread, that is enough to make him disingenuous especially since he is purporting himself to be some staunch liberal. 

Liberal will not support Israel. Anyone doing so isn't a liberal.

[bebotalk]

American conservatives are retarded. 

Carlson espouses infusing personal beliefs and inner thoughts as facts. 

And him professing his Christianity, whilst then literally in the next sentence he utters saying something very unChristian is funny asf. As in "I'm a man of God, I have trust in Christ. But I'd love to just beat the living shit about of that guy!"

American conservatives have a collective critical thinking bypass. 

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not going to get dragged into Destiny drama.

From everything I have heard Destiny say, he has reasonable, grounded, and nuanced positions, moreso than most leftists.

You don't have to agree with him on everything to acknowledge that. Destiny does a good job of understanding conservative positions, unlike much of the left who act like the left is always correct no matter what.

I'm Sorry if I and other users seem it looked like I'm 'dragging you' into a Destiny drama, but you first interjected here:

On 2024-04-23 at 10:55 PM, Leo Gura said:

Destiny is not a demagogue. He has consistent and well-reasoned positions.

To my post below:

  ' Not necessarily. Someone can also be both intelligent and wisdom with some demagoguery, for example the Buddha was apparently really good at debating and convincing even spiritual masters in different circles and is also spiritually talented. IMO he's both wisdom and charisma mixed together.

   But I agree Tucker's obviously a demagogue with little intelligence and self awareness. Just like Destiny Divorcelli.'

It felt like you were attacking me first and I had to defend myself there.

Also, if you don't want to get dragged into drama, then you have to do some research yourself into the character that is Destiny then. I assume when you say 'From everything I have heard Destiny say, he has reasonable, grounded, and nuanced positions, moreso than most leftists.' what is this based on? the last 2-3 years of Destiny? Because I'm an ex fan of his for roughly a decade and I can tell you straight up he is being deceptive here intentionally, intentionally disingenuous here!  

'You don't have to agree with him on everything to acknowledge that. Destiny does a good job of understanding conservative positions, unlike much of the left who act like the left is always correct no matter what.'. Again, on what basis do you have to say this? Because it's one thing to be genuine but it's another thing when a person is being deceptive and intentionally charismatic and rhetoric and optics secure to say all that just for the clicks and views and public support. Destiny is actually not for the TRUTH, but Destiny's whole game is to ALWAYS win arguments and ensure the survival of his IDEOLOGY.

 

Edited April 25 by Danioover9000

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The problem with using proof is that it's a burden. One that no one wants to take.

No one changes their mind over a proof. No one even takes rhe effort to go through the proof even if it's provided. Proof takes a lot of work from both sides.

If you are not willing to put in that work, then don't make it all about proofs. 

If you are not willing to provide evidence for your claim(s) - then you need to walk them back its very easy.

Don't make a claim that you are not willing to defend or just clarify that it just a guess or a belief of yours but nothing serious.

The claim about "No one even takes the effort to go through the proof even if it's provided" is false and you and me had our debates in the past, and I showed you how your own source disagreed with you https://imgur.com/a/oAa23Ws - that clearly demonstrates that I did gave enough fucks to read through what you sent.

 But even if it is true, that most people won't go through your source , that doesn' t give you a free ticket to just make any claim about anything without any need to back up that claim. I can generate 100 false claims, but that doesn't mean that its on you now to disprove them - no I need to demonstrate how each of them is true.

4 hours ago, Raze said:

It’s not shifting the burden of proof. I am giving proof by linking a video with examples of what I’m talking about. You said I shouldn’t link to this video without addressing it, that’s attacking the source to avoid the argument.

Throwing around sources is not an argument. Its not even clear what your argument supposed to be. First it seemed that you try to imply that Destiny is a demagogue ,and then you talk about him being disingenous - its unclear which of those you want to say with your chest (willing to defend) and its unclear which one of those claims support which part of the video. - hence why you should have spell out the argument from the get go.

Also, do you think if I provide you a 1000 page pdf and say "what about this" without clarifying where the relevant info is and without clarifying which example(s) I agree with and why,  that automatically means that you need to disprove that  whole 1000 page document?

No, If I try to be good faith even the slightest - then  I will at the very least make it clear if I agree with everything in the document or if not , then clarify which points I agree with so that the other side potentially won't waste time questioning points, that I don't even plan on defending. 

and If I try to be actually good faith not just slightly good faith , then I will spell out the arguments myself and then showcase which piece of evidence is connecting to which part of my argument - that way I can showcase that I actually did go through the document that I sourced, and I don't just want to make you engage with something ,that I haven't gone through myself .

4 hours ago, Raze said:

As far as I know everything in the video is a valid example of him being either disingenuous, uninformed, or extremely biased.

So which one of those are you willing to defend? Are you willing to defend all those 3 (disingenuous, uninformed, or extremely biased)  and that Destiny is a demagogue or you want to modify your claim before we dive into it?

Now that it is clear that you agree with all of the examples in the video - we are going to go through step by step each of them.

But first you will need to clarify  what you mean by  disingenious and extremely biased.

For example: How do you differentiate between being unclear vs being disingenious?

Edited April 25 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

On 2024-04-24 at 2:45 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

Any liberal who is pro Israel isn't a liberal. I don't know what to call them.

I expect these blue haired people to vouch for Palestine, but it's the opposite that happens.

   That's partly true to a degree, they're a type of liberal that's hard to neatly categorize.

   Important to not that not all blue hairs are made equal, exception being Destiny. Some blue hairs do support Palestine as well.😂

[Danioover9000]

@Raze

19 hours ago, Raze said:

What about this? He has been very disingenuous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn067huRMZU

 

   I mostly agree in terms of arguing and debating, albeit the nature of arguing/debating is the arguer trying to establish frame control, optics, and be more persuasive and convincing, It was never about TRUTH, but the SURVIVAL OF YOUR IDEOLOGY VIA ARGUING. So yes I mostly agree the weaseling, dodging and deflecting and other fallacies Destiny strings doesn't paint him in a good light. Some people with a praising or level take on Destiny are those who are introduced and view his last 1-3 years and think he's so reasonable on just those years when the majority of his past is sketchy and very weaselly at best. Main problem is Destiny positions himself as a public figure with strong intellectual liberty and freedom when it's his entire career of public outrage and winning debates in the most bad faith way. 

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

19 hours ago, zurew said:

Can you lay out what he has been disingenious about?

You can't pretend that using an Ihypocrite hitpiece video as a source is a good faith way to  try to critique him.

   The sheer amount of weaseling, dodging and deflecting questions and argument points, resorting to many kinds of fallacies and appeals to both popularity, authority and logos to discredit reasonable challengers. That and normalizing slander and defamation online, for instance defaming Normand Finkelstein in Twitter with some of his posts containing insults and targeted harassment, yet very few acknowledge he's slandering him ever since that Lex Fridman 5 hour long podcast. Also Lex Fridman's podcast of him was suspiciously framed to bias for Destiny against Normand's side when the historical evidence is all there to corroborate and support Normand's side of the argument.

[Bobby_2021]

24 minutes ago, zurew said:

I showed you how your own source disagreed with you https://imgur.com/a/oAa23Ws -

That's the problem with using the source. Just because I link a 100 page document as a source doesn't mean I agree with every minute that's said in that source. There may be mistakes in that source. Just because there is a mistake in that source doesn't also invalidate the relevant parts of that source. These are all complexities that can derail the 

Also there is nothing to "disprove" my claims about racial IQ disparities. It merely states the scientific consensus, which is not proof. 

My claim was that IQ is genetic if I remember correctly. That also follows that racial IQ disparities are also genetic. The article is contradicting itself. That's a mistake in my source.

Because it's common sense that IQ disparities in individuals are genetic. When it's individuals from different ethnicities it suddenly doesn't make it not genetics. Afterall groups are merely individuals.

You are right in the sense that my source is wrong, but not entirely. 

Use common sense when it's valid.

33 minutes ago, zurew said:

Don't make a claim that you are not willing to defend or just clarify that it just a guess or a belief of yours but nothing serious.

I can defend it with common sense and reason with possibilities. But proof not existing is not proof of non existence. 

Which is a common fallacy among proof askers. You made that same fallacy in the picture you linked.

Nothing is being disproven right there. There was a logical fallacy in my source.

Something being true doesn't need proof to make it true. Incompleteness theorem literally proves this.

28 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Bobby_2021

   That's partly true to a degree, they're a type of liberal that's hard to neatly categorize.

   Important to not that not all blue hairs are made equal, exception being Destiny. Some blue hairs do support Palestine as well.😂

I agree that there is some liberalism to them.

But they are not true liberals.

[Bobby_2021]

42 minutes ago, zurew said:

Don't make a claim that you are not willing to defend or just clarify that it just a guess or a belief of yours but nothing serious.

There was a cia led coup in Ukraine which ousted Viktor Yanukovych. I don't have proof for it. But it's true.

It's also true, that the security of Israel was particularly low during oct 7 which is fishy. There could be claims made with this context that might be true, but there isn't enough proof to support it.

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

21 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's the problem with using the source. Just because I link a 100 page document as a source doesn't mean I agree with every minute that's said in that source. There may be mistakes in that source. Just because there is a mistake in that source doesn't also invalidate the relevant parts of that source. These are all complexities that can derail the 

Also there is nothing to "disprove" my claims about racial IQ disparities. It merely states the scientific consensus, which is not proof. 

My claim was that IQ is genetic if I remember correctly. That also follows that racial IQ disparities are also genetic. The article is contradicting itself. That's a mistake in my source.

Because it's common sense that IQ disparities in individuals are genetic. When it's individuals from different ethnicities it suddenly doesn't make it not genetics. Afterall groups are merely individuals.

You are right in the sense that my source is wrong, but not entirely. 

Use common sense when it's valid.

I can defend it with common sense and reason with possibilities. But proof not existing is not proof of non existence. 

Which is a common fallacy among proof askers. You made that same fallacy in the picture you linked.

Nothing is being disproven right there. There was a logical fallacy in my source.

Something being true doesn't need proof to make it true. Incompleteness theorem literally proves this.

I agree that there is some liberalism to them.

But they are not true liberals.

   What would be a true liberal to you versus a person having some liberalism or being a fake liberal?

[zurew]

31 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's the problem with using the source. Just because I link a 100 page document as a source doesn't mean I agree with every minute that's said in that source. There may be mistakes in that source. Just because there is a mistake in that source doesn't also invalidate the relevant parts of that source. 

That framing of that past debate and interaction is false.

It wasn't a 100 page document it was a regular wikipedia page, that disagreed with the specific point you were trying to make. It wasn't like "well look, your own source disagrees with you on this irrelevant point that doesn't have any effect on your main argument at all" - no it disagreed with you on the very point that you were trying to prove by using that source.

Its like using a study claim that vaccines are unsafe and then in reality that same study saying the exact opposite - that they are  safe.

31 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Also there is nothing to "disprove" my claims about racial IQ disparities. It merely states the scientific consensus, which is not proof.

I agree , my usage of the word "disprove" there is not correct. 

31 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I can defend it with common sense and reason with possibilities. But proof not existing is not proof of non existence. 

Which is a common fallacy among proof askers. You made that same fallacy in the picture you linked.

 

Thats false - I havent made that fallacy, you have a confusion about how that fallacy works. 

Merely asking for evidence is not a fallacy. If I would have made the argument , that "Look you haven't provided evidence for your claim, therefore it is false" - then you could say that I made that fallacy.

31 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Something being true doesn't need proof to make it true. Incompleteness theorem literally proves this.

Yes I agree and have never disagreed with the idea that - things can be true without any need to demonstrate/prove that they are true.

But in the context of a debate and in the real world, when someone makes an empirical claim or a claim that can't be substantiated by mere reasoning (data needs to be showed) - then that person needs to provide evidence for that claim ,because otherwise we are left with making claims without ever needing to substantiate anything and the other part of it is that why make strong empirical claims when you don't have the necessary evidence to back up the level of confidence that you have in said claim(s)?

27 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

There was a cia led coup in Ukraine which ousted Viktor Yanukovych. I don't have proof for it. But it's true.

It's also true, that the security of Israel was particularly low during oct 7 which is fishy. There could be claims made with this context that might be true, but there isn't enough proof to support it.

How do you know those claims are true, if you don't have evidence to back them up?

Edited April 25 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

That framing of that past debate and interaction is false.

It wasn't a 100 page document it was a regular wikipedia page, that disagreed with the specific point you were trying to make. It wasn't like "well look, your own source disagrees with you on this irrelevant point that doesn't have any effect on your main argument at all" - no it disagreed with you on the very point that you were trying to prove by using that source.

Its like using a study claim that vaccines are unsafe and then in reality that same study saying the exact opposite - that they are  safe.

Don't complicate it.

1. IQ is genetic

2. IQ disparities between individuals are also genetic.

This is all that I need from the article. That's something the article aggrees with me because there is proof for it.

The rest of my arguments logically follows from these two proven statements.

I don't expect a mainstream source to ever claim it explicitly otherwise for obvious reasons. They literally contradicted themselves in that article. Both can't be true. I am not explicitly stating it since it's a taboo topic.

Even after accepting your claim that the article disagreed with me, I don't care about it since it's not PROOF. There is no proof for the article claiming that racial IQ disparities was not genetics. So it's merely a claim. 

The authors are free to make claims.

Your claim was that it disproven me. Which is clearly false. 

If I make a claim that vax is ineffective and a study proves it, the "experts" can still claim within the same source that the vaccine is effective as per the consensus in the scientific community.  

Which is what happened in the wiki article I quoted. Self contradiction.

Who cares about consensus or disagreements.

Just look at the part that there is proof. Rest is commentary and nonsense.

[Bobby_2021]

28 minutes ago, zurew said:

How do you know those claims are true, if you don't have evidence to back them up?

By drawing out patterns and drawing implications.

You may have to wait 70 years for them to declassify the documents to get the proof.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Don't complicate it.

1. IQ is genetic

2. IQ disparities between individuals are also genetic.

This is all that I need from the article. That's something the article aggrees with me because there is proof for it.

The rest of my arguments logically follows from these two proven statements.

I don't expect a mainstream source to ever claim it explicitly otherwise for obvious reasons. They literally contradicted themselves in that article. Both can't be true. I am not explicitly stating it since it's a taboo topic.

Even after accepting your claim that the article disagreed with me, I don't care about it since it's not PROOF. There is no proof for the article claiming that racial IQ disparities was not genetics. So it's merely a claim. 

The authors are free to make claims.

Your claim was that it disproven me. Which is clearly false. 

If I make a claim that vax is ineffective and a study proves it, the "experts" can still claim within the same source that the vaccine is effective as per the consensus in the scientific community.  

Which is what happened in the wiki article I quoted. Self contradiction.

Who cares about consensus or disagreements.

Just look at the part that there is proof. Rest is commentary and nonsense.

My main point bringing up the picture was to demonstrate that I did read the source that you provided  - and the point of that is to counter your general claim about people not reading the source that is being provided.  And to be clear, before someone misinterprets me - I am not claiming that Im the only one on this forum who read the provided source(s).

But regardless, I don't care about that specific debate in terms of how much of it is environmental vs genetics - I do care about though when someone make confident empirical claims about something without any evidence and I do think that you are making a lot of confident empirical claims about a wide variety of topics without backing up with the needed evidence and that makes interactions with you hard.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

By drawing out patterns and drawing implications.

You may have to wait 70 years for them to declassify the documents to get the proof.

Unless  you can make a sound deductive argument where you know with 100% confidence that your starting premises are true and where you  can exclude all the logically possible explanations different to yours, you should drop this idea of trying to prove empirical claims with only using logic .