Trusting Iranians...

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
(Of course, you just totally ignored Turtle's last post ... which is quite understandable ... given that it exposes exactly where the flaws in your reasoning are ...)

Nothing ignored. But no need to go bat crazy over the fact that Hot Air didn't mention the 2005 inspection as some sort of deception, or lie by omission. It was a long time ago (Inspection took place months into the previous President's second term and a decade ago. Not really relevant considering the suspicious activity at the site has occurred much more recent like in the past three and half years. And Iran did in fact previously stonewall absolutely everyone back then.(back in 2012) Hot Air merely made a statement about a previous stonewall by Iran. Previously can be referring to a particular time prior to now. The time they were referring to was in 2012, when Iran rebuffed inspectors around the same time that the suspicious activity took place.
Hot Air didn't say Iran stonewalled absolutely everyone ALL TIMES previously. That would be a false statement.
So Ylentl, Iran denied inspectors access in 2012. Right? Can I get your answer? Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
No.it would be 100 correct.
Well, if the context is "who have you previously driven for?", nooooo ... it actually wouldn't be 100 percent correct ...

I previously drove for expedite company A. There is nothing false about that statement.
Tell that to a judge, while you are testifying under oath - where you have sworn an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" - and have just been asked the question:

"Who have you previously driven for?"

Your answers are really quite instructive as to how you view the truth ...

I think Bill Clinton probably shares your view ...
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
But no need to go bat crazy over the fact that Hot Air didn't mention the 2005 inspection ...
The only one that is going bat shizz crazy - as a fanatical partisan would - is you - by attempting to assert that a false statement wasn't false ...when it clearly was ...

If that's the hill you wanna die on, then be my guest.

Hot Air didn't say Iran stonewalled absolutely everyone ALL TIMES previously.
You're further qualifying their statement ... yet again ...
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well, if the context is "who have you previously driven for?", nooooo ... it actually wouldn't be 100 percent correct ...


Tell that to a judge, while you are testifying under oath - where you have sworn an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" - and have just been asked the question:

"Who have you previously driven for?"

Your answers are really quite instructive as to how you view the truth ...

I think Bill Clinton probably shares your view ...
That's not the context-- who have I previously driven for? I have previously driven for Expedite Company A,is my statement. Nothing false in that statement. It stands alone as 100 accurate. How you coming on that Iran stonewalling question?
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The only one that is going bat shizz crazy - as a fanatical partisan would - is you - by attempting to assert that a false statement wasn't false ...when it clearly was ...

If that's the hill you wanna die on, then be my guest.


You're further qualifying their statement ... yet again ...
LMAO, the partisan nature of your posts and particular topics, mostly including a state in the Middle East on well documented. The lack of self awareness by you is stunning.
Not qualifying. More like clarifying for the reading impaired.
Stonewalling? Yes or no?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
No.it would be 100 correct. I previously drove for expedite company A. There is nothing false about that statement.
No matter how many times you say it, it's still an omission fallacy.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. Your posts here in this thread, and in general, are replete with logical fallacies, most often cherry picking, and the related quote mining, and confirmation bias.

Cherry picking is found within many logical fallacies, such as the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" where large amounts of valid data are overlooked or dismissed in favor of what is known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects information unfavorable to an argument, and the "false dichotomy" where only two choices are given even when other choices are available. A real common cherry pick is when people select certain statistics that give a predicable or desired result which may be misleading or even contradictory to the reality.

The "confirmation bias," which is your bread and butter, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention, if any at all, to information that contradicts it.

Hot Air merely made a statement about a previous stonewall by Iran.
No they didn't. They made a blanket statement, unqualified in any way. If they wanted to make a statement about a particular previous stonewalling, they could have easily said so. But they didn't. They used "previously" and "absolutely everyone" which cannot be interpreted to mean anything other than absolutely everyone who had previously wanted to inspect Parchin.

Previously can be referring to a particular time prior to now.
It certainly can, as long as the context indicates it, or the statement is qualified as a particular time. The context of Hotair's statement in no way implied that sometimes Iran stonewalled and sometimes they didn't.

The time they were referring to was in 2012, when Iran rebuffed inspectors around the same time that the suspicious activity took place.
There is nothing in the article that refers to 2012. "2012" isn't even mentioned in the article, or anywhere on that entire page.

Hot Air didn't say Iran stonewalled absolutely everyone ALL TIMES previously.
Yes they did. They created the context on their own, which left no indication whatsoever of a qualification of a specific time period constraint, nor of a particular incident.

They created the context with, "Iran has also just announced in the most reasonable of fashions that they will be allowing IAEA inspectors to be present for the collection of the samples at the heavily guarded Parchin military site."

That statement alone doesn't mean much, except the announcement itself implies something unusual, otherwise there would be no reason to announce it. But then we get the full context and the true importance of the above announcement when Hotair continued with, "Doing this allows Iran to at least attempt to defuse some of the criticism of the deal since they had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone in terms of access to the site."

So, the announcement was indeed unusual, since they have previously stonewalled absolutely everyone in terms of access to the site.

"Previously" means prior to the announcement, stonewalled "absolutely everyone" means absolutely everyone including everyone without exception, and "in terms of access to the site" means "absolutely everyone" refers to anyone and everyone who has previously requested access to the site.

You must go outside of the article and then rewrite both the article and the context in order for that to mean, "Oh, well, you know, what I meant was, they stonewalled absolutely everyone that one time back in 2012. Yeah, that's what I meant."
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
That's not the context-- who have I previously driven for?
Sure it was ... and you even provided it:

"... even though previously I also drove for a medical supply company."

In essence, you have now started to argue with yourself ... which of course is highly entertaining (and bordering on bat crap crazy) ... but it doesn't make for much in the way of a logical argument ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
That's not the context-- who have I previously driven for? I have previously driven for Expedite Company A,is my statement. Nothing false in that statement. It stands alone as 100 accurate.
It may be 100% accurate as a standalone statment, but it conveys an inaccurate message, since you failed to mention anyone else you have also previously driven for. It is deceit. A statement intended to, or one which does deceive, that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate and complete description is known as a half-truth (also Card Stacking and Incomplete Information). It is the fallacy of telling the truth, but deliberately omitting important key details, in order to falsify the larger picture and support or foster a false conclusion. So, at best, your statement is 50% accurate.

Q: Is Ciudad Juárez a nice place to live? A good place to raise a family?

A: The truth is that Ciudad Juárez, Mexico is one of the world's fastest growing cities and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, mild winters, a dry and sunny climate, low cost medical and dental care, a multitude of churches and places of worship, delicious local cuisine and a swinging nightclub scene. Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juárez is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.

Now you tell me if that's 100% accurate. It is a 100% true statement, but is it 100% accurate?
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Assumes facts not in evidence ...
[Bold emphasis added for the reading impaired]
.
White House Officials Plot Ways to Pressure Lawmakers Into Supporting Iran Deal

AP


BY: Adam Kredo
July 6, 2015 4:18 pm

VIENNA—White House officials on Monday held a private conference call with liberal organizations to discuss ways of pressuring Democrats and other lawmakers on Capitol Hill into supporting a nuclear deal with Iran that is expected to be finalized in the coming days, according to an audio recording of that call obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.

The call, in which there were more than 100 participants, was organized by the liberal pro-Iran group Ploughshares Fund, which has spent millions of dollars to slant Iran-related coverage and protect the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts.

The White House officials described a nuclear deal with Iran as President Obama’s “signature foreign policy accomplishment” and urged liberal groups to launch an all-out lobbying campaign to pressure lawmakers, especially Democrats, to back the deal.

Progressive leaders on the call told participants to prepare for a “real war” and repeatedly declared that “the other side will go crazy” in the coming days. The call also included the anti-war group MoveOn.org.

“This has really been on the front burner from a foreign perspective, although not in the public eye necessarily, since the very beginning,” Matt Nosanchuk, an official in the White House Office of Public Engagement, told participants. “This is not an issue of the day, this is really an issue of the presidency.”

The second White House official, John Bisognano, went on to stress “the importance of this to the president.”

“This is clearly an issue that is very close to his heart and something that’s extraordinarily important for the future of frankly the world,” Bisognano said. “I want to make sure everyone understands this is a top priority for the administration, and this is clearly something that we’re all focused on moving forward and excited about hoping that we can come to a solid agreement.”

Leaders of the call emphasized that the assembled groups should target Democrats in order to build a veto-proof majority when the deal eventually comes to Congress for a vote.

Robert Creamer, a member of the liberal political shop Democracy Partners and the general consultant to the anti-Republican Americans United for Change, urged participants on the call to “step up” their pro-Iran efforts.

“We have to take to our memberships all over the country,” Creamer said during the call. “We all have to step up. The other side will go crazy with intensity.”

Progressives should target Democrats by “blitzing the hell out of the Hill,” Creamer said.


“What will be ultimately decisive is the level of intensity that members of Congress feel, particularly Democrats,” said Creamer. “Democrats are actually the key people here because if we can have enough votes to prevent a presidential veto override [of the deal], then we win.”

That means tons of phone calls, lots of lobbying contacts, not just a couple of good conversations, I mean just blitzing the hell out of the Hill,” he said, rallying participants to prepare for “a big, big battle” over the deal. “This is going to be a real war for the next week.”

At another point in the call, Creamer jumped in to offer a word of encouragement from his wife, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.).

“Let me just also note, my wife, Congresswoman Schakowsky, just yelled across the room to me to make clear to everybody that we have to be clear that this is a good deal because it prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” Creamer said. “The other side will go crazy. We have to be really clear that it’s a good deal.”

Nosanchuk sought to defend the administration from critics who are concerned that the billions of dollars in economic sanctions relief to Iran will be used to fund the country’s terrorist activities.

“With respect to criticisms that any agreement that affords sanctions relief will open the floodgates so that Iran receives all this money it can then pour into its nefarious activities in the region, our response to that is they’re doing it anyway,” Nosanchuk said, explaining that the administration believes Iran will use the money to fix its stagnating economy.

“Our expectation is that sanctions relief will go into bolstering the Iranian economy and not into supporting all these other activities, which as I pointed out, are being supported anyway,” he said.

The White House officials told participants the administration is invested in trying to reach an agreement by July 9.

That date has been set by Congress as the last day the administration can submit a draft of any final deal for a 30-day review by lawmakers. Any draft submitted between July 10 and Sept. 7 would sit in front of Congress for 60 days, providing lawmakers with extra time to scrutinize the deal.

Nosanchuk explained that if Congress fails to act within this time period, “the president has the authority to issue waivers and begin implementing the agreement” without legislative approval.

The White House remains confident that if Congress rejects the deal, the president could veto that action and continue to move forward.

“They could vote to approve it or they vote to disapprove it, and then, of course, if that occurs, we’re put in the position of having to sustain a veto by the president, which we’ll want to work very hard, and we’re confident that if congressional action does take place, we’ll come out on the other side of this with the deal in tact and the president’s signature foreign policy accomplishment being upheld,” said Nosanchuk.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Sure it was ... and you even provided it:

"... even though previously I also drove for a medical supply company."

In essence, you have now started to argue with yourself ... which of course is highly entertaining (and bordering on bat crap crazy) ... but it doesn't make for much in the way of a logical argument ...

'For example: Previously I drove for expedite company A. That statement is 100% correct, even though previously I also drove for a medical supply company.'
My statement is 100% correct and accurate. Previously I drove for expedite company A. How is that not accurate and correct? Did I not drive for expedite company A?
Btw can you answer that Iran stonewalling question? Thanks in advance.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Is this thread about some Iranian deal or something? :eek:
At this point, it appears to be about whether The Barf can convince others that he will - with no reservations whatsoever apparently - engage in dishonesty ... simply because he can't admit that a source he quoted made a blatantly false statement ...

IOW: He's upping his "cred"

Of course, in Barf's Bizzaro World - like the other Bizzaro World - things mean the exact opposite of what they claim to be ...
 
Top