this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
473 points (88.7% liked)

World News

38790 readers
2822 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is the IOC a reliable narrator, then? Being a corrupt organization would put them in the category of being unreliable to me.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are no reliable narrators. This is wisdom, not logic, but you have to find your own truth. Even particles have Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. There’s always uncertainty.

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

Then what's the point of your previous comment talking about the narrator being reliable or not? Sounds like you just had no actual point and wants to use inconsistent logic whenever you want by calling it wisdom.

All I'm saying is that a corrupt individual is not a reliable narrator, therefore it's illogical to use their corruptness as proof of their reliability at calling out corruption. Your counter examples are not relevant because their qualities does not directly make their statements unreliable.

And again, I'm not calling out the truthness in this matter, since I also believe the IBA is corrupt, but I'm calling out your use of bad logic to support that position. I'm sure if you actually read my comments properly you'd understood that I never questioned the truth in your statement about IBA, only one of the logical reasoning you used.