No, it is not.Had anyone bothered to check the facts of the case, they would have seen that the facts as reported were indeed very real. But they didn't do that. They chose to scoff at the source in order to avoid having to deal with the facts. That is indeed a fallacy.
A person doesn't have to chase down every worthless assertion of fact just because it is asserted by a fly by night site. If people want to be taken seriously, use serious sources. Occasionally, yes, crappy sources will be right, but it isn't a fault in those who question those sources that they happen to be wrong on such occasions. It is up to the person asserting facts to chase down credible sources. That is precisely what I do when I see a point of fact from a crappy source that I want to use in an argument: I do the work. You are saying the recipient of turds is supposed to turn them into gold on behalf of the giver. That is just ridiculous.
You do understand that lawyers validly attack the credibility of witnesses on the witness stand because witnesses don't make arguments, they assert facts, right? And that such attacks are logically valid, right? But that they are an attack on a source (ad hominem), right, but that ad hominem isn't a fallacy here?
A person who attacks a news source on points of fact is simply saying to the giver of the turd, "Go find a credible witness, and then we'll talk". It is up to the giver to "check the facts in this case" not the recipient. You are confused about what this fallacy is.
If A then B.
If you attack the above argument, and say "Dezaad is an idiot, so we don't have to listen to his argument", then you commit the fallacy of Ad Hominem. The argument above is unassailably valid, and its validity has nothing whatsoever to do with my potential idiocy. However, if you say "Dezaad is sloppy about establishing the truth of facts, so we should doubt his assertion 'A'". Then (if it is true that Dezaad is in fact sloppy) you have certainly not committed a fallacy at all. You have shown wisdom. If it turns out that 'A' is true despite the sloppy source from whom you first heard it, you can hardly be faulted for rejecting the assertion upon that first hearing, despite learning its eventual truth. In fact, you would be right to be a little nettled at the person who first quoted Dezaad to you, because that person should have made the effort to establish the credibility of their assertions and done the footwork to find a more credible source to begin with. The person first quoting Dezaad would be at fault, even in this case, on account of laziness.
And that concludes today's critical thinking lesson. Something to be thankful for on this fine Thanksgiving holiday.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
Again, ad sourcinem is not a real fallacy. We've established this before, and has Dezaad in post #142.Feel free to demonstrate it, or accept that you used an ad sourcinem in place of an actual argument.
And even so, Cardinal pointed this out before in post 19.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
Not that I'm defending the conservatives in this thread for using crap sources, because citing crap sources is bad, mkay?
Not exactly the real point.
The real point is, if this deal will really end the threat of a nuke-armed Iran, why is Iran saying the deal means one thing and the Prez says another?
So either the prez is lying, or Iran is lying, and/or Iran never had any intention of keeping to any deal that prevents them from making nukes.
IN short, it is evidence that this deal was going down the flush before it was even made.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
PS: I watch the international Al Jazeera program relatively regularly and find them complementary to other international views. Each country has its own slant and it is interesting to compare differences.