Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal

Jredbaron96 said:

Semi-official being key word here.

Click to expand...

.....unpack what you mean by that?

washunut said:

Not sure it is dumb. Some might think by these actions that the administration is actively working to have a Jewish homeland a thing of the past.

Click to expand...

Nah. That approach would ascribe a much higher degree of coordination and purpose to the Obama foreign policy than they are demonstrating. You have to have a plan in order for it to be an evil plan. As near as most can tell, this administration doesn't have a plan to begin with.

iguanaman said:

LOL No war is convenient, especially one against a country like Iran. You seem to enjoy invading sovereign nations. Do you think we are like the Nazi's?

Click to expand...

No, it's not true. I do not quite understand why it was at war with Iraq, when we have not received any benefits of this war.
Where slave girls, free land and cheap oil?:roll:

cpwill said:

Nah. That approach would ascribe a much higher degree of coordination and purpose to the Obama foreign policy than they are demonstrating. You have to have a plan in order for it to be an evil plan. As near as most can tell, this administration doesn't have a plan to begin with.

Click to expand...

Good point!

cpwill said:

So no, in fact, you can't demonstrate that occurring in any of the posts you are deriding in this thread?

Click to expand...

I don't recall limiting it to this thread.

The fact is that this is not the first time, nor will it be the last.

cpwill said:

.....unpack what you mean by that?

Click to expand...

Oh, that's very clever.

Cardinal said:

Not so.


Iranians react to nuclear deal - Features - Al Jazeera English

I had to change my i.p. address to get that article. Ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Why did you have to change your ip address?

cpwill said:

:lamo Well, that lasted about slightly less 72 hours.

Click to expand...

Shocking that you would believe the Iranians over the President. It's like you are a hack who has it out for the POTUS or something.

washunut said:

Not sure it is dumb. Some might think by these actions that the administration is actively working to have a Jewish homeland a thing of the past.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and some might also think the administration is trying to breed unicorns and bring Joan of Arc back to life.

American said:

I believe the Iranians more than our President, who is a big fat liar. And Kerry is a nincompoop.

Click to expand...

If that's true ... if you honestly believe a regime that has been a proven state sponsor of terrorism, over Obama, then you are touched in the head.

It never ceases to amaze me how badly conservatives hate Obama, even to endorse the governments of rogue states over him. You are all deranged. I don't even LIKE Obama, but you people are insane.

Jredbaron96 said:

I don't recall limiting it to this thread.

Click to expand...

You were pretty implicitly suggesting it was true of the OP. Feel free to demonstrate it, or accept that you used an ad sourcinem in place of an actual argument.

Jredbaron96 said:

Oh, that's very clever.

Click to expand...

Well, it was also serious.

cpwill said:

You were pretty implicitly suggesting it was true of the OP. Feel free to demonstrate it, or accept that you used an ad sourcinem in place of an actual argument.

Click to expand...

Ad "Sourcinem" is not a fallacy when you are attempting to establish credible facts. The source isn't really making an argument, as much as asserting facts. Ad "Sourcinem" is a fallacy when the person disregards an argument because of its source.

If I find a source that says the Iranians have said they will abide by the agreement, will you just believe it, or will you assess the credibility of the source? HINT: Choose the latter, or you are a dumbass.

Dezaad said:

Ad "Sourcinem" is not a fallacy when you are attempting to establish credible facts. The source isn't really making an argument, as much as asserting facts. Ad "Sourcinem" is a fallacy when the person disregards an argument because of its source.

Click to expand...

Ad Sourcinem is a fallacy when you refuse to detail why the presentation of facts are incorrect.

For example, if my response to this had been "oh well Dezaad is an idiot", that would be me choosing to attack the presenter of information rather than the information itself - it would have been a fallacy.

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.

If I find a source that says the Iranians have said they will abide by the agreement, will you just believe it, or will you assess the credibility of the source? HINT: Choose the latter, or you are a dumbass.

Click to expand...

I would look at it and see where it fit with what was available.

HINT: Source Validation requires multi-source confirmation / discrediting

joG said:

Why did you have to change your ip address?

Click to expand...

If you live in the United States and try to go to aljazeera.com then you'll be rerouted to america.aljazeera.com, the edition of the newspaper without that article.

washunut said:

Has the administration responded?

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The contradictions between the white house's release, Kerry's comment and of course the Iranian release are glaring and public enough that it would have warranted some official response, so the silence is bizarre.

cpwill said:

Ad Sourcinem is a fallacy when you refuse to detail why the presentation of facts are incorrect.

For example, if my response to this had been "oh well Dezaad is an idiot", that would be me choosing to attack the presenter of information rather than the information itself - it would have been a fallacy.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't have been a fallacy at all for you to say that. It is perfectly valid to be skeptical of presenters of information when the information being presented is a point or points of fact, and to attack if the presenter is found wanting. I would have responded "You don't need to believe me, believe what such and such credible source says about the nature of that fallacy".

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.

Click to expand...

No, it is not.

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.

To illustrate.

If A then B.
A
Therefore 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.

cpwill said:

You were pretty implicitly suggesting it was true of the OP.

Click to expand...

Well that was not my full intent, but I can see why that would be your conclusion. Mea culpa.

Feel free to demonstrate it, or accept that you used an ad sourcinem in place of an actual argument.

Click to expand...

Again, ad sourcinem is not a real fallacy. We've established this before, and has Dezaad in post #142.

And even so, Cardinal pointed this out before in post 19.

Cardinal said:

Conservatives may be celebrating a wee bit on the early side. I clicked the link to the original story, and that News site, "Fars News" (never heard of 'em) had Iran's version of the deal, which you can see here.

The meat of the deal as seen in the White House's release still appears to be there. However, the article says that the Iranians were particular sticklers for details, and the informality of the White House's agreement is what's irking them.



So based on this story, at least, everyone seems to have lost their **** prematurely. Neither the White House nor Iran can be said to be dirty rotten liars quite yet (at least, not because of this story).

Click to expand...

Jredbaron96 said:

And even so, Cardinal pointed this out before in post 19.

Click to expand...

That was earlier in the thread when the difference between the Iranian and White House versions of the deal wasn't clear. Now it is: the White House's release states that all 20% enriched uranium is to be taken down to 5%, the Iranian version says it's keeping half its 20% stock, and then to really confuse matters Kerry is on record saying that enrichment isn't even on the table. So the only thing that is clear at this point is that the deal hasn't been fully worked out, let alone signed.

Not that I'm defending the conservatives in this thread for using crap sources, because citing crap sources is bad, mkay?

Captain America said:

I find it amazing that the hatred some people have for Obama exceeds their disdain for Iran. They would side with Iran over Obama.

They seem to have forgotten. It seems just like yesterday that these folks were saying we can't trust a lying Iran. (Which, I do believe is true.) No wait. That WAS yesterday!

That speaks volumes in and of itself.

Click to expand...

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.

Don't let that get in the way of a press release aimed to help a looser from watching his biggest accomplishment become his biggest failure.

Cardinal said:

That was earlier in the thread when the difference between the Iranian and White House versions of the deal wasn't clear. Now it is: the White House's release states that all 20% enriched uranium is to be taken down to 5%, the Iranian version says it's keeping half its 20% stock, and then to really confuse matters Kerry is on record saying that enrichment isn't even on the table. So the only thing that is clear at this point is that the deal hasn't been fully worked out, let alone signed.

Not that I'm defending the conservatives in this thread for using crap sources, because citing crap sources is bad, mkay?

Click to expand...

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Or maybe no one's lying, and this story should never have been released in the first place since negotiations are still clearly ongoing.

Cardinal said:

If you live in the United States and try to go to aljazeera.com then you'll be rerouted to america.aljazeera.com, the edition of the newspaper without that article.

Click to expand...

Oh. Okay. That is not the government but the company. I get rerouted or blocked for regulatory reasons a lot because I live in Germany, when I want to get music or books. Also there are problems getting Google information out of the US, because they have different search profiles or something. It is a drag, but with a small effort....

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.

joG said:

Oh. Okay. That is not the government but the company. I get rerouted or blocked for regulatory reasons a lot because I live in Germany, when I want to get music or books. Also there are problems getting Google information out of the US, because they have different search profiles or something. It is a drag, but with a small effort....

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.

Click to expand...

Get a VPN. You can visit just about any website you want if you have one of those. One of the more common uses for a vpn is Americans traveling abroad who want to watch Netflix or Hulu.

Cardinal said:

That was earlier in the thread when the difference between the Iranian and White House versions of the deal wasn't clear. Now it is: the White House's release states that all 20% enriched uranium is to be taken down to 5%, the Iranian version says it's keeping half its 20% stock, and then to really confuse matters Kerry is on record saying that enrichment isn't even on the table. So the only thing that is clear at this point is that the deal hasn't been fully worked out, let alone signed.

Not that I'm defending the conservatives in this thread for using crap sources, because citing crap sources is bad, mkay?

Click to expand...

Ah, thank you for the clarification.