It’s not necessarily bad logic. If a regular at a dive bar says someone drinks too much, it’s probably a sign that person drinks way too much. If a college kid tells you an all-you-can-eat buffet sucks, it’s probably not secretly delicious.
Trump (like his diaper) is always full of shit so him calling someone corrupt wouldn’t mean anything. It’s not about logic; it’s about whether the narrator is reliable or not.
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.
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.
It’s not necessarily bad logic. If a regular at a dive bar says someone drinks too much, it’s probably a sign that person drinks way too much. If a college kid tells you an all-you-can-eat buffet sucks, it’s probably not secretly delicious.
Trump (like his diaper) is always full of shit so him calling someone corrupt wouldn’t mean anything. It’s not about logic; it’s about whether the narrator is reliable or not.
Is the IOC a reliable narrator, then? Being a corrupt organization would put them in the category of being unreliable to me.
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.
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.