While it may be true that IBA is corrupt, let’s not use the logical reasoning that IOC’s reputation for corruption adds more credibility to their claim. Imagine if Trump called someone corrupt, would his own corrupt reputation leads you to believe his accusation more? I don’t believe so.
We should avoid using bad logic to support a correct opinion because it only damages the perception of your other arguments.
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.
While it may be true that IBA is corrupt, let’s not use the logical reasoning that IOC’s reputation for corruption adds more credibility to their claim. Imagine if Trump called someone corrupt, would his own corrupt reputation leads you to believe his accusation more? I don’t believe so.
We should avoid using bad logic to support a correct opinion because it only damages the perception of your other arguments.
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.