I know why I don't like Snopes... Why doesn't ATS like Snopes?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


You just keep talking about the little mermaid.

Did you even read the Snopes article and read why they said it was a "false" story? The cases were pulled because of complaints, Disney has always denied it was a phallus and say it was just a tower.

You can fantasize about whatever you think it is, but Snopes is correct, Disney and the artist denied it was a phallus. The email snopes is talking about has this whole detailed backstory about a disgruntled Disney employee that purposely drew a phallus...that is FALSE. Disney did change the covers due to complaints.

This is simple common sense reading comprehension, what don't you get?


I brought up several cases regarding Disney. You focusing on one, and me responding, doesn't mean that's the only one I mentioned.

No one here is "fantasizing" but those denying the clear proof in the picture, that was also shared in the thread. Of COURSE Disney and the artist denied it. There are thousands in prison that denied their crimes in the face of hard evidence, too, but hat doesn't mean they are innocent. Snopes CHOSE what version of the story to address, so that they could claim it as false. The fact is, someone being paid by Disney deliberately drew a phallus on the cover of a childrens' movie. Their denials and obfuscations don't change that fact. Disney did a lot more than just change the cover. They offered to PAY people to send the other one back. They wanted to destroy all the evidence. Didn't work out well for them. Of course, that would not be the first thing they tried covering up, but that's a whole other issue.

In that case, though, Snopes chose the angle, so that they could make people believe the entire story was false. That is why sensible people don't trust them on any sensitive issue.


Too much logic for him; and he probably doesn't know what subliminal messaging is.

If any of you have ever seen the movie Fight Club, there is a scene where Tyler Durden splices pornographic images onto the films in movie theatres while working as a night-time employee. People don't consciously realize the images, but their subconscious does register it. What is taken in by the subconscious, can very much effect the conscious mind. So even if you didn't so much see it consciously, you sure as hell did sub-consciously.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by laughingdog
 


The bottom line is, snopes loves this administration, their bias is strong, and they wear it like a cheap gaudy hat.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Too much logic for him; and he probably doesn't know what subliminal messaging is.

If any of you have ever seen the movie Fight Club, there is a scene where Tyler Durden splices pornographic images onto the films in movie theatres while working as a night-time employee. People don't consciously realize the images, but their subconscious does register it. What is taken in by the subconscious, can very much effect the conscious mind. So even if you didn't so much see it consciously, you sure as hell did sub-consciously.


You are probably right. There is a TON of that in ads these days, because, apparently sex sells. Some of it isn't even that subliminal. Example, a toilet paper commercial with a woman wrapped in a fluffy towel or robe, fresh from bathing. What that has to do wit TP is beyond me! What kills me is how someone can defend such things, when they are clearly pointed out, and the evidence is overwhelming. It's like they would rather break the cool sunglasses than wear them and learn the truth. Guessing you will get the reference there.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I starred you because I did indeed get the reference



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Always loved that one.....might have to enjoy it again! Seems to be so fitting these days, in SO many ways.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


It's odd being awakened to all of the symbols and such, then going back through things of your past, and spotting them, wondering "How did I ever miss that??"



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


It's odd being awakened to all of the symbols and such, then going back through things of your past, and spotting them, wondering "How did I ever miss that??"


Very true! Of course, a lot of the stuff from those old religions, I didn't learn about till I was much older, so "missing" it would have been a given. The stuff we do know, though, can still be missed. Mostly, that is because of distractions, I think. The enemy loves to take our minds off of the very things to which we should be paying more attention.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by laughingdog
1) I haven't spent the time to research their fact finding
2) some of their subject matter is down right silly...
3) also I am not sure if their politics are to my liking...
4) basically I just don't trust this outfit.
5) I get the feeling ATSrs don't like em either


Thanks for posting, here is my analysis since you asked:
[analysis]
1) Argument from Ignorance fallacy?
2) Ad Hominem/Red herring
3) Ad Hominem
4) Irrelevant
5) Ad Populum.

If you're explaining the superficial reasons why you don't like snopes, then job well done. If there is in any way an "argument" trying to get out to show how snopes should be considered with extra scrutiny or that snopes is wrong, this certainly doesn't cut it.
[/analysis]

What I find funny is that a number are people on ATS are going "What is snopes? Never heard of it. Fact checking, WTF is that? Critical thinking?"
The irony makes for a good chuckle.


Originally posted by laughingdog
Fact: The liberal slant has this country sliding down the tubes . . .


No premises to accompany the conclusion, no sources and no argument to support such an assertion. Good job.

Labeling something with "Fact:" doesn't make it a fact. I could make the same ridiculous assertion by writing:
"Fact: The conservative slant has this country sliding down the tubes"

See how just using the word fact doesn't mean anything? Facts are statements that are readily agreed upon by a particular audience. For all practical purposes humans can't really know absolute facts, we just do the best we can with what we've got. BTW, there isn't really much difference between an opinion and a fact; both are statements with truth values, namely they are true or false. To label something as merely an opinion and thus discarding it is just an ad hominem fallacy and to label something as a fact until someone proves it wrong is just an argument from ignorance fallacy.


Originally posted by laughingdog
Originally posted by hawkiye
"Because they have been caught lying and distorting and taking things out of context. So they cannot be trusted..." Thats what I was looking for, the root of this original post, spot on.


And yet no sources, no argument. Just confirmation bias and an ad hominem attack. If they really have been lying and distorting etc., all it means is that more scrutiny would be required when reading something published from them. Just like everything else ever published on the planet.

-----------


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I can tell you why I don't like them.

One, they are very biased politically.


It's great that you think that and I can understand why it would cause you to dislike them, but I just wanted to note as an aside that it has nothing to do with wether or not they are truthful or accurate.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Two, they flat out LIE when it comes to anything that would reflect badly on Disney. . . . Examples? The Little Mermaid VHS case . . . with that explicit "artwork" on the cover. Saw it, and there is NO doubt that was intentional.


This is just anecdotal evidence and is purely subjective. It doesn't demonstrate well at all that snopes is lying. What did they lie about? Where is the quote from snopes? Where are your sources? Did they lie about the contractor? Did they lie about wether Disney knew about the alleged intentional artwork? This is merely a he said/she said assertion and isn't really useful to determine the trustworthiness of a site dedicated to debunking myths.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If you write [snopes], pointing out, with clear proof, that they are wrong, they act like you don't know anything, won't address the evidence, and basically blow off whatever you tell them.


First, I would note that I wonder what qualifies for "clear proof" since I've haven't seen any yet.
As for the rest, if they won't address evidence that is their loss. If they "blow off" whatever they're told they either don't have time to deal with poorly laid out arguments (such as those offered in your above post) or there is an exaggeration in your analysis of their response. Either way the problem stems not from them, but elsewhere...

Also is this a general remark about ALL their correspondence as implied, or us it just your interpretation of their reaction to your personal communication with them (which is suspiciously hidden from all of us to analyze)?

Snopes disagreeing with you doesn't make them liars, it doesn't make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make them untrustworthy. This is just a patently obvious ad hominem attack. All we can conclude is that they disagree with you.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheKnox

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I can tell you why I don't like them.

One, they are very biased politically.


It's great that you think that and I can understand why it would cause you to dislike them, but I just wanted to note as an aside that it has nothing to do with wether or not they are truthful or accurate.


When they have reported stories as "unverified" or whatever the designation is, that one can prove simply watching the news, and what this or that politician states on video, for example, I question their honesty.


Originally posted by TheKnox

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Two, they flat out LIE when it comes to anything that would reflect badly on Disney. . . . Examples? The Little Mermaid VHS case . . . with that explicit "artwork" on the cover. Saw it, and there is NO doubt that was intentional.


This is just anecdotal evidence and is purely subjective. It doesn't demonstrate well at all that snopes is lying. What did they lie about? Where is the quote from snopes? Where are your sources? Did they lie about the contractor? Did they lie about wether Disney knew about the alleged intentional artwork? This is merely a he said/she said assertion and isn't really useful to determine the trustworthiness of a site dedicated to debunking myths.


It isn't "anecdotal" to me, as I did see the video. A friend had it. The cover shows exactly what the "anecdote" claims it shows - a male organ. Snopes calls the story "false", using some twisted logic and claiming that a contracted worker isn't really a Disney employee (they are, just not permanent), and using that to pretend the claim is false. they also state that the picture isn't what it clearly IS. They even SHOW the pic of the cover (or did the last time I was there). I refuse to believe any adult drew that and didn't know what they were doing. Even if Disney didn't plan that (and I seriously doubt they did), someone should have SEEN it, and not allowed the picture to be used. At the least, we have a person drawing it on purpose, and a total failure of Disney to catch it before it was mass marketed. Snopes could have classified it as "mixed", but they called it "false".


Originally posted by TheKnox

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
If you write [snopes], pointing out, with clear proof, that they are wrong, they act like you don't know anything, won't address the evidence, and basically blow off whatever you tell them.


First, I would note that I wonder what qualifies for "clear proof" since I've haven't seen any yet.
As for the rest, if they won't address evidence that is their loss. If they "blow off" whatever they're told they either don't have time to deal with poorly laid out arguments (such as those offered in your above post) or there is an exaggeration in your analysis of their response. Either way the problem stems not from them, but elsewhere...

Also is this a general remark about ALL their correspondence as implied, or us it just your interpretation of their reaction to your personal communication with them (which is suspiciously hidden from all of us to analyze)?

Snopes disagreeing with you doesn't make them liars, it doesn't make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make them untrustworthy. This is just a patently obvious ad hominem attack. All we can conclude is that they disagree with you.


I have had communication with others that received the same reaction, when offering evidence that a story wasn't correct. Snopes pretends to invite comments, and corrections, but the reality is they don't want to be told they are mistaken. The proof is often on their page, as in with the Mermaid cover. Screen shots of the word in The Lion King are seen on site, and they pretend it's not really a word, when anyone looking can read it clearly. They have another case, about an old Bugs Bunny cartoon, that looks like he "flashes" us in a towel, and the claims they make to discredit it are convoluted and don't match the evidence they show themselves. They can be good for things like virus reports, or missing children cases (or fake ones), and the like, but on some issues, they lack credibility. That's not an attack, but a simple statement of fact. The thread asked why people don't like them, and I stated reasons. You can disagree if you want, but the reasons are still valid. Plus, it isn't an "ad hominem attack" to state that a site someone asks about has issues. I am not trying to debate here with Snopes, or call them names to deflect from some other issue. You should reexamine the definition of that term.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by laughingdog
 


Perhaps you should tune out that drivel about the evil liberals and pay attention to the topic at hand.

I used to read Snopes quite often but haven't in years. Maybe that's why I post here a lot more. I had questions that Snopes couldn't or wouldn't answer.





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join