• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump Foundation paid noted criminal fraudster James O'Keefe

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah I agree. I don't doubt the videos are edited to make them look worse than they are. But there's also bits I think would be extremely hard to fake, at least I don't see how... Here's one dialogue:



It's not cut, it's not edited. Foval goes on to talk about planting multiple people in that area. I don't see how you can spin that discussion into "Oh it's just hypothetical, O'Keefe's guy asked some leading questions that were cut to make it look bad"

I just don't see why you're putting faith into a person who has been discredited so many times in the past and has an obvious agenda. The onus is on him to prove that these videos are not deceptive by releasing the raw, unedited footage.
 

Kettch

Member
Hey guys, I came across this really disturbing article about Obama killing Jesus and Christians and making sure only homosexuals can raise children. I know they put out fake news sometimes, but maybe this time he really said this stuff? Can anyone disprove it for me? His words are in quotes and everything.
 
Hey guys, I came across this really disturbing article about Obama killing Jesus and Christians and making sure only homosexuals can raise children. I know they put out fake news sometimes, but maybe this time he really said this stuff? Can anyone disprove it for me? His words are in quotes and everything.
Interesting! You make a good point. I mean, yeah, the Onion is usually a parody site, but maybe this time they're telling the truth! You can't say they're not telling the truth based on all their past parody stuff because if you do you're just committing the genetic fallacy. We have to treat everything case by case, and can't use stuff like their prior articles to judge it. Can anyone actually disprove it? It has to be true, right?

Like... seriously, though. The genetic fallacy (or rather, ad hominem, abusive subtype) is just talking about insulting the source, based on no actual context, or reasoning whatsoever. It's not a reason to disregard context. On the contrary--the whole reason it's a fallacy to begin with is precisely because it's an attack without any context or evidence or reasoning. If there's actual good evidence provided for why a claimmaker can't be trusted on a very particular topic, isn't an expert or a reliable source of information on a topic that's entirely different. That's the key between committing the fallacy and not: whether evidence is provided or not, and not just any evidence (such as showing a broad pattern of lying), but evidence regarding the pattern being discussed (e.g., the person shown not lying in general but lying in regards to the particular topic being discussed and not being a reliable source of information about it).

In the case of O'Keefe, we have precisely that type of evidence in the form of his editing videos in the past to rob them of context to make them look like people are saying things they're not. That evidence being provided, establishing not just a general trend of lying, but rather being a consistent fraud on this particular topic. That being the case, no ad hominem or genetic fallacy is being committed and in fact the burden of proof is on him to prove that this is no longer the case and he's worthy of being trusted in ways he proved he couldn't before.
 

Henkka

Banned
I think I'll just defend my understanding of logical fallacies...

As I understand it, saying that there is no wolf because the boy has lied before is technically committing the genetic fallacy. It doesn't mean that you should believe the boy, or that doubting him is unreasonable. It just means whether or not there is a wolf is separate from the boy's claim.

I don't put faith in O'Keefe. In fact, I do the opposite... I'm certain the videos are deceptively edited. But from the footage provided, there is probably an interesting story about this Scott Foval guy in there somewhere. It's just buried under a mountain of shit.
 

BSsBrolly

Banned
I think I'll just defend my understanding of logical fallacies...

As I understand it, saying that there is no wolf because the boy has lied before is technically committing the genetic fallacy. It doesn't mean that you should believe the boy, or that doubting him is unreasonable. It just means whether or not there is a wolf is separate from the boy's claim.

I don't put faith in O'Keefe. In fact, I do the opposite... I'm certain the videos are deceptively edited. But from the footage provided, there is probably an interesting story about this Scott Foval guy in there somewhere. It's just buried under a mountain of shit.


I assure you, there is nothing there other than shit. When the unedited video is inevitably leaked, you'll understand why nobody takes O'Keefe seriously.
 

Kaiterra

Banned
Like, what do you think is deceptively cut out of that conversation? I guess there could be something, I just can't think what it could be.

I've seen this argument multiple times and all I can really say to it is... You might not be able to think about what it could be, but figuring that shit out is basically what O'Keefe does; it's his forte. He's way better at it than you. :p
 
611870-56728-39.jpg


I can be aware of O'Keefe's past and still think the new videos are pretty damning. You can't fake someone saying they pay people to start shit at Trump rallies by deceptive editing.

Yeah I don't take these videos as fact but I'm not willing to act like the footage we do have doesn't exist either because of the source. It sounds like everyone involved in making and being accused in the video has a pretty shitty/shady past as well.
 

TS-08

Member
I think I'll just defend my understanding of logical fallacies...

As I understand it, saying that there is no wolf because the boy has lied before is technically committing the genetic fallacy. It doesn't mean that you should believe the boy, or that doubting him is unreasonable. It just means whether or not there is a wolf is separate from the boy's claim.

I don't put faith in O'Keefe. In fact, I do the opposite... I'm certain the videos are deceptively edited. But from the footage provided, there is probably an interesting story about this Scott Foval guy in there somewhere. It's just buried under a mountain of shit.

I'd say the videoes are entirely unremarkable and not worth discussion if all you can confidently say they provide us is "an interesting story about this Scott Foval guy."
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
James O'Keefe's New Story About the 47 Percent Video Is Totally False

This is why anything this piece shit says should be taken with the world's smallest grain of salt.



Fucking asshole

"We did not lead him on," O'Keefe replied. He continued: "We just report what we hear and what we see." Of Foval, he said, "Of course, he's going to deny it."

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see the full video. From what I see, Foval seems like one of those types that will say anything to impress you even if inaccurate, and would be extremely easy to lead a guy like that. Especially when you have the magic of editing on top of that.

I don't know how anyone can come down on the side that believes O'Keefe here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom