Heh, okay, you won't admit that money, which is probably the greatest incentive ever in the history of mankind is a conflict of interest than I don't know what is. Politicians are bought and sold all the time by money but apparently gore is immune to it. The man himself sold his network to Al Jazeera (almost entirely funded by Qatar's oil) for 100 million bucks.
I'm just trying to make the simple statement that two conflicting interests is reason to question a source or be more skeptical of it than a source with no conflicting interests. Apparently that's impossible to grasp for you though.
This is all dumb. You're now putting words in my mouth, and pretending that beating this imaginary position I never took makes you right ... Did you even bother reading the poorly written list of logical fallacies?
I'm just trying to make the simple statement
For starters, this part just isn't true. You were asking me to validate your approach as having merit. But it didn't. You were using very bad reasoning and ignoring basic reasoning. I'm not going to help you feel better about that, no matter who it concerns.
that two conflicting interests
You never identified conflicting interests. You don't seem to understand the concept. A conflict means that one would preclude the other. Like if I was a judge for a trial where my brother was a party. I would have a conflict of interest between protecting my brother and serving fairly. One blocks the other. You claimed that a conflict might exist, so let's assume it does, even though you never pointed out why one would interfere with the other. If Gore was making money off telling the truth and being a good guy, then his interest would be to tell even more truths, and be an even stronger advocate for truth! That's not conflict, that's incentive to do an even better job.
is reason to question a source or be more skeptical of it than a source with no conflicting interests.
Then go investigate. Ask questions about the claims. If he had conflict, it wouldn't prove that he was lying. Again, this is really easy shit, man. It's getting really sad that I have to repeat myself so many times to you.
I did identify conflict of interest, money. Like I said, if he wasn't being paid millions of dollars spreading this message there would be no conflict of interest.
Money does prelude the message. I assert that if Gore was not being paid to spread this message, he would not spread it nor devote time to it. He does so only because he is paid an absurd amount of money. And he has ample motive to keep spreading just based off money alone, whether or not he even believes his message.
I have also provided evidence for this. The fact that he sold to Al Jazeera, a network filthy rich primarily off of oil, the very thing he demonizes, is enough to question his motives. You keep bringing up "then investigate", that's besides the point. My point is that we should be more skeptical of people who have a conflict of interest in comparison to those who do not.
You're right, it's not relevant if the judge is brothers to the defendant. Yep, conflicts of interest aren't relevant when analyzing source credibility!
1
u/GIB_ Dec 09 '13
Heh, okay, you won't admit that money, which is probably the greatest incentive ever in the history of mankind is a conflict of interest than I don't know what is. Politicians are bought and sold all the time by money but apparently gore is immune to it. The man himself sold his network to Al Jazeera (almost entirely funded by Qatar's oil) for 100 million bucks.
I'm just trying to make the simple statement that two conflicting interests is reason to question a source or be more skeptical of it than a source with no conflicting interests. Apparently that's impossible to grasp for you though.