>I think it'd be worth double- and triple-checking anything he says
That's what I'm advocating for, but people I was replying to didn't even want to do that and were dismissing anything out of the box just because they don't like the source, which is detrimental to any honest and useful debate.
>He's a known liar. He lies for political gain. He is disgusting.
I never said he doesn't lie, of course he does, he's a politician, all of them lie, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I said some of the things he says are bang on the money and shouldn't be discarded on the basis that the information comes from a mouth you don't like, as that's just closed minded partisan zealotry and not using critical thinking.
But of course they should be discarded. Why shouldn't they? There are better sources and better people sharing opinions.
Maybe we can take what he says seriously if he comes clean about his past dangerous lies. Until then, he should at the very least be shunned if not ignored entirely.
>But of course they should be discarded. Why shouldn't they?
I rest my case. There's no point in arguing with zealots who don't want to even listen to reason let alone critically analyze information shared with them, but choose to automatically believe and disbelieve it based on their favorite or hated source.
>There are better sources and better people sharing opinions
Your "better sources" might be someone else's "worst sources". Where is that universal ground truth located at? Isn't that discovered though conversation, argumentation and debate like in university campuses, instead of blindly trusting your favorite partisan source? That's no different than religious zealotry that burned Galileo at the stake for saying thins considered "untrue" at the time.
> Even the US Vice President alluded to this happening
gives zero additional weight to the credibility of the claim. He's someone who has openly acknowledged about lying for political gain.
"If I have to create stories...then that's what I'm going to do."
He directly says he will lie to you and make up stories to drive his political agenda. He's not even trying to suggest he's representing reality; he's making up stories, telling fiction.
If any news organization openly admits they're going to continue to just write blatant lies to push their agenda, would you continue trusting that source?
I do agree, free speech is far less protected in many European countries than it is in the US. I don't doubt there are plenty of crazy stories of someone getting arrested for their speech in some places in Europe. But JD Vance telling me any specific story about it and I don't see much else making the same claims, my default is to assume it's probably untrue, because he told me he will lie to me. Why would I trust his statements?
That's what I'm advocating for, but people I was replying to didn't even want to do that and were dismissing anything out of the box just because they don't like the source, which is detrimental to any honest and useful debate.
>He's a known liar. He lies for political gain. He is disgusting.
I never said he doesn't lie, of course he does, he's a politician, all of them lie, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I said some of the things he says are bang on the money and shouldn't be discarded on the basis that the information comes from a mouth you don't like, as that's just closed minded partisan zealotry and not using critical thinking.