I'm sorry, but that reasoning is bullshit and you should know it. We're all for posting responsible views that are against the PR Morrissey would love us to swallow. This is not it. That article is a load of crap and most folks with a few bits of sense know it. The fact that you refuse to review with a sense of responsible journalism is disappointing at best and f***ing retarded at worst. Perhaps you need to review http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles-of-journalism/
Yes, but I prefer sardines.
And how would you know that for sure? I'm not claiming I know either way. I couldn't possibly. How can you?
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").
This isn't news, it's calculated false logic designed to slander Morrissey's reputation, not elicit discussion. To pretend otherwise is to assume the arguer has a secret agenda. End of story.
This is priceless. Epitomizes the sycophantic sheep mentality perfectly.
Because most people think that it's not drawing attention to the article but rather drawing attention to your dislike of Morrissey. This "article" contains as much crap as the Blue Rose bullshit but you don't post their insane ramblings to the front page. You've succeeded in proving your critics right. This isn't about showing equal time to Morrissey's stupid statements. This is about you putting the foot in. And all your supporters get dragged in along with you. Well done.
Masses as in majority. Not as in massive. Site traffic is down? Really? Do you have some links to back up this claim?
They bail... like you... but they always return... like you. Solo actually has registered dozens of new users in the last few months who are contributing regularly and enthusiastically.
Morrissey thinks that if we stop killing and eating animals the world would be a better more peaceful place. He's right.
It just wouldn't be the world that is.....
But let's address the quote.
No. His comment does not epitomize anything. You love the word sycophant; however, you don't know what it really means, Jehne. A true sycophant is someone who sucks up to another person in hopes of gaining something they want in return. You need to learn what the word means yourself since you like tossing it around so much. My admiration for Morrissey is not sycophantic, for example, because I am not gaining anything (from him or anyone else) by admiring him.
See, Dear "free thinker"?
Speaking of free thinking...why don't you free think yourself way out into the deepest, darkest depths of space and GET LOST.