₦airaland Forum

Israel5:
As lawless as we are, it CANNOT happen in Nigeria o.

jordyspices:
These one na family matter na e no concern me

wiseone28:
They will blame it on Nigeria or zimbabwe

QuinQQ:
You are welcome again Mr Trump, but I'm honestly disappointed. How did you become president if you don't even know one doesn't have to use "allegedly" in describing something you're looking at or something clear in a video. You write "video shows man beating woman" even if it turns out it was AI or they were acting.

Another example, see my last thread I created. I didn't say "Trump allegedly says Iran will cease to exist", though I wasn't there when he posted and the post could have been forged.
Same way, I won't keep saying allegedly about things you say here, even though it is possible someone hacked your NL account and it wasn't you saying these things!

**Do you know what red herring falacy is? Look it up

silibaba:
Lol. If i marry your sister someday, tell her to fumble with me and see how her face will add weight the next time you see her

In burna boy's voice:
Na who love us we go love
Na who respect us we go respect

silibaba:
Lol. If i marry your sister someday, tell her to fumble with me and see how her face will add weight the next time you see her

In burna boy's voice:
Na who love us we go love
Na who respect us we go respect

ijayalolo:
**Firstly, I looked up red herring fallacy 'not falacy'. Although I didn't have to, but I guess you are too preoccupied with whatever, to check it out when you heard about it for the first time ever from me. Check below.**

The red herring fallacy is a logical error where someone introduces irrelevant information to distract the audience or opponent from the original topic. Instead of directly addressing the argument, the speaker shifts the focus to a completely different subject to avoid the issue or win the debate

Maybe if you take your time to read what you are commenting on before rushing to comment, just maybe you will comprehend better.

All the other here-and-there you put up there is just another fallacy. We call that one "Straw man" (you may look that up also if you wish to learn).

Let me repeat it slowly this time and be more explicit. You can say anything you like in your day to day conversation, and if you are putting "allegedly" in every of your sentence or conversation people might start thinking you are "slow". But, it behooves good journalism that when you are putting up news in a public domain for the public and you cannot or have not verified your information, you must know how to coin your words. The word "allegedly" even does not protect or cover the journalist, I was just saying it's better than just telling us "A South African police officer beating his colleague" I can interpret that video in at least 6 different ways totally different from what that news is saying.

Of course, I know both yourself and the poster of the news are not journalists and also know nothing about journalism not to talk of a good one. I just pointed out that what he wrote earlier (although mistakenly) is still fairly acceptable for a 'wannabe' journalist. But not even putting it at all shows he is on the same wavelength with you.



Thank you for your attention to this matter

Abelino:
You guys will always justify rubbish.. bloody hypocrites.

QuinQQ:
S9 now you know the definition of "red herring fallacy" can you please tell us how this statement shifts the focus to a completely different subject to avoid the issue:
If Tinubu parades some people dressed as bishops in his campaign rally. you'll write that some bishops came to the rally. Though as we all now know, they were fake bishops

You don't write some "alleged" boshops.
So you see, you are totally wrong . That's not strawman AT ALL.

Once again over 99% of everything has to be allegedly going by your thesis. The earth is allegedly round. US allegedly bombed Iran yesterday. Michael Jackson is allegedly dead, so is Princess Di. So that if you see man beating a woman in a video you say "allegedly" because it could be AI or the video is doctored, etc. You see how stupid that sounds?

ijayalolo:
[/b]

Once again, red herring is not same as straw man (do you still want me to look that up for you too? you committed that fallacy in another of your response). As for the red herring, If I was a novice in Ars Dialectica (you are free to look that up too), like many, you would have dragged me down the lane of Tinubu and Bishop (did I tell you I know anything about that before slipping it into the argument? what if I decide to challenge you that they are not fake bishops as you claimed and you come back to start giving me evidence why they are, has argument not shifted focus?). As I have hinted you earlier, you are not dealing with an average Nairalander here, you rather have an Eristic (another lookup assignment) on your hands here.

Don't rush to comment, read, digest, pause for a few minutes then respond. Following that sequence makes one appear intelligent.
How many times have i used 'allegedly' now that I am talking to you? zero. So, please don't be going about putting alleged in your every day use of words or conversation, just as you said, that will be stupidity.

A professional thing to do if you are posting news online (a public domain or forum), in this case a video is to describe the video and not interpret it (unless you have verified and confirmed it happened exactly as you are reporting if). Let me give you a hint of how professional outlets like CNN, Fox etc would have reported that video if not independently confirmed. "In the video obtained by....., a man who appears to be in a South African police uniform was seen assaulting a woman who also appears in the same kind of police uniform... The settings look like an office in the police station with other colleagues around but this has not been independently verified by....

The above is the difference between someone that knows something about journalism and someone trying to dabble into what he knows nothing about.



Thank you for your attention to this matter

QuinQQ:
U welcome once again Mr Trump. You simply don't know what u talking about.

i meant to write red herring of course. There are dozens of logical fallacies. What I wrote doesn't belong to any of them. You wrote "red herring" without knowing what it means. In this particular discussion red herring would be like you saying something like "there are so many innocent people in jail". See below.

My friend stop arguing crap. By what you're saying newspaper headlines will be full of "allegefly". Look at all newspaper headlines today see hiw many times you'd see the word "allegedly". See one below!
A man is clearly seen on video beating a woman and you think journalists' headlines will say "allegedly", what have you been smoking?

ijayalolo:
At the bolded happens when you are rushing to comment because you want to prove a point you don't have. I quite understand. Follow the sequence I gave you in my earlier comment and you will avoid such in future.

I can see that you finally looked up the "red herring" but can't comprehend what you read. In summary fallacy of red herring is when you introduce discussion to distract or to shift argument from the main focus to something else. It is often done subtly in a way the audience won't notice (definitely not someone like me). When you said "and now they have been confirmed to be fake bishops", if I was equally dumb I can follow you down that road that where did you confirm it, or that they are not fake bishops, or that it is an unrelated story, and you will come back and start explaining how it is related and so on. But people like us don't fall for that, I steered you back to the point of discussion.

It is not crap to me if it is intellectually engaging, and I can do it all week. I can even be a contrarian sometimes for this purpose. But if you feel you are saying crap, you are totally free to continue crapping and I would be here to help sanitize.



Thank you for your attention to this matter

QuinQQ:
U quite welcome Mr Trump. I'm just trying to avoid you making an as$% of yourself.

**In this our discussion of "allegedly" in headlines, if someone says people dressed as bishops can be stated to be bishops in a headline without using "allegedly", it is NOT red herring no matter how you twist it. It is not any logical fallacy at all!

Simple!

ijayalolo:
I won't be surprised if this argument ends anytime soon. At the bolded is always the ending part from any arguer who has run out of points or ideas.

Again, back to the main discussion, (I'm not going down the part of red herring with you, I've made my point on that already). Summary, it behooves good journalism to describe what you see in a video and not interpret it if you don't have verification. If you are not a journalist, you are excused but please stay put on the part of a novice and don't pretend or try to be one.

Thank you for your attention to this matter

Abelino:
Lolz. Try this shit with anyone I know and you re long gone down to 6 feet. No cap

QuinQQ:
U welcome Donald.
See cunny man, trying to repeat a point I made at the very beginning of the convo as his point.
See circled below

silibaba:
You that have not killed Christmas fowl before want me prsin.

Abelino:
Hand go meet you one day ; don't worry. You go learn new things.

silibaba:
Hand kill you there.

QuinQQ:
In that case everything in this world will be allegedly because the eye can deceive and anything can be fake (someone can hack into your phone and put Messi scored when he didn't score in real life).

So you see, in this life everything is approximate

So the simple question is: "did the video show the male officer beating the female?" If the answer is yes yiu don't put allegedly.

You don't write "Video shows male allegedly beating female"!

** They have now corrected the heading by the way