Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[flagged]



> With the number of somewhat mysterious deaths now over 100, this article looks like they gave up trying to debunk all these deaths about ten years ago.

That's because the "Clinton Body Count" is an textbook example of a Gish Gallop [1], a bad-faith debating tactic in which charlatans spread nonsense by spewing forth so much of it that opponents have no hope of countering it all with facts.

[1]: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop


I had never heard of this before, thank you so much for connecting this to a name.

Aha, you've only bothered to refute 48 of my 100 bullshit claims, clear evidence liberal bias!


Interestingly, the comment to which you're responding seems ready to mount its own Gish Gallop: it uses the old "I don't even know where to begin" gambit at the outset.


> Claim: Bill Clinton has quietly done away with several dozen people who possessed incriminating evidence about him.

> Rating: False

I think you're mistaking your own bias for their's. They have 48 people on that list. Are you insisting that there need to be more deaths that need to be debunked in order for that claim to be rated as something other than False? Unless you have a really good argument for a particular name or names, you come off as someone who will never be satisfied.


So to be clear, the one objection you can articulate after your earlier blanket statement is that they've stopped updating a list of crank conspiracy deaths after every one they investigated turned out to be false?

Face it, you want this absurd Clinton conspiracy theory to be true, and you dislike Snopes because they consistently debunk it. That's not bias, that's presenting truth.


Any particular numbers on that page you think are wrong or biased? All of the examples I've looked at so far are fair.


It's kinda sad when you realize people like this really exist.


In defense of the Clinton body count thing, I think it would be an assassin's number 1 goal to make an assassination seems like anything but, so it would be reasonable that there would be more reasonable explanations for every incident.

Not saying it happened, or any of those deaths were assassinations, but the nature of the claim makes it perniciously difficult to refute.


If a man who couldn't even get away with some consensual foolin' around with an intern without it becoming global news had access to an untraceable assassination force capable of removing people with impunity, how do you explain the fact that so many of his enemies are still alive?

This one fails the smell test, hard.


You own a VHS copy of Loose Change, don't you?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: