>In some cases you can trust the source because you've previously found the source to be authoritative (say, a professor teaching a class)
Allow me to laugh. This is a professor teaching a class (how to lie)! I guess that makes him an authority on lying but can someone like that be said to be authoritative? Or all other professors, by association?
I must say that I accept many of the valid responses here, thank you. His classes no doubt are educational and one should, of course, check the sources.
However, he is taking practical assignments too far. You can teach students to beware of liers without them first having to lie themselves. It does not seem like the skill of a great teacher to make them actually lie to the public. More like a desperate stunt from a teacher running out of ideas and morals.
Understading is one thing and I agree with all that but in terms of your examples, he is demanding the equivalent of his students actually deploying the nerve gas against unsuspecting people. (Thank you for suggesting that hyperbola)
Allow me to laugh. This is a professor teaching a class (how to lie)! I guess that makes him an authority on lying but can someone like that be said to be authoritative? Or all other professors, by association?
I must say that I accept many of the valid responses here, thank you. His classes no doubt are educational and one should, of course, check the sources.
However, he is taking practical assignments too far. You can teach students to beware of liers without them first having to lie themselves. It does not seem like the skill of a great teacher to make them actually lie to the public. More like a desperate stunt from a teacher running out of ideas and morals.
Understading is one thing and I agree with all that but in terms of your examples, he is demanding the equivalent of his students actually deploying the nerve gas against unsuspecting people. (Thank you for suggesting that hyperbola)