On the one hand (emphasis tail-waggingly added):
credible [kred-uh-buhl]
1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.
Blogging Tory "Kitchener Conservative" would beg to differ:
I'm not saying I agree with what's posted at LifeSite, but not credible by who's authority? Your's or someone else that doesn't agree with them. It's obviously a site based on religious belief, but that doesn't automatically bring discredit on any opinions expressed there.
Isn't the credibility of opinion based on "What's in the eye of the beholder"?
What a novel perspective. So tune in tomorrow when we here at CC HQ explain how describing someone as an "ignorant slut" and "dumb cunt" is simply a form of affectionate endearment and profound respect. Because we say it is.
3 comments:
Isn't the credibility of opinion based on "What's in the eye of the beholder"?
Well, if you're a solipsist, sure.
Isn't the credibility of opinion based on "What's in the eye of the beholder"?
Only one problem KC, Lifesite posts pure bullshit. It's not opinion, it's crap.
"capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement"
Way to defeat your own argument, you’re an intellectual genius.
By the definition you provided you proved that Lifesite is credible because it is "capable of being believed", at least by a certain segment of society.
Something doesn't have to be believed by all to be credible, does it? Otherwise you could argue that your site isn't very credible because the things you say aren't believed by all and as “bc waterboy” puts it you "post pure bullshit...it's crap"
Post a Comment