My Thought on Comments

Below you will see four thread posts regarding the general topic to my "My Controversy"  post as it entails the most recent incident of animal poaching within a Zimbabwean Animal Sanctuary. All four originate from the commentary section of the USA Today.com article  regarding the death of the famed Cecil the Lion and the outcry against the hunter, American dentist, Dr. Walter Palmer.

  Screenshot: 8/29/15 Jim Antista. Comment Public Domain

This is one of the less reliable, reasonable, or credible comments regarding the actual topic. The individual obviously has strong emotions towards Cecil's death; but, parallels the issue with Planned Parenthood and abortions. Plus the graphic metaphor of cutting up Cecil's cubs raises alarms in reason. Furthermore, there exists a general distaste for those who find Cecil's death unacceptable; yet, support abortion- which he finds equal to the skinning of a lion. How this argument came up is rather unclear, as the posts above deal with financial repercussions against Dr. Palmer. The writer has far right views politically and believes that both animals and humans in any stage of live are sacred. But the parallelism made here deters the impact of his argument from pro-life to a graphic killing life because humanity can form of argument. He obviously has a desire to use this death to combat the abortion issue proven by his metaphor and conclusion.

Screenshot: 8/29/15 Donny Johnson. Comment Public Domain

This is one of the more reliable, reasonable, or credible posts as it presents facts regarding the issue, and brings the on going argument away from derogatory statements and back to fact. Although he does make some form of questionable opinion regarding how wealth weakens one's "moral compass" and creates an entitlement factor, the commentator swings back from hearsay to tangible evidence regarding Dr. Palmer's shady hunting background. The commentator has some fears as to how wealthy individuals seem to ignore a moral code- evident to his entitlement comment. But, I believe he redeems himself by presenting the fact towards the end of the post. This adds a form of argument against the 'regret' made by Palmer after the outcry; based on his prior convictions. While he does have his faults, the post seems reasonable to me because of the philosophic attitude towards entitlement and his reinforcement through fact.

Screenshot: 8/29/15 Ravan Damien Comment Public Domain

This is one of the more reliable, reasonable, or credible posts as it presents facts regarding the issue, and focuses less on the already exhausted attacks towards Dr. Palmer but towards the park's possible corruption. The commentator began by presenting facts: the hunting licence given by the government and the known corruption in Zimbabwe. The writer obviously desires for the country in question to focus less of instant revenue and more on conservation. As he states that more money could have been made through tourism towards Cecil. He most likely wants more transparency in the gov. conservation  groups as he accuses them for ignoring their duties, providing licences to known poachers, and then reacting to their own folly. This is one of the more reasonable posts due to its consistency for fact and preventing his opinion from deterring his main argument for transparency and placing more blame on a corrupt government.

Screenshot: 8/29/15 Donny Johnson. Comment Public Domain

This is one of the less This is one of the less reliable, reasonable, or credible comments regarding the actual topic. The commentator begins completely off topic, addressing abortion, and never mentioning Cecil the Lion's death or the controversy surrounding Dr. Palmer's actions. To make matters worse, the commentator begins accusing the previous writer Ryan Liota of being a Communist supporter and advocate for forced abortions. There is no fact behind any of his statements; and obviously hopes to berate this opponent through name calling and fallacies. He is clearly an opponent to forced abortions and government involvement in abortions, based on his disdain towards Communist Romania's abortion policies. Otherwise, this post his the most unreasonable post because it has nothing to do with the article's topic. All of it is hearsay opinion and fallacious attacks. 

Reflection:
After reading the posts made by Kelly and Dominique  I have come to the conclusion that most educated and informed individuals can tell the difference between more credible/ reasonable posts and the less credible/ more opinionated posts. After comparing their thread posts to those of my our blog, I generally concluded that the less credible sources either use foul language to express their opinion, attack the previous commentator rather than the position, or randomly assume the fall out of the human race. Both of the blogs I visited recognized that blind fear and unsupported assumptions cost a thread its credibility. Those that are more credible, in their opinion, try to bring up instances in the past that support their claim. I too support that opinion. If a thread merely uses fallacious argumentation to back a usually broad claim, it will lose its credibility in my book.