"I see no evidens"

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Aw - but he posts funny photos when he is cornered. That shows at least a limited understanding of when he is beat.


Wrong.

As usual, you don't get it.

When I post pictures it's because some people are a special kind of stupid and it becomes necessary to post cartoons for those who are too illiterate to get the point.


Right... Stupid and illiterate as in claiming that...

xouper wrote:PolitiFact is not an objective observer and cannot be trusted to make an honest and objective comparison.


When... they are... wait for it.... Least Biased

Image

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12989
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:55 pm

Got any more u that good sasperila left?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:11 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Please compare the PolitiFact rating profiles . . .


BZZZZT.

Stop right there.

PolitiFact is not an objective observer and cannot be trusted to make an honest and objective comparison.

Try again.


PolitiFact is Least Biased, as rated by MediaBias. Me thinks you are so wound up in your alternative reality that you can no longer function as an honest person.


MediaBias is also not an objective source. It reports the results on online voters.

Actual studies (like from George Mason University) of the biases of the so-called fact-checkers show that Politifact is in fact not objective and not trustworthy.

See for example:
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:34 pm

From the Link: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pe ... epublicans

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats."PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."


C'mon X: you don't think the Pukes LIED ATLEAST x3 times more? Including Benghazi, only x3 sounds LOW to me.

Pull your head out and enjoy the blue sky. How many LIES are being told RIGHT NOW about how the tax cuts currently proposed won't help Trump and will help everyone else get jobs????????? Puke = Lie.

Just the way it is. WAKE UP.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:C'mon X: you don't think the Pukes LIED ATLEAST x3 times more? Including Benghazi, only x3 sounds LOW to me.

Pull your head out and enjoy the blue sky. How many LIES are being told RIGHT NOW about how the tax cuts currently proposed won't help Trump and will help everyone else get jobs????????? Puke = Lie.

Just the way it is. WAKE UP.


They all lie. WAKE UP.

If you think one party lies more than the other, then you are the one with his head up his ass.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:38 am

Again X: c'mon. What are the "odds" that two groups of opposing people in very different circumstances would be equal on whatever variable you wish to name? Just to start off with: if each member lies "the same"....there are more Republicans in office.

The Republican Party is bought and paid for by the alreadytoorich and to have any office holders at all they have to lie to the very people they are taking advantage of. Thats the objective record. If you can't see it........you are just deplorable.

Tax cuts for milionaires are going to create jobs because of Trickle Down Economics. That is a lie: all the Pukes repeat it 5 times a day...........NONE of the Dumbocrats do. Like I said: x3 the lies sounds LOW TO ME............... and it should to you too.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:21 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Again X: c'mon. What are the "odds" that two groups of opposing people in very different circumstances would be equal on whatever variable you wish to name? Just to start off with: if each member lies "the same"....there are more Republicans in office.

The Republican Party is bought and paid for by the alreadytoorich and to have any office holders at all they have to lie to the very people they are taking advantage of. Thats the objective record. If you can't see it........you are just deplorable.

Tax cuts for milionaires are going to create jobs because of Trickle Down Economics. That is a lie: all the Pukes repeat it 5 times a day...........NONE of the Dumbocrats do. Like I said: x3 the lies sounds LOW TO ME............... and it should to you too.


More word salad from Booboo.

Obamacare was full of lies. And that's just one of many many examples.

They all lie. They are all bought and paid for. WAKE UP.

If you think one party lies more than the other, then you are the one with his head up his ass.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:27 am

derp.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:40 am

Bobbo beat me to it.

X - To claim that a non-equal finding is proof of bias is just pure nonsense. The CNN apple vs banana and apple vs distraction teeth is spot on. You are lost if you cannot see and appreciate the difference. You should get help - really.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:05 am

TJ--He'll deny it but X claimed that Trumped doesn't lie either.....so Its Pretty Much the Republicans Don't Lie at All and the Dumbocrats lie all the time.................. because:................................ Obama. So..... there is a derangement syndrome in full rage..... we have just missed what decade is relevant.

I might have missed it but I don't think X responded at all to the Times listing of 800 lies that Trump has told in office along with the source for the fact check. I know......NY Times...... all lies.

This really is the Trump Voting Base we get to see in Action.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:17 am

Image

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:19 am

Yes, I do believe you are - but don`t be so hard on yourself.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:45 pm

Ha, ha............TJ...........let me depart from the issue and go ab hominem on you. I recall last year we contested the issue about whether or not Hillary Clinton had violated the law regarding government emails on her server. I found it very irritating that you refused to exercise your own judgement on the facts before us and instead wanted the issue decided by the outcome of a criminal trial. We went back and forth...I think I got more testy than you did. I was irked, but somewhat admiring or your ability to maintain the high esthetic standard you did. No sniping, a touch of humor. I noted I did not do that and wondered if it was by my free choice or some gravity to the dark side of disagreement.

Now............ here you go jump head first into the mud with Xouper. Tired? Chemo?? A change of pace??? Xouper????

I almost responded about as you did. The "I know I am but what are you" childish response which is about what you come to fairly fast with X. That, or we stop responding because X is a bottomless pit of repetitive talking points without analysis. Hmmmm....maybe thats the exact difference and I am too hard on you and myself? Aiyyyy....something to think about.....not for too long.

X supports Trump, thinks the gutting of social programs will help him to live a better life. As I so often think: I wish the universe could bubble off and Trump supporters could get the world they support WITHOUT it affected the rest of us...........but such is not the case.

Anyway........not saying your or I are right or wrong.......we just have the tarbaby to deal with. ((and tarbaby is not accurate/parallel to the fable in all appropriate respects...but in that once grabbed it can't be thrown away by logic, it fits, a limited application.))
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:58 pm

Here is a recasting of the ANALYSIS I provided to be compared with the racheted mindlessness of X.

Republicans LIE all the time BECAUSE what they are about is funneling tax relief to the AlreadyTooRich funded by taking benefits away from everyone else. Said straight out, their base would evaporate so what to do? THEY LIE!!!! They tell you to look at the doubling in the personal exemption you will get so you won't look at the services and programs being removed elsewhere. If you add up all the pluses and minuses there is a reduction in wealth sharing to the poor and average, a wash with the upper class, and a huge transfer to the AlreadyTooRich. Its Math.

Now, X will say the Dumbo's lie too. Obamacare was full of lies. There were two lies in the main: you can keep your doctor and it will save you money. Well....many people have kept their doctors and many people have saved money. Some haven't. The Lie present was that as always: "some" people will benefit while others take a hit. Politicians hate to admit to the negatives but we have to look at the Pros and Cons all added up.

I see the Republicans "in the main" just telling out and out lies to achieve a secret agenda that they directly LIE about. EG: Trump will personally benefit by a Billion Dollars retained under his tax bill but he stands there and says "Believe Me... my rich friends don't like what I'm doing." Complete and total BS.

Now take Obama Care. It delivered what was promised to millions of people while some number of other folks feels they got screwed over and hence lied to. Quite a few of these people had "cheap" policies that actually did not provide any care at all when actually called upon to pay out. Obama forced these policies out of the marketplace. Kind of like the vaccine argument: do you do any real good letting people live their own preferred lies..... or force some reality on them........yes.......accomplised with a lie.

Formulate as you wish. I'm at the "TJ Boundary" and don't want to get my silk socks muddy.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12989
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:11 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:As I so often think: I wish the universe could bubble off and Trump supporters could get the world they support WITHOUT it affected the rest of us...........but such is not the case.


It did. We are in their world.

The other you and me are currently griping about the obstructionist GoPs hindering Hillaryz ajenda.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:00 pm

I see X much as a religious nutter – just consumed within the GOP fairyland instead of traditional religions. He has seemingly good arguments when supported by in-group word plays and solipsism. Best not to engage, but one does so for the minor humor it produces.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:41 pm

TJrandom wrote:I see X much as a religious nutter – just consumed within the GOP fairyland instead of traditional religions. He has seemingly good arguments when supported by in-group word plays and solipsism. Best not to engage, but one does so for the minor humor it produces.


For the record, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. They both suck.

I am an independent. I think for myself instead of falling for the propaganda put out by both parties.

I vote based on the issues that are important to me, not on the personalities.

I am not a Trump apologist. He sucks in so many ways. So does Hillary. But when it comes to the issues that are important to me, Hillary is clearly the wrong choice.

And that's all there is to it.

What I find amusing is that some people who disagree with me on some of the issues (but clearly not all issues), are not satisfied with mere disagreement, they feel they must also disparage my character. That is why this forum has turned into one big pig sty. In fact, when you look around, it seems the only active participants here are the pigs. Except Gord, who can disagree without being a pig about it.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 pm

xouper wrote: ... they must also disparage my character. ...


You should go back and read your posts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:08 pm

"I'm not a Republican......I just believe everything they say."

What do you think "being" is?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:21 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... they must also disparage my character. ...


You should go back and read your posts.


I was just following your lead.

I treat others as they treat me.

If you want me to stop disparaging you, then you must agree to do likewise.

I'm willing to agree to a truce. Are you?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:23 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"I'm not a Republican......I just believe everything they say."

What do you think "being" is?


For the record, I do not believe everything Republicans say.

Not even close.

They lie.

Same as Democrats.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8734
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Aztexan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:28 pm

Hey man, it's the holidays. Food. Turkey. Pies. Ham. Stop calling me a porker.
trump is Putin's bitch

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:45 pm

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"I'm not a Republican......I just believe everything they say."

What do you think "being" is?


For the record, I do not believe everything Republicans say.

Not even close.

They lie.

Same as Democrats.


Like what?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11046
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:01 pm

Aztexan wrote:Hey man, it's the holidays. Food. Turkey. Pies. Ham. Stop calling me a porker.


I am not oinklined to name calling, so I shall oinklude your request in my ethical standards.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8734
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Aztexan » Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:21 pm

Flanks, man. I'd hate to squeal on y'all.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:16 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... they must also disparage my character. ...


You should go back and read your posts.


I was just following your lead.

I treat others as they treat me.

If you want me to stop disparaging you, then you must agree to do likewise.

I'm willing to agree to a truce. Are you?


Sure, but I suspect that you will break it...

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:54 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... they must also disparage my character. ...


You should go back and read your posts.


I was just following your lead.

I treat others as they treat me.

If you want me to stop disparaging you, then you must agree to do likewise.

I'm willing to agree to a truce. Are you?


Sure, but I suspect that you will break it...


You seem to be agreeing to a truce, and then in the very same sentence break that truce by making a derogatory comment about my character. In fact, you did the very thing you suspected I would do first.

Wanna try again?

Let me be clear about the terms. No negative comments about the other person, no matter what. No innuendos, passive-aggressive remarks, or indirect comments either. Stick to the issues.

I am willing to do that, are you?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:56 am

No innuendo like "what is your evidence for that position?" To be followed up with "Your evidence is irrelevant to what you posted?" ........or "Your subjective opinions and values are not evidence." That kind of indirect comment?

Ha, ha..........
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No innuendo like "what is your evidence for that position?" To be followed up with "Your evidence is irrelevant to what you posted?" ........or "Your subjective opinions and values are not evidence." That kind of indirect comment?

Ha, ha..........


Those kinds of remarks are allowed because they are not attacks on the person, they are legitimate and appropriate skeptical comments about the issue being discussed.

Does that answer your question?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:27 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote: ... they must also disparage my character. ...


You should go back and read your posts.


I was just following your lead.

I treat others as they treat me.

If you want me to stop disparaging you, then you must agree to do likewise.

I'm willing to agree to a truce. Are you?


Sure, but I suspect that you will break it...


You seem to be agreeing to a truce, and then in the very same sentence break that truce by making a derogatory comment about my character. In fact, you did the very thing you suspected I would do first.

Wanna try again?

Let me be clear about the terms. No negative comments about the other person, no matter what. No innuendos, passive-aggressive remarks, or indirect comments either. Stick to the issues.

I am willing to do that, are you?


I simply said I had a doubt... (I suspect...) - hardly a derogatory comment on your character. Worst case a comment on mine.

Wanna try again? Sure...

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:46 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:If you want me to stop disparaging you, then you must agree to do likewise. I'm willing to agree to a truce. Are you?


Sure, but I suspect that you will break it...


You seem to be agreeing to a truce, and then in the very same sentence break that truce by making a derogatory comment about my character. In fact, you did the very thing you suspected I would do first.

Wanna try again?

Let me be clear about the terms. No negative comments about the other person, no matter what. No innuendos, passive-aggressive remarks, or indirect comments either. Stick to the issues.

I am willing to do that, are you?


I simply said I had a doubt... (I suspect...) - hardly a derogatory comment on your character.


Wrong.

Merely phrasing an insult as a personal "doubt" does not make it any less an insult. It is an indirect way to comment about the other person's character. And you know it, but choose to be disingenuous about it.

Let me give you a hypothetical example: I suspect you are a {!#%@} moron.

Is there any question that's a derogatory comment about your character?

That's the kind of comment that violates the truce.

Are you willing to stop making those kinds of remarks? Or not?

Otherwise the truce is essentially meaningless, since I can always preface any insult with "I suspect" and by your own argument it is not an insult or derogatory comment. Is that really how you want to play this?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:51 am

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:If you want me to stop disparaging you, then you must agree to do likewise. I'm willing to agree to a truce. Are you?


Sure, but I suspect that you will break it...


You seem to be agreeing to a truce, and then in the very same sentence break that truce by making a derogatory comment about my character. In fact, you did the very thing you suspected I would do first.

Wanna try again?

Let me be clear about the terms. No negative comments about the other person, no matter what. No innuendos, passive-aggressive remarks, or indirect comments either. Stick to the issues.

I am willing to do that, are you?


I simply said I had a doubt... (I suspect...) - hardly a derogatory comment on your character.


Wrong.

Merely phrasing an insult as a personal "doubt" does not make it any less an insult. It is an indirect way to comment about the other person's character. And you know it, but choose to be disingenuous about it.

Let me give you a hypothetical example: I suspect you are a {!#%@} moron.

Is there any question that's a derogatory comment about your character?

That's the kind of comment that violates the truce.

Are you willing to stop making those kinds of remarks? Or not?

Otherwise the truce is essentially meaningless, since I can always preface any insult with "I suspect" and by your own argument it is not an insult or derogatory comment. Is that really how you want to play this?


Wrong. You are doubling down in spite of my clear explaination. Is that really how you want to play this?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:10 am

TJrandom wrote:You are doubling down in spite of my clear explaination. Is that really how you want to play this?


Sure, why not.

Following your example and "clear explanation", here is how I will play it:

I suspect you are a {!#%@} moron.

I suspect you have your head so far up your ass, you can't even see when you're being insulted.

According to you, that is not a violation of our truce.

According to your "clear explanation", I simply said I had a doubt... (I suspect...) - hardly a derogatory comment on your character.

Carry on.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12989
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:36 pm

I suspect that you dont realize that the difficulty you hav with the other memberz iz within you, xouper.

Do you see anybody else who alwayz endz up in theze pointless spats, no matter the topic? I know there hav been many otherz, but they usually end up getting banned pretty soon.

Unless its intentional, I think you shoud find a way to modify your style to reduse the friction.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30885
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby Gord » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:16 pm

JO 753 wrote:Do you see anybody else who alwayz endz up in theze pointless spats, no matter the topic?

Is it me? It's me, isn't it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:33 pm

JO 753 wrote:I suspect that you dont realize that the difficulty you hav with the other memberz iz within you, xouper.

Do you see anybody else who alwayz endz up in theze pointless spats, no matter the topic? I know there hav been many otherz, but they usually end up getting banned pretty soon.

Unless its intentional, I think you shoud find a way to modify your style to reduse the friction.


I am happy to treat others the way they treat me.

If people don't want friction from me, then don't provoke me. It's as simple as that.

If others don't like my opinions and arguments about the issues, that is their problem to deal with. It is not an excuse to attack me personally.

If you place nice, I'll play nice. Simple.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13541
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:07 pm

"Just Look."

....................................so simple. But it takes an objective quality of mind.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:45 pm

xouper wrote:
JO 753 wrote:I suspect that you dont realize that the difficulty you hav with the other memberz iz within you, xouper.

Do you see anybody else who alwayz endz up in theze pointless spats, no matter the topic? I know there hav been many otherz, but they usually end up getting banned pretty soon.

Unless its intentional, I think you shoud find a way to modify your style to reduse the friction.


I am happy to treat others the way they treat me.

If people don't want friction from me, then don't provoke me. It's as simple as that.

If others don't like my opinions and arguments about the issues, that is their problem to deal with. It is not an excuse to attack me personally.

If you place nice, I'll play nice. Simple.


You say that, but it isn`t based in reality.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8899
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby TJrandom » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:46 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:You are doubling down in spite of my clear explaination. Is that really how you want to play this?


Sure, why not.

Following your example and "clear explanation", here is how I will play it:

I suspect you are a {!#%@} moron.

I suspect you have your head so far up your ass, you can't even see when you're being insulted.

According to you, that is not a violation of our truce.

According to your "clear explanation", I simply said I had a doubt... (I suspect...) - hardly a derogatory comment on your character.

Carry on.


Not only do you double down, but you go nuclear too.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12989
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: "I see no evidens"

Postby JO 753 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:11 pm

A frate train makes the same argument wen therez a road vehicle in its way, xouper. A rock rolling down a hill cant be blamed for any damaj it duz. Are you conseeding that you lak the ability to control your direction?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Linkdex [Bot] and 3 guests