Total posts: 4,833
-->
@Best.Korea
Looks like you can't get your thought-destroying oversimplified cartoon labels straight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you let words mean whatever is convenient after the fact then you can't do logic.When you disregard what the person clearly meant to say and instead take away only what the dictionary definition of their words amount to you aren't communicating.
So in the end you've made your position clear; you aren't interested in what the democrats are saying
I'm not interested in what they aren't saying but you wished they said instead.
To you this is all just a game of gotcha
It's called consistency. Consistent standards of evidence. Consistent definitions. Consistent rules of logic. Consistent application of law.
When you are fundamentally wrong on an issue the only way to argue your position is to focus on word games.
I couldn't agree more, observe "word games":
Please find one example of democrats "denying election results""I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win.""You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy CarterJust because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
[Double_R]Democrats in 2016: Trump didn't win legitimatelyRepublicans in 2020: Trump didn't win
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Separate purported crime.Refusal to cooperate is a separate crime.
Refusal to cooperate with the government is not inherently a crime in a free nation.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It was never put to trial. Alternate electors isn't a criminal conspiracy.There was legitimate and proven doubt about the outcome.
The end.
I won't derail the thread by rehashing all the points you've lost on before. Go back to the threads where you lost before and resume.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
if the meticulous standards and novel interpretations of law being used against Trump were applied equally.lol I wasn't aware that "don't steal classified documents and refuse to return them" and "don't try to illegally overthrow the results of an election" were meticulous standards. It's kind of the absolute bare minimum.
There is a lot you don't know, and it's really your own fault. I previously challenged you to demonstrate people going to prison for the Hawaii alternate electors and you failed so it's not like it's the first time you've been exposed to clues.
He legally took the classified documents. He legally stored them. He then forgot about them.
Very legal and all.
Trump took the documents. Whether he was allowed is a little bit of a grey area
It wasn't so grey when every other president and executive lackey did it.
but that's not what he's charged with anyway
Yes it is.
The national archive spent a year and half telling trump he had documents he wasn't allowed to have and asking him to give them back.
They don't get to decide. They weren't even allowed to ask Clinton what documents he had.
He refused to co-operate with investigations.
Biden not only lied to investigators but to the entire world when he said he did not share classified information with his ghostwriter.
a republican investigated and found that biden didn't break the law.
Said that he didn't think a jury would convict so he wasn't charging. Very different, also clearly corrupt.
Created:
Wow you actually believe he didn't do any of them.
I believe everyone commits on average two crimes a week.
I really believe that over half the government would be in prison if the meticulous standards and novel interpretations of law being used against Trump were applied equally.
There is a mountain of evidence for this, not the least being that Biden was accused of sexual assault just like DJT and Biden "stole" and shared classified documents just as DJT is being accused of doing.
These facts cannot be evaded. It isn't necessary to prove unequal application of the law, but the fact that they could not find a crime or a liability for which Biden isn't just as 'guilty' is the utmost pinnacle of pathetic desperation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you have any basis for that belief other than the fact that he used the term "didn't win"?
I don't need any. Even if he explicitly denied it two seconds later that would not matter.
If Bob accuses Amy of murder and then follows it up by saying "and by that I mean she used all the penutbutter, not that she killed a human being" that's just Bob contradicting himself. If Jimmy Carter (or any of the others) went on to explain that they didn't mean there was any fraud that would just be them contradicting themselves.
There is no room for alternate interpretations (other than referring to the popular vote vs electoral college which would not make anything illegitimate because the electoral college is law).
Contrast this with "There were very fine people on either side". "side" is a reference word. It is not fully defined within the sentence. Context determines what the sides are, so when Trump says a few seconds later which side he is not talking about that is not a contradiction.
Is your position seriously that if someone uses those two words, then they are only talking about the ballot counts and nothing else?
Specifically the rules of the contest, which in a US federal election include a state level democracy transferring through the authority of state legislatures into electors who are counted by congress. This is locked in by the term "election denial". The "election" is the democratic institution created by the state and federal constitutions. If you disclaim those rules then you're still an election denier.
Contrast this to when I say I haven't lost a debate on a particular subject despite having the majority against me many times. I am asserting that democracy is not the rule for rational epistemology and that rational epistemology is the rules that decide the result of a debate.
I can't simultaneously claim democracy (or a federalized democracy) is the principle and then say the winner depends upon more than the accurate vote count. The only way to deny a claim of majority support is to:
A: Deny democracy is supreme
B: Deny the accuracy of the claim
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'll take that a concession.In the real question Biden is the one stopping Trump.the question is badly written.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Was he alleging that election was fraudulent?He was alleging they the result was inaccurate, wrong, illegitimate, etc... etc...This isn't an answer, the debate over the past week has been almost entirely about what each of these words mean.So again, what was he alleging?
He was alleging they the result was false, not to be respected, invalid, etc... etc...
Inaccurate and wrong generally means the vote tallies did not match to what the people voted. Is that what you're claiming he was taking about?
It is.
Illegitimate has many different uses here
Under the premise of democracy it has only one: inaccurate
including the idea that he won because he got help from Russia in the form of a disinformation campaign against Clinton.
If the public being exposed to information one side thinks is misleading makes an election illegitimate then there has never been a legitimate election. You people blather on about 'peaceful transfer of power', that means accepting that majorities sometimes make mistakes and that doesn't mean their decision is illegitimate.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
In the real question Biden is the one stopping Trump.Well except the verb changed. The verb there is "win", when the verb in the question was "stop" or "wants to stop"ok. and?
Created:
If you don't vote Trump, you're sending a message: Charge someone with 91 fake crimes and you can veto anyone and thus subvert democracy.If you vote Trump past primaries knowing the indictments against him, you're a moron.
I don't negotiate with terrorists.
Created:
Posted in:
Speaking of harsher punishments, a "whitehat hacker" will potentially spend 5 years in prison for exposing fraud vulnerabilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=676tRB-DB0E
Created:
Play stupid games win what?
Oh there is definitely a stupid game being played. Many people can be rendered "prone to prison".
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Biden does not make decisions about criminal cases.
"President Trump has been indicted on a total of 91 counts by supporters of Joe
Biden and his Justice Department."
56% see the connection.
Another way of saying that is "would you like to win by trump going to prison after being found guilty for all those crimes he committed."
Well except the verb changed. The verb there is "win", when the verb in the question was "stop" or "wants to stop"
"do you think that Joe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by putting him in jail"
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
No, because winning an election is not a crime.It's like saying, "if a rapist is convicted of rape, do you want him to be put in jail to stop him raping again"
It's like "if a private prison makes $100,000 off someone being convicted of rape, and hires and directs prosecutors, does that private prison want to convict people"
"do you think that Joe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by putting him in jail"
This does not equal nor is a subset of "does Joe Biden want to put Trump in jail" nor is it equal to "do most people want to put Trump in jail."
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I didn't distort anything. I put the exact question asked.
and then you distorted it by leaving off Biden's motivation.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
What happens when the cult is bigger than the non-cult?No one who isn't a cultist can say he didn't commit those crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
There is an art and great utility in organizing concepts so that you're dealing with well defined boolean values (dichotomies).I consider murdering babies to typically be unethical. If you read my above responses to underdog he seems to think that means I am pro choice. Am I retarded leftist now?
This is an art that Underdog does not understand in the slightest. He tries to dichotomize arbitrary political polarities.
He adds onto that shallow (false) quantification:
I think I am a pretty typical pro lifer. I think first trimester leave it to the conscience of the woman but after that maybe it should be a decision for a woman and her doctor.Legal abortion up until 12 weeks legalizes the majority of abortions and therefore is, "Pro Choice". 7 weeks is the 50/50 point; half of abortions are before; the other half are after. 90% are before 12 weeks.Your position is pro choice and I'm not against that, but understand that.
As if "prolife" vs "prochoice" was nothing more than a linear mapping projected onto the distribution for abortions within the gestation cycle.
There are absolutists on both side of the issue, and being 'extreme' or 'moderate' predicts nothing about the truthiness of your conclusions.
Here is another perfect example of when labels with imprecise definitions cause more harm than good, especially to people who think like underdog.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
4. Having sex with children is unethical
Maybe Islam is the new troll strat for Best.Korea:
"If she is 2 days old but she can handle sex with her, you will have sex with her"
"Yes"
(I think this guy is a plant)
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So the question was, if he is convicted of crimes, do you think biden would want him put in jail. And of course biden wants him in jail if he is convicted. So do most of the country.
I don't know what kind of idiot you expect to impress with that kind of obvious distortion.
Which is a microcosm of the 91 indictments themselves, 56% are saying "what kind of idiots do you take us for?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There are many reasons why someone might not pander and a love of truth is the least likely in general.I meant the part where Trump doesn't care who he pisses off.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Then why did the axis do it first?If you think you can drop bombs and artillery on enemy and not kill any civilians, you are insane.
The Axis terror bombed first. That is planned and executed missions where the target was civilian residences and infrastructure.
Allied bombers were specifically designed for carpet bombing of cities
False.
where Germany had precise bombers which could never cause as much civilian casualties
Through no moral virtue. They simply didn't want to divert resources. They had plans for strategic bombers and terror bombed anyone in the range of their bombers.
it doesnt even make sense to build precise bombers if your goal is carpet bombing of civilians.
Their goal was ground support. That requires precision.
The allies also wanted ground support and designed and built many planes that could accomplish that goal.
The goals of the strategic bombing initiative was bombing factories. That requires slightly less precision. It does require much more range. That is why anglophone heavy bombers were big.
At any given altitude anglophone bombers were far more accurate than nazi bombers because of how much effort they put into making them precise. Any imprecision is due to the extreme altitude of the bombing.
The altitude was necessary to prevent interception and to dodge flak. That is why the nazis started terror bombing. They were losing the battle of britain (or at least losing too many planes). They didn't know how close they came to disabling enough airfields. So they switched to night bombing London at high altitude.
Do you know how precise night bombing at high altitude is? It's very bad. They didn't target factories, they targeted boroughs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You are misinformed. Protogermanic had gendered language including pronouns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What if you care about both? Trump didn't care about votes in 2016, he acted like a philophisor and he won in 2016.
Trump has never to my knowledge said or done anything that would evidence a philosopher's mindset. His thinking (from what I can tell) is extremely linear and specific, which makes it accessible; but philosophy requires multidimensional abstract thinking.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
All that you've said here is that the RAF+USAAF were better at a game the nazis started.All of German bombers were literally made for precise attacks.
They were made for battlefield support.
The strategic bombers were made to destroy factories from distant bases.
Neither were designed as terror weapons. Both were used as terror weapons.
Thats why in terms of civilian casualties, Germany lost 10 times more civilians than Britain did
Germany lost more because they lost the battle of Britain.
only allies invented bombing civilians as an actual military strategy.
Then why did the axis do it first?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Mao was monster too, as clearly proved later.
Mao was a rouge two-faced roving communist warlord at the time.
The ROC and Chiang Kai Shek weren't a city on a hill but they showed every signs of heading towards a relatively liberal and functional society.
That would be 99% UK and 1% USBritain and America invaded entire world before Hitler even came to power.
Americans bombed civilians where Hitler avoided the use of heavy bombers and focused on precise attacks and literally refused to bomb civilians on a scale which USA and Britain did.
The nazis started their war on Poland with a terror bombing of Warsaw....
The RAF only started wide area bombing after the Luftwaffe started wide area bombing on London.
All that you've said here is that the RAF+USAAF were better at a game the nazis started.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So you tell me... What was Jimmy Carter actually saying here?
That Trump lost the election.
Was he alleging that election was fraudulent?
He was alleging they the result was inaccurate, wrong, illegitimate, etc... etc...
Fraudulent is intentionally inaccurate, wrong, illegitimate, etc... etc...
Could it happen by accident? No.
Therefore: Yes.
Was he alleging that Russia controlled the electoral college?
Ask him. What is not in doubt is that he is alleging the results were inaccurate.
Go ahead, tell us. Break it down.
Jimmy Carter denied the 2016 election. That makes him an election denier. His reasons are irrelevant to that fact. No reason changes it. The mantra-like excuse at the time, which can NEVER render election denial anything other than election denial, was the mind numbing endless repetition of "interference".
How many points do you get for claiming a fraudulent result while never using the word "fraud"? -50
Hec CNN and retired deep state bureaucrats do more election interference than Russia in a single day.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree with the conclusion. I've seen too many "anecdotes" to doubt it.
It didn't surprise me at all that the feds were caught directing the censorship. The fact that there aren't hundreds of people in prison while Joe Biden hasn't been impeached and convicted for direct violations of the bill of rights is high on the list of reasons why the constitution is beyond any shadow of doubt a null and void social contract even for those who consented to it once in their hearts.
Proving such thing by looking at search results is not possible, that's reverse engineering a black box I'm sure almost no one at google search understands themselves.
They have levers they're pulling but we will never be able to differentiate that from random algorithmic behavior since they claim to factor in all data and process it in any way they please (probably literally opaque matrices of non-linear operators aka neural nets aka machine learning)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Calling what the democrats did "election denial" doesn't mean what they did actually meets your definition of "election denial".
It meets the definition of election denial. The one that is determined by looking at the definitions of 'election' and 'denial', and then looking at how people used the phrase.
You don't get to define someone else's position
You don't get to control language. Consequently you don't get to redefine terms and words in order to protect your double standards.
Why respond when you can just say the magic word "irrelevant".
I can mix it up, "occams razor" (stands back to see if you disappear in a poof of purple smoke)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
If you care about votes, act like a politician.
If you care about the truth, act like a philosopher.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Apparently on twitter it's cool to say (D)ifferent.
No doubt the context has changed ever so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Give a link, but a $5000 fine is a slap on the wrist lending credence to sadolite's claim.
I should update my statement that there are no state-led investigations unless people who make trouble for the deep state are the targets.
This is evidence of lack of election integrity in more than one way:
1.) Shows that people who call for audits will be targeted for selective prosecution
2.) Shows that no safeguard or audit caught these so called illegal votes
3.) Shows that these so called illegal votes could have been audited (since they were presumably proved to be invalid later) but were not, or the audit results were ignored.
How many other so-called felons have been allowed to vote? I guess that would require an audit, and we see what happens those who call for general audits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
2016 came before 2020. Ask the MAGA cultists.So you admit that in your mind the definition changed.No, the context changed.
Election denial no longer became election denial. Or rather election denial became bad because the people denying elections actually had theories for why the election should be denied/was illegitimate (which are synonymous concepts).
Your double standard is rejected. Your denial continues to fail, and continues to expose you as a hack.
A reminder to the reader:
[Double_R] Please find one example of democrats "denying election results""I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win.""You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter[Double_R] Just because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
In Double_R's mind it's not really election denial because he doesn't have a problem with the excuses of Kamela Harris and Jimmy Carter. This is most similar to the no true scottsman fallacy. Linguistically it is simply a selective denial of a definition.
Election denial means denying the officially reported results ( winners and losers) of an election. That is what democrats did. The end.
So the premise can easily be translated into "If someone denies [the legitimacy of] an election for some reasons they aren't denying [the technical result of] an election [as decided by the electoral college vote].Why this melts your brain to the point of an endless feedback loop is beyond me. It is not complicated. At all.
Not complicated at all. Simply wrong. A simple wrong.
Words can have multiple definitions, but concepts don't. Concept -> word is not subject to denial due to alternate definitions.
The democratic rejection of the results of a process they call an election is a concept, and that concept is (one of) the definitions of "election denial". There are many other phrases which link to the concept, and that does not change a thing.
See: synonyms
I'm done with this stupid example, no serious person would still be trying this hard and failing this badly to show that declaring an argument to be irrelevant is not an end-all-be-all rebuttal. Try that in an actual debate and see what happens.
So you admit you haven't actually been debating...
It was an irrelevant premise. The premise being that democrats had a different justification (excuse/reason) for denying the election. It simply has no connecting premise to the boolean of whether they denied an election.
Yes pointing out that there is no connecting premise (and thus no argument) is the only correct response. You proved you did not understand that with this example. One premise or two premises with no categorical overlap don't allow any inference. The end.
This is far more basic and fundamental than everything you threw at the wall (Occam's razor, null hypothesis, purported causality, etc...)
This is where logic begins, not at your abused and confused notion of an epistemological guideline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I thought you might have appreciated the cleverness of my reply.
Yes, very succinct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you find examples where the ballot was anonymized post it here. That counts as evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If there are different ways to deny an election, than those ways each... mean... something different.Then why use the same phrase?2016 came before 2020. Ask the MAGA cultists.
So you admit that in your mind the definition changed. Enough said.
Democrats in 2016: Trump didn't win legitimatelyRepublicans in 2020: Trump didn't winBoth sides said he didn't win, so they're both the same. English be damned.
....and you expect people to think you're the serious one...
Question: does "Trump didn't win legitimately" = "Trump lost"?
Who said Joe Biden's sexuality impacted impact craters?I said because the moon has been struck by meteors and meteors cause craters Joe Biden is a pedophile.If moon craters made people pedophiles then everyone would be pedophiles, but most people are not, therefore craters do not make people pedophiles.
Trying to fill in a missing premise I see. I did not use the premise "Moon craters make people pedophiles".
Nor did you use the premise "If someone denies an election for some reasons they aren't denying an election" as that would be a self-contradicting premise.
You also failed to provide a casual mechanism
No causality was implied.
which is necessary to make this statement in the first place.
Why?
Without that it's a violation of the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis refers to the ever present alternative to a theorized relationship between phenomenon. It's not something that is violated.
You also ignore Occam's razor, which clearly leads us to conclude Joe Biden's alleged pedophilia would be a product of natural human impulses rather than the effect of a celestial object.
rofl, oh this is interesting. You do like to wield tools you don't understand. You believe having your own theory of the cause of Biden's pedophilia defeats that argument (which in no way claimed a cause)? Why?
And then there's the burden of proof, which you've completely ignored.
This, this is enlightening. I now see that I've been dealing with someone who just throws out phrases he doesn't understand.
You also ignore the concept of the default position that nothing is reasonably accepted to exist until it is demonstrated to exist, like for example mystical pedophilia causing rays from the moon's craters.
When evaluating an argument validity and soundness are two different qualities.
Did the argument posit the existence of pedophilia causing rays from the moon's craters? Was that one of the premises? I didn't see it.
Ate we done with this stupid example?
I'm not, I'm learning a lot about what you don't know. It's probably going to save me a lot of wasted time to know all those things I assumed you understood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If there were 50,000 ways to deny an election and democrats only used two, have democrats denied an election?If there are different ways to deny an election, than those ways each... mean... something different.
Then why use the same phrase?
The moon has been struck by many meteors over its history, craters come from meteor strikes, therefore Joe Biden is a pedophile.The meteors that struck the moon did so in most cases before Joe Biden was ever born, therefore there is no possible way his sexual preferences could have possibly impacted them.
Who said Joe Biden's sexuality impacted impact craters?
I said because the moon has been struck by meteors and meteors cause craters Joe Biden is a pedophile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Whether the words in question have only one meaning/usage is the very thing being contested
Good luck with that.
I was about to continue with the Socratic method and ask whether you really believe there is only one way to deny an election until realizing what an utter waste of time that would be.
Impressive, you're actually learning. Indeed it would be a waste of time.
It's one of those "if you have a bucket with 3 liters of water and a bucket with 5 liters of milk how many buckets do you have?" questions.
"there is only one way to deny an election"
If there were 50,000 ways to deny an election and democrats only used two, have democrats denied an election?
Are you ever going to provide a thoughtful response to this
I think I'm cutting to the heart of the matter quite efficiently.
Declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so. You actually have to argue your points to be taken seriously.
Well let's see what you do I'll just copy it:
The moon has been struck by many meteors over its history, craters come from meteor strikes, therefore Joe Biden is a pedophile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
And why do those who do get caught not serving a minimum of 30 years in prison.
Doesn't matter how bad the punishment is when no one gets caught because no one investigates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Modern tools should be able to compensate for much of the lack of genetic diversity.
Minimum genetic viability is something of a myth.
Bottlenecks basically means an increased degree of incest (no not direct incest but direct incest is the most extreme form).
This exposes recessive traits both positive and negative. In the cruel light of natural selection recessive flaws are eradicated.
The population itself doesn't die, it is purified in a sense.
Or in other words if one man and one woman are the last two left in North America, their kids will have to reproduce with each other. It's not genetically possible they are incapable of producing children without a genetic flaw (or else they would express the flaw themselves).
So worst case 1/4 of their children (on average) have the negative trait. If it was some central European dynasty where that one kid with the recessive flaws HAD to be heir things might get worse. In the real world though if those children are male they'll die or father no children. If they're female they'll die and mother less children.
This isn't just genetic theory, many small islands have been populated from seed populations of only only a handful of humans and instances where non-human animals populated the island have been seen where the original population was only two.
I picked 500,000 because I can't fathom a disaster that wouldn't leave that many alive (so long as there was still a biosphere). That's probably a good estimate for the number of people in complete isolation who wouldn't be touched by the most deadly and virulent disease as well.
People who still believe climate change of a few degrees or elevated radiation from either the sun or nuclear weapons could possibly cause that many deaths have zero concept of science, geology, and earth history.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
Whoops another "clerical error"
(9000 ballots "found")
Created:
RationalMadman,
It's google that changed what it showed. See how it changed from dictionary.com to oxford? (and then choose to show only one definition)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Fixed. If it works for you then it works for me.No it doesn't because "bloodbath" could mean many things besides political violence but "win that election" only means one.Ah, so when Trump uses a word it can mean anything but when a democrat uses a word it's only limited to one usage.
No, when the word in the context of the sentence or a paragraph has only one meaning it has only one meaning.
Is this really the hill you are going to die on?
I'm not dying.
then go on to write multiple paragraphs explaining in detail why the comments in context of the situation being discussed does not mean what you claim.Excuses, you explained their excuses for making the statement. Excuses don't change the meaning.Yeah, that's what the word excuse means. So are you going to argue your point or just define yourself as being right?
Excuse means "change the meaning"? No it doesn't
You are late. Then there are your excuses for being late. No excuse will change the fact that you were late. They may mean you're faultless.
You deny elections. Then there are excuses for denying elections. No excuse will change the fact that you denied elections. They may mean you're right to do so.
Democrats deny elections without a theory of fraud. Right-tribers have many theories of fraud. The difference in excuses is that republicans have an excuse, there is no difference when comparing the fact of election denial itself.
If I said Biden didn't win the election because of X I still said Biden didn't win the election. Democrats still denied (purported) election results. You will never be able to change that.No prominent democrat has ever claimed the vote tallies reported by the states in 2016 or 2020 were not accurate or driven by fraud.
Then they have poor excuses. (They have used the word 'fraud' in other elections)
would bother to read it and point out the errorsThe error is one of relevance. That's why I can ignore it.Whether a conclusion follows from the premises (that's what we call logic) will always be relevant to an argument. If it doesn't, you can always point out why, which isn't what ignoring it means.
The conclusion is irrelevant as it fails to contradict much less override the facts in evidence.
Since the conclusion is irrelevant, the argument is irrelevant. Much like "Context exists, therefore Trump means whatever I say he means."
P.S. nice job on ignoring the fine people hoax in the video.I wasn't ignoring it, it's the same thing we're already talking about. In fact, that's an even better example for me because you cannot possibly defend Trump's words without accepting every single argument I've made here which you are actively rejecting.
Shouting "context" is not an argument. Trump says "people" and "sides", it depends on what "sides" he was referring to. There is no doubt as to what "the 2016 election" is.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy CarterIt is and Hillary made the same claim.
I know, and is it "sensible" to claim that just because these democrats used these same words as MAGA election deniers that does not mean the democrats were actually denying elections?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
[ADOL] Since a doctor should absolutely not hide anything about someone's medical state from the person in question any refusal to reveal any information is suspicious.[Double_R] The situation you describe is suspicious because you defined it as being suspicious.If someone is "hiding" something from you, they're by definition doing it to conceal the truth.The question here is whether one's withholding of the facts is being done to conceal the truth or for other legitimate reasons, such as for example the protection of rights. The motivation here is the question, you don't get to declare your point proven by asserting it so.
He usually has sensible political opinions
I've got a list that says otherwise.
Is this denying election results?:
"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Explain the context where you say ["If I don't win this election it's going to be a blood bath"] and that isn't ["an endorsement of political violence"].Am I going to ignore your answer? Yes, because there is no context that changes that. The sentence is complete and specific. There are no alternate interpretations or pronouns to identify. There is no secondary reference or conditionals.Fixed. If it works for you then it works for me.
No it doesn't because "bloodbath" could mean many things besides political violence but "win that election" only means one.
then go on to write multiple paragraphs explaining in detail why the comments in context of the situation being discussed does not mean what you claim.
Excuses, you explained their excuses for making the statement. Excuses don't change the meaning. That's not context.
If I said Biden didn't win the election because of X I still said Biden didn't win the election. Democrats still denied (purported) election results. You will never be able to change that.
would bother to read it and point out the errors
The error is one of relevance. That's why I can ignore it.
Context doesn't change the meaning of words
It doesn't change them to whatever your political biases might find convenient.
That's a nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them.
Is coded language. If nobody ever watched mafia films/TV they would have no idea what it meant.
"peacefully protest" is not code for anything but "peacefully protest" in any context. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE OTHERWISE.
P.S. nice job on ignoring the fine people hoax in the video. Never let them see you bleed right?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd like to remind everyone that Double_R wants you to know that just because they hide something your suspicions are not warranted. What with the trumpets running around the country we can't just hand out definitions to anyone. They might use those definitions for evil!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You've been ignoring context for weeks now
Sure pal.
Explain the context where you say "Donald Trump did not win 2016 election" and that isn't "denying election results"
Am I going to ignore your answer? Yes, because there is no context that changes that. The sentence is complete and specific. There are no alternate interpretations or pronouns to identify. There is no secondary reference or conditionals.
You're just nuts, and you think you can just say "context" and have sentences mean things they do not.
Context! therefore "peacefully" doesn't mean peacefully.
Context! therefore explicit election denial doesn't mean election denial.
Unless you care to explain what part I am missing that explains how Biden is a liar here...
Biden is no longer mentally competent to be a proven liar. Whoever made that ad is lying though. The "very fine people" hoax has been debunked for years repeatedly. The whole conference is recorded and available and it does not bear belief that you don't already know that he was NOT talking about white supremacists or neo nazis.
So when somebody puts video of white supremacists and neo nazis on screen while they play the clip, that's lying.
If the right-tribe did that to Biden... oh wait Q-Anon has. They put Biden talking about liking kids sitting on his lap to a background of pedophilia stats and "warning signs".
Now imagine that the Trump campaign ran that as a global campaign.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Suddenly the context-magic stops. Amazing.So very predictable. Liars gona lie.How is anything in this ad a lie? It's literally his own words.
Created: