Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump and QAnon gang remain the most influential power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    In the end, there was never enough evidence one way or the other to be sure of her claim it was Kavanaugh.


    That you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are. The fact is, there was no evidence that it was Kavanaugh, and quite a lot of evidence that it wasn't. We are certain of that. The only thing we are uncertain of is whether Ford was willfully lying, or if she was being manipulated and coerced into "remembering" events that never happened.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

      He was a right wing person. He would come in, spout some random/extreme nonsesne/conspiracy.

      If people explained his logic was wrong, he would reply "Assertion without evidence"
      If people explained his obvious facts were wrong he would reply "Assertion without evidence"
      If people explained his facts were wrong, and supplied links he would reply "Assertion without evidence"

      Then he would crow that he was great and nobody could ever counter what he said in the thread.
      Wasn't he also inclined to say "argument by link" when links were supplied, and refuse to look at them? Or was that someone else? I'm starting to forget.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

        Wasn't he also inclined to say "argument by link" when links were supplied, and refuse to look at them? Or was that someone else? I'm starting to forget.
        Not sure. He leaned heavily on "assertion without evidence" but regardless it was all a move to dismiss arguments without ever dealing with them.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

          You did in fact understand the point. And the only reason I gave the example was that I was accused of presenting a no win situation by saying that if those doing the Arizona audit, who expect to find fraud, and who will be greatly rewarded if thy find fraud, could be able to be judged honest if they announced they did not find fraud. Unfortunately, I need to accept the fact that making any sort of nuanced observation on this website is not likely to induce anything but a hostile and derogatory response and therefore simply isn't worth noting.
          No, sorry. Your long-winded example was justification for judging the investigation based on prior beliefs. In almost any situation you look at, people have incentives to lean one way or another. So you needn't have bothered with your Santa Claus example (which was an obvious ploy to introduce a ridiculous conclusion against all other conclusions).

          And my response was neither "hostile" nor "derogatory." Coming from the person who called me "despicable" for merely pointing out that Howard University discriminates enrollment based on race, I find your delicate sensitivities unconvincing anyway.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post



            That you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are.
            For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

            Oh - of course. Exactly.



            The fact is, there was no evidence that it was Kavanaugh, and quite a lot of evidence that it wasn't. We are certain of that. The only thing we are uncertain of is whether Ford was willfully lying, or if she was being manipulated and coerced into "remembering" events that never happened.
            A lack of evidence is not "evidence that it wasn't". And if there are reasons to doubt Ford, there are just as many to doubt Kavanaugh - though I have no intention of rehashing that topic with you.

            Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              No, sorry. Your long-winded example was justification for judging the investigation based on prior beliefs. In almost any situation you look at, people have incentives to lean one way or another. So you needn't have bothered with your Santa Claus example (which was an obvious ploy to introduce a ridiculous conclusion against all other conclusions).
              We agree the time I spent composing my analogy was wasted.

              And my response was neither "hostile" nor "derogatory." Coming from the person who called me "despicable" for merely pointing out that Howard University discriminates enrollment based on race, I find your delicate sensitivities unconvincing anyway.
              IIRC that is not a completely accurate description of how that went down, but you obviously took it personally. And I can apologize if I directly called you despicable. I am actively trying to avoid that sort of thing and will gladly apologize for any time I've said such things in the past.

              However, if I said an opinion or idea was despicable and the statement was not aimed at you directly, that's a little bit different in that I can be sorry it offended you but may still agree with the assessment of the idea or opinion.
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-04-2021, 04:42 PM.
              Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                A lack of evidence is not "evidence that it wasn't".
                Which is why I also mentioned that there was evidence supporting Kavanaugh's innocence, not least of which were the wild inconsistencies and gaping holes in Christine Fraud's ever-changing testimony but also her four named eyewitnesses who denied that such an event ever took place. Like I said, that you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Which is why I also mentioned that there was evidence supporting Kavanaugh's innocence, not least of which were the wild inconsistencies and gaping holes in Christine Fraud's ever-changing testimony but also her four named eyewitnesses who denied that such an event ever took place. Like I said, that you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are.
                  BlueAnon at full display there in Ox's posts.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                    We agree the time I spent composing my analogy was wasted.

                    IIRC that is not a completely accurate description of how that went down, but you obviously took it personally. And I can apologize if I directly called you despicable. I am actively trying to avoid that sort of thing and will gladly apologize for any time I've said such things in the past.

                    However, if I said an opinion or idea was despicable and the statement was not aimed at you directly, that's a little bit different in that I can be sorry it offended you but may still agree with the assessment of the idea or opinion.
                    Fair enough.

                    This was the thread, btw.
                    https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...cism#post23054

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Which is why I also mentioned that there was evidence supporting Kavanaugh's innocence, not least of which were the wild inconsistencies and gaping holes in Christine Fraud's ever-changing testimony but also her four named eyewitnesses who denied that such an event ever took place. Like I said, that you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are.
                      It doesn't show im 'out of touch, it shows we disagree. As for debate, I still find there is sufficient uncertainty as to make it unwise to proclaim one or the others story 'true or "false'.

                      But I will note that while you are willing to cast my position as evidence there is something wrong with me, I will cast your position simply as 'we disagree'.
                      Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                        Fair enough.

                        This was the thread, btw.
                        https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...cism#post23054
                        Thanks for the link. Yeah, I was very angry at the way the situation was being characterized - but that is no excuse. My apology stands - I was out of line in my response to you.
                        Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                          I still find there is sufficient uncertainty as to make it unwise to proclaim one or the others story 'true or "false'.
                          Which simply proves that you're out of touch, which is actually the more charitable conclusion. The less charitable conclusion is that you are willfully ignoring the facts in favor of your preferred narrative; in this case, you wish to continue to impugn Judge Kavanaugh's character by suggesting that his innocence remains in doubt. Either way, it's not a good look for someone who claims to love truth.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                            Thanks for the link. Yeah, I was very angry at the way the situation was being characterized - but that is no excuse. My apology stands - I was out of line in my response to you.
                            Well, thanks.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                              THIS^^^^^ I've actually talked to several different, quite serious QAnon people who did not like Trump and actually placed him as part of that satanic cabal of pedophiles, etc..
                              It is documented that by far the majority of QAnon believers support Trump, Trump enthusiastically supports those candidates that embrace QAnon since before the 2020 election. Trump has never condemned QAnon, nor even objected to it. There are no Democratic candidates nor elected officials that support QAnon.

                              Some reference to others outside the Republican Party that support QAnon, but nothing has been provided to support this to any extent. It is likely that some registered Independents support QAnon, but by the polls they vote for Trump, and conservative Republican candidates.

                              No one here has provided any sources to document anything other than the above.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                                It is documented that by far the majority of QAnon believers support Trump, Trump enthusiastically supports those candidates that embrace QAnon since before the 2020 election. Trump has never condemned QAnon, nor even objected to it. There are no Democratic candidates nor elected officials that support QAnon.

                                Some reference to others outside the Republican Party that support QAnon, but nothing has been provided to support this to any extent. It is likely that some registered Independents support QAnon, but by the polls they vote for Trump, and conservative Republican candidates.

                                No one here has provided any sources to document anything other than the above.
                                We schooled you on The Great Bludgeoning Lie --- that should be worth something!
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Today, 12:06 PM
                                1 response
                                29 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:43 AM
                                25 responses
                                144 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:27 AM
                                14 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by seer, 06-17-2021, 11:25 AM
                                7 responses
                                73 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by oxmixmudd, 06-17-2021, 11:16 AM
                                66 responses
                                431 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Working...
                                X