TPP - And Trump Idiocy

[demi-conservative]

wow Carpe. Salon? and it is reporting a rumor that was reported in the Washington Post? From a secret meeting that wasn't recorded?

Fake News outlets repeat anonymous source, best way to make it into good books of MediaBiasFactCheck.

There is consensus, you see!!!

[carpedm9587]

wow Carpe. Salon?

I just took the first one on the list. I think the original report was from WaPo.

and it is reporting a rumor that was reported in the Washington Post? From a secret meeting that wasn't recorded?

It was repeating a WaPo article attributed to an anonymous source.

Really?

Yes.

I am amazed how gullible you are on negative news about Trump while being highly skeptical in other matters.

Did you actually read my post?

and here is what the WP reported:



so he didn't say "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians"

I don't think I said he did...

He merely asked why they hesitated. That doesn't mean he didn't care. It could just mean that he didn't know why they hesitated. AND the reporter did not even witness it, it was "according to one participant" who is anonymous.

Sparko - I think you completely missed the point of my post. You said "there is no evidence." That's not true. There is evidence. It's not much. It's not attributed. And I have not found the exact quote as reported by the other poster (not sure who that was). Ergo - I do not have a basis for saying, "yep, that happened." But it is not "no evidence." It is "inadequate evidence."

That being said, as I said before, if more evidence were to surface confirming it was said, I would not be one bit surprised. It fits with his previous statements, his military choices, and his overall character. Until that happens, I'm in the maybe... camp.

[Sparko]

I just took the first one on the list. I think the original report was from WaPo.



It was repeating a WaPo article attributed to an anonymous source.



Yes.



Did you actually read my post?



I don't think I said he did...



Sparko - I think you completely missed the point of my post. You said "there is no evidence." That's not true. There is evidence. It's not much. It's not attributed. And I have not found the exact quote as reported by the other poster (not sure who that was). Ergo - I do not have a basis for saying, "yep, that happened." But it is not "no evidence." It is "inadequate evidence."

That being said, as I said before, if more evidence were to surface confirming it was said, I would not be one bit surprised. It fits with his previous statements, his military choices, and his overall character. Until that happens, I'm in the maybe... camp.

Yet you keep wanting to defend Starlight's original source who said, "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians" and nothing you have done shows Trump said that. The FACTS are that there is no substantiation that Trump said "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians" - and the sources you provided did nothing to show he did and you not being surprised if he did doesn't count. Basically I am even wondering why you are bothering to even try to substantiate that Trump said what Starlight's source said. That is for Starlight to do, or admit his source was merely making stuff up based on his view of Trump and some rumors.

If I said that "Carpe doesn't care about civilian lives" based on my knowledge that you want to ban all guns so that people can't defend themselves in their own homes, would that be a fair and accurate paraphrase of your view? I don't think so. This is about the same level as that.

[Mountain Man]

Sparko - I think you completely missed the point of my post. You said "there is no evidence." That's not true. There is evidence. It's not much. It's not attributed. And I have not found the exact quote as reported by the other poster (not sure who that was). Ergo - I do not have a basis for saying, "yep, that happened." But it is not "no evidence." It is "inadequate evidence."

Spin like that could make even Chuck Yeager toss his cookies.

To try to pass this off as merely "inadequate evidence" is intellectually dishonest.

[carpedm9587]

Yet you keep wanting to defend Starlight's original source who said, "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians" and nothing you have done shows Trump said that. The FACTS are that there is no substantiation that Trump said "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians" - and the sources you provided did nothing to show he did and you not being surprised if he did doesn't count.

I think I said all that, except you seem to think I am trying to defend Starlight, when my post was actually about your claim, "there is no evidence."

Basically I am even wondering why you are bothering to even try to substantiate that Trump said what Starlight's source said.

I'm not - so you need to read again....

That is for Starlight to do, or admit his source was merely making stuff up based on his view of Trump and some rumors.

If I said that "Carpe doesn't care about civilian lives" based on my knowledge that you want to ban all guns so that people can't defend themselves in their own homes, would that be a fair and accurate paraphrase of your view? I don't think so. This is about the same level as that.

If someone said, "there is no evidence that Carpe doesn't care about civilian lives," they would be incorrect. Many people would take my statements about guns and the 2nd amendment and suggest they provide evidence that I do not care about civilian lives. That does not mean I actually do not care. It means there is some evidence to suggest I do not care.

Again - my post was about the statement, "there is no evidence." It is essentially the same position I take when someone says, "there is no evidence that god exists." Horse hockey. There is Seer's personal story. There are the stories of the bible. There are miracle stories from around the world. There is the argument from design. The list goes on. There's a bunch of "evidence." It is just not good evidence or adequate evidence to convince me.

Maybe we should stop and determine exactly what you think the word "evidence" means?

[carpedm9587]

Spin like that could make even Chuck Yeager toss his cookies.

To try to pass this off as merely "inadequate evidence" is intellectually dishonest.

MM, you're considering me dishonest? How completely unexpected...

[Sparko]

I think I said all that, except you seem to think I am trying to defend Starlight, when my post was actually about your claim, "there is no evidence."

There is NO evidence that he said "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians"

You have not provided any. nada. zero.

If someone said, "there is no evidence that Carpe doesn't care about civilian lives," they would be incorrect. Many people would take my statements about guns and the 2nd amendment and suggest they provide evidence that I do not care about civilian lives. That does not mean I actually do not care. It means there is some evidence to suggest I do not care.

Again - my post was about the statement, "there is no evidence." It is essentially the same position I take when someone says, "there is no evidence that god exists." Horse hockey. There is Seer's personal story. There are the stories of the bible. There are miracle stories from around the world. There is the argument from design. The list goes on. There's a bunch of "evidence." It is just not good evidence or adequate evidence to convince me.

Maybe we should stop and determine exactly what you think the word "evidence" means?

wow. If I said "Carpe doesn't care about civilian lives" and used the argument that you want to repeal the 2nd, that would not be evidence, that would be spin. And untrue. It would be basically a lie meant to make you look evil. Evidence for God is not even in the same category Carp. SMH.

[Mountain Man]

MM, you're considering me dishonest? How completely unexpected...

It shouldn't be unexpected, because you are, in fact, being dishonest.

When someone asks you for evidence to support a claim (in this case that Trump said X), and you provide evidence to support a different claim (that Trump really said Y), to say that you presented evidence but that it was merely "inadequate evidence" is dishonest, because the evidence does not support the original claim (that Trump said X) in any way, shape, or form.

To expand on Sparko's example:

Claim: "carpe said, 'I don't care if innocent people die. They can all go to hell.'"
Evidence: "carpe said, 'I think guns should be strictly regulated.'"

Would you accept that as evidence to support the claim but hand-wave it as merely "inadequate evidence"? Or would you say that there was no evidence presented to support the claim? I think most rational people who didn't have a head full of post-modernist mush would go with door number 2.

[carpedm9587]

It shouldn't be unexpected, because you are, in fact, being dishonest.

No. But history suggests you won't believe that...

When someone asks you for evidence to support a claim (in this case that Trump said X), and you provide evidence to support a different claim (that Trump really said Y), to say that you presented evidence but that it was merely "inadequate evidence" is dishonest, because the evidence does not support the original claim (that Trump said X) in any way, shape, or form.

The evidence confirms the meeting/event, and confirms other statements that were claimed by Starlight. That lends credence to the rest. It is not great evidence, but it is not "no evidence."

To expand on Sparko's example:

Claim: "carpe said, 'I don't care if innocent people die. They can all go to hell.'"
Evidence: "carpe said, 'I think guns should be strictly regulated.'"

Would you accept that as evidence to support the claim but hand-wave it as merely "inadequate evidence"? Or would you say that there was no evidence presented to support the claim? I think most rational people who didn't have a head full of post-modernist mush would go with door number 2.

I answered this already. See my response to Sparko.

[carpedm9587]

There is NO evidence that he said "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians"

You have not provided any. nada. zero.

As I have said - I provided a news clipping that confirms the meeting at which this is claimed to have happened - and also reaffirms other things Starlight claims to have been said. That lends credence to the rest of the claim. It certainly proves nothing.

To give you a parallel: the bible claims Jesus gave a sermon on the mount and reports the words he said. If we unearthed a copy of the "Jerusalem Gazette" tomorrow from that day, and it contains a news article from that date that describes a "meeting of 5,000 to listen to an itinerant preacher," it would lend credence to the bible story. It would not prove Jesus said those exact words, but it would provide confirming evidence that the meeting may have occurred as described in the bible.

Same applies here.

wow. If I said "Carpe doesn't care about civilian lives" and used the argument that you want to repeal the 2nd, that would not be evidence, that would be spin. And untrue. It would be basically a lie meant to make you look evil. Evidence for God is not even in the same category Carp. SMH.

So it appears you have a different definition of "evidence" than I do. That may be the basis of our disagreement.

[Mountain Man]

The evidence confirms the meeting/event, and confirms other statements that were claimed by Starlight. That lends credence to the rest. It is not great evidence, but it is not "no evidence."

It doesn't lend any credence when the facts directly contradict the original claim! Do you really believe this nonsense, or are you just playing us?

Because if you really believe it then I guess this gives us all a free license to attribute anything we want to you, such as, "carpe posted on TheologyWeb saying that all homosexuals should be thrown off a cliff," and then link to a post where you discuss homosexuality as evidence to confirm the event and topic of discussion which will then lend "credence" to the claim even if the actual evidence shows that you said something completely different.

[Sparko]

No. But history suggests you won't believe that...



The evidence confirms the meeting/event, and confirms other statements that were claimed by Starlight. That lends credence to the rest. It is not great evidence, but it is not "no evidence."



I answered this already. See my response to Sparko.

yeah we saw your answer to me. We just don't buy it.

If I posted that you said that you didn't care about civilian lives you would have called me a liar and rightly so. And no amount of rationalization would change your mind.

[Sparko]

As I have said - I provided a news clipping that confirms the meeting at which this is claimed to have happened - and also reaffirms other things Starlight claims to have been said. That lends credence to the rest of the claim. It certainly proves nothing.

To give you a parallel: the bible claims Jesus gave a sermon on the mount and reports the words he said. If we unearthed a copy of the "Jerusalem Gazette" tomorrow from that day, and it contains a news article from that date that describes a "meeting of 5,000 to listen to an itinerant preacher," it would lend credence to the bible story. It would not prove Jesus said those exact words, but it would provide confirming evidence that the meeting may have occurred as described in the bible.

Same applies here.



So it appears you have a different definition of "evidence" than I do. That may be the basis of our disagreement.

For someone with no dog in this fight you sure are determined to rationalize the original fake quote. I thought better of you than that. I am disappointed. I guess you actually do have TDS.

ETA unless you are just pulling my leg. I notice your quip about "a different definition"

[carpedm9587]

yeah we saw your answer to me. We just don't buy it.

If I posted that you said that you didn't care about civilian lives you would have called me a liar and rightly so. And no amount of rationalization would change your mind.

I don't do, "would have" arguments. They are pointless. I'll say "no," you'll say "yes," and no one can resolve anything. Waste of time.

But I do understand you're not buying it. That much is clear.

[Sparko]

I don't do, "would have" arguments. They are pointless. I'll say "no," you'll say "yes," and no one can resolve anything. Waste of time.

But I do understand you're not buying it. That much is clear.

well we can make it an actual test and see.