Collusion update: "no factual evidence"

[Charles]

Attack? That's a strange word to use...



I'm talking POLICIES, Charles. Please try to keep up and not make this personal.




P-O-L-I-C-Y

Ok. Here is what you wrote (emphasis mine):

Inhuman policies? Like abortion, attempted normalization of sexual sins, and other similar leftist policies?

I am keenly aware of my own sins, Chuck. The difference is that I do not bathe in them and expect everyone else to call them acceptable.

But now, acccording to you, it is about "P-O-L-I-C-Y".

[Bill the Cat]

Which gives you not one ounce of superior knowledge to my own on the matter.


Jim

If you think a server can be hacked after it has been decommissioned, then yes. my knowledge is superior to yours.

[Charles]

Which gives you not one ounce of superior knowledge to my own on the matter.


Jim

Bill The Cat is very close to the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

[oxmixmudd]

If you think a server can be hacked after it has been decommissioned, then yes. my knowledge is superior to yours.

you said - and I quote "The Russians never hacked "Hillary" (that we can tell because she destroyed all of the evidence), despite her sucky security. ". The english there is an unqualified timeframe. it does not mean 'after Trump asked for Russian help'. It means over the entire course of its existence.

If you meant only the time frame following Trumps request, you should have said so.

Keep in mind that Putin's hatred of Hillary goes back long before Trump ran for President. The probability is very, very high that given the Russian propensity for hacking Western institutions and given that server's lax security, if Putin knew about Hillary's server, he had every bit of information on it available to him.


Jim

[Charles]

Where have I supported Trump's immorality? His personal sins?

You are doing your best to try to avoid discussing it. You start to point to Hillary instead of actually reflecting and instaead of actually adressing the issue. So the question you asked avoided the real issue which is rather obvious anyway.

[Bill the Cat]

You said the Trump campaign had done, and I quote, "nothing wrong".

my apologies - that was mountain man.

I am not going to do an exhaustive search of posts, If I've confused you with someone else, you can accept my apologies. But I have seen too many people whose opinions I respect and whose faith strikes me as genuine Justify grossly immoral behavior by Donald Trump and it all boggles the mind and unfortunately blurs together sometimes who is doing what.

Jim

I can assure you I have never said Trump did nothing wrong. Politics is disgusting.

[Mountain Man]

Bill The Cat is very close to the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

It is no fallacy if someone actually is an authority on a given topic.

[Bill the Cat]

Ok. Here is what you wrote (emphasis mine):





But now, acccording to you, it is about "P-O-L-I-C-Y".

It is, Charles. That's what POLITICS is about. Policies.

[Bill the Cat]

Bill The Cat is very close to the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

HAHAHAHAHAH!!! I AM an authority Charles. It's what I do for a living and have done so for 2 decades.

[Bill the Cat]

you said - and I quote "The Russians never hacked "Hillary" (that we can tell because she destroyed all of the evidence), despite her sucky security. "

In DIRECT RESPONSE to the accusation that Trump told them in the campaign speech to do so. They never hacked her server in response to Trump's joke because it was not online any longer.

. The english there is an unqualified timeframe.

Perhaps in a vacuum, but not in response to a question, unless you are expecting me to restate the question before providing responses?

it does not mean 'after Trump asked for Russian help'. It means over the entire course of its existence.

Not when asked about a specific speech.

If you meant only the time frame following Trumps request, you should have said so.

The initial claim did so for me.

Keep in mind that Putin's hatred of Hillary goes back long before Trump ran for President. The probability is very, very high that given the Russian propensity for hacking Western institutions and given that server's lax security, if Putin knew about Hillary's server, he had every bit of information on it available to him.


Jim

While I agree with you on the very high probability, her having it wiped removed all evidence of certainty. The original claim though specifically called out Trump's joke as a real threat - as if it were possible to hack a decommissioned and disassembled server. THAT is the extent of my rebuttal.

[Charles]

It is, Charles. That's what POLITICS is about. Policies.

That is why you wrote so much about sins and then when held accountable wanted to change subject. Good try.

[Bill the Cat]

That is why you wrote so much about sins and then when held accountable wanted to change subject. Good try.

Who is changing the subject? We are talking public policies. My personal sins have nothing to do with what policies I would like to see enacted. I don't want public policies enacted that normalize sin, nor do I want to say that my sins aren't sins. How about you try being specific and not hurling elephants of "personal reflection" which could mean anything...

[Charles]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!! I AM an authority Charles. It's what I do for a living and have done so for 2 decades.

You are laughing since you don't know what the fallacy is. If you believe what an authority says solely based on the fact that he/she is an authority it is a fallacy since even authorities are sometimes wrong and disagree. So you need to provide something more than just calling yourself an authority. Reasons, evidence and facts should be easy to provide for an authority it will work a lot better than writing stuff like: "Sorry, bro. This is what I do for a living. For the DoD."

[Charles]

Who is changing the subject? We are talking public policies. My personal sins have nothing to do with what policies I would like to see enacted. I don't want public policies enacted that normalize sin, nor do I want to say that my sins aren't sins. How about you try being specific and not hurling elephants of "personal reflection" which could mean anything...

Personal reflection is the individual reflecting on, among other things, the policies they support, whether they are justifiable, fair and decent. If all you can do is point to the others, you lack the ability to reflect on this.

[Charles]

It is no fallacy if someone actually is an authority on a given topic.

Ever heard of authorities disagreeing? Ever heard of authorities being wrong? Ever heard authorities providing reasons, facts and evidence to support their claims since the fact that they are authorities in and of itself does not prove them right?