Romney the Bully

Can I ask what you guys are rambling about? I've been reading both of your posts a couple times and I still can't understand what the hell you guys are arguing about. Care to speak in plain non-sarcastic honest to god English?

Now, does that sound like me?

There is no distinction between proof and absolute proof. Those two expression, have the same meaning. There is, however, a distinction between evidence, which means facts probative of the truth of an assertion, and proof which would means facts that inescapably require a given conclusion. [qs]accordingly [ ə kwrdinglee ]
1.correspondingly: in a way that is appropriate
2.in consequence: in accordance with what has been said or with a principle or practice
Synonyms: appropriately, suitably, correspondingly, fittingly. I did omit a comma after the word "accordingly", which created the opportunity for you to make a grammar based attack on my statement. And as is the case with with most grammar flames, your attack included one or more grammar/spelling errors. There is no such thing as a "coherant" sentence. "Appropriately" has an "e" in it.I'm going to spell out my position regarding evidence. You are free to highlight any grammar or spelling errors that you note.In deciding whether there is evidence, the question to answer is, 'does the fact that the other participants do remember the incident make it more likely that it is true that Romney is lying when he says he does not remember, than if that fact were not present.The answer is of course, 'yes'. There are a number of reasons why Romney might not remember, but at least some of those reasons would apply equally well to the five other participants. But since those other participants do remember, we can rule out all of those common excuses, thereby increasing the likelihood that Romney is simply lying.Accordingly, the recollection of the assault by the other members is evidence. But the recollection is not proof (or absolute proof), for reasons that neither of us disputes.I'll also note that the above is entirely consistent with my statements that "the fact that others remember is not absolute proof that Romney also remembers." Probative, yes, and therefore evidence. But not proof.Enjoy.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There's always a first time for everything.

The irony of that statement makes me giggle - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

You seem very capable at repeating yourself, unfortunatly, you also seem unable to grasp the fact that because someone remembers something, because many people remember something, doesn't mean someone else will remember it as well. You have provided no causal link between the two, no reasoning as to why you think this is the case. What? Bullying isn't a common occurance in adolesance?

quote:

---

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly a third of all students aged 12 - 18 reported having been bullied at school in 2007, some almost daily.

---

quote:

---

9 out of 10 LGBT teens have reported being bullied at school within the past year because of their sexual orientation, according to the most recent gay bullying statistics. Out of those numbers, almost half have reported being physically harassed followed by another quarter who reported actually being physically assaulted.

---

Bullying Statistics - Anti-Bullying Help, Facts, and More.These are recent studies (2007 and current date), sense 40 years ago, bullying involving physical assault has gone down, bullying involving physical assault and gender role/sexuality/sexual identity involvment has gone down signifigantly.Gay bashing is no longer as socially acceptable as it was in 1965.Don't try and play the numbers game unless you have the evidence to back it. Irrelivant speculation. I dont care.
Really, I don't see why you think that your being offended matters?Nor do I particularly care about your trite story either. You took an attempt of consideration as a personal offence, that seems to be your failing, not mine. Yet another attack on my character.. shocking.
Honestly, is this the extent of your abilities? And yet you are reluctant to do so, what a pity. False dilemma and irrelivant conclusion, do at least try to make some kind of rational sense...Please try again.

proof
Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.absolute
Adjective: Not qualified or diminished in any way; total: "absolute secrecy".adjective/ˈajiktiv/Noun: A word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.The funny thing about adjectives...adjective
Noun: A word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.So when you put "absolute" in front of "proof", it changed the its meaning to "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement that is not qualified or diminished in any way."So yes, there is in fact a distinction between proof and absolute proof. Perhaps you missed it... I took your grammar mistake into account, my statement still applies...I provided the definition as an example of how I understood the word, because even with the comma, it doesn't make much sense. The answer is no, as Person A's ability to remember any given event has nothing to do with Person B's ability to remember the same event. It's much like flipping coins. Let's say you flipped nine thousand nine hundred and ninty-nine coins and every time they landed on heads. What are the chances that the very next coin flipped will land on heads coin will also land on heads? (assuming a scenario where there are only two possible outcomes for flipping the coins, either heads or tails) Their recollection is evedence only for what happened, not for if another party remembers what happened. It is only probative of what happened, not if Romney recalls what happened.

You are cherry picking definition. Try this one:

quote:

---

proof
noun

​

evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

---

There is no difference between evidence necessary to establish a thing as true, and absolute evidence necessary to establish a thing as true.The use of "proof" to refer to evidence necessary to establish a thing as true is the conventional usage, and is also the usage I intended. Yes, there are other definitions, but the context forces this one.Of course, your own purpose is for me to be wrong. So you cherry picked a different one.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And you seem to be incapable of understanding my point, that leading a gang of boys to assault another boy is not just "something".Anyway, you are absolutely right. Since leading a gang of boys to assault another boy was just an everyday routine, surely no one is expected to remember it.I'm done. Again, you are absolutely right. My mistake for expecting the next president of the US to have a conscience.

Excuese me?
Do your research, before you make accusations..Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data The definition I provided fit the context, the worst you could accuse me of is using a definition you disagree with, but you then go on to provide an alternative definition. By your own accusation, you are cherry picking, never the less, let's see how your definition holds. Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth that is not qualified or diminished in any way.So sorry, the meaning still changes. Even using your own chosen definition, your argument falls flat.
Dishonesty seems to be a theme with you.

I understand your point, it's simply dishonest.
You're taking offence to an imaginary slight and expect me to feel bad over it. I don't. Deal with it. Once again, you provide no evidence to support your case, so you resort to acting like a child. Grow up, it will only benifit you.

No, you don't understand my point.Imagine this. I kidnap you. Then I rape you repeatedly over the next 2 days. After you've escaped, you report to the authority of what I've done. How would you feel if everyone you report to says "what's the big deal? It was a personal dispute. Go settle it with him."Yeah, technically speaking, rape is a personal dispute just like technically speaking leading a gang of boys in your senior year to assault another boy is "something". But by describing it as something, you continue to try to make it sound like it was the same thing as taking a walk in the park.Anyway, I'm done talking with you. It is obvious you refuse to see things specifically for what they are. To you, leading a gang of boys to assault a suspected homosexual is "something" and gang rape is "personal dispute". I'm wasting my time talking to you. Huh? You mean the evidence that the 5 boys Romney lead all remember independently down to the detail of what happened? You mean the several eye witnesses that the reporters tracked down all described the same thing?Or are you talking about Romney's memory?I've already pointed it out. Leading a gang of boys to assault another boy is not a regular everyday thing, like putting on your pants in the morning. 40 years later, and everyone involved minus the dead victim still remembers right down to the detail, everyone but the leader of the gang.You try to argue that it is entirely possible that Romney indeed doesn't remember SOMETHING from 40 years ago. And you keep repeating this SOMETHING from 40 years ago, refusing to acknowledge that this something happens to be Romney leading a gang of boys to assault another boy during SENIOR YEAR in high school.Forget for a moment that I'm not a kid. Actually, you have my permission to assume I'm 15. I don't care. You seem to think leading a gang of boys to assault another boy has the same level of effect on people as any other "something".If you have a daughter and she gets raped, would you ever describe what happened to her as a "personal dispute"? Why on god's green earth would you describe a gang of boys assaulting another boy with a lethal weapon "something"? Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Weren't we discussing Mitt Romney?

You kidding? With all the Obama haters out there, romney could very well be the next president.Hm... I recently looked into the mirror and noticed there's a big-ass scar on my face. My parents told me when I was 7 I fell from the roof, injuring my face. But that was over 20 years ago and since all events no matter how dramatic were the same, I can't remember it happening.

Here is a little support for that... Message 252Not really so funny when you actually think about it.