|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3942 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Romney the Bully | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Care to speak in plain non-sarcastic honest to god English? Now, does that sound like me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You have said it once, and what you said is that it was not absolute proof, not that it isnt proof. 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. So, appropriately utilizing a word within its intended meaning doesn't advance my argument or address yours? No, I would imagine not, however, the joint effort of multiple appropriatly utilized words arranged to form coherant sentences would likely do the trick. 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.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
DrA writes:
There's always a first time for everything.
Now, does that sound like me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Sometimes I make an effort to mock an idiot... The irony of that statement makes me giggle - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3106 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
(1) There were 6 boys involved, including Romney. The other 5 boys remembered the event right down to the detail, and all their detailed accounts agreed with each other independently.
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.
(2) This should have stuck out in his memory because leading a gang of boys to assault another boy during senior year of high school is not an ordinary everyday thing that normal people do.
What? Bullying isn't a common occurance in adolesance?
quote: quote: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.
(3) I can accept that Romney indeed do not remember the event because to him it was too ordinary to remember. How many assaults did Romney lead? Irrelivant speculation.
With all due respect, I've been taking great offense to your efforts at minimizing aggravated gang assault with your choices of words. 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.
The point is you, sir, or mam, is what's wrong with our society. To you, gang rape is just a "personal dispute", plowing through a car and killed a family of 5 because you're too drunk to know any better is just a "traffic accident", and leading a gang of boys to assault a suspected homosexual is just "something". Yet another attack on my character.. shocking.Honestly, is this the extent of your abilities? You ask me to grow up. And yet you are reluctant to do so, what a pity.
Either Romney is lying about not remembering as a political dodge or he truly can't remember which would make me question his sense of right and wrong. False dilemma and irrelivant conclusion, do at least try to make some kind of rational sense... Please try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3106 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
There is no distinction between proof and absolute proof. proofNoun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. absoluteAdjective: 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... adjectiveNoun: 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.
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. Perhaps you missed it...
So, appropriately utilizing a word within its intended meaning doesn't advance my argument or address yours? No, I would imagine not, however, the joint effort of multiple appropriatly utilized words arranged to form coherant sentences would likely do the trick. 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.
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 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.
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. 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)
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. Their recollection is evedence only for what happened, not for if another party remembers what happened.
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. It is only probative of what happened, not if Romney recalls what happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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." You are cherry picking definition. Try this one:
quote: 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.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
Evlreala writes:
And you seem to be incapable of understanding my point, that leading a gang of boys to assault another boy is not just "something". 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3106 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
Excuese me?
Do your research, before you make accusations.. Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: you will be asked to give proof of your identitythis is not a proof for the existence of God Law the spoken or written evidence in a trial. the action or process of establishing the truth of a statement: it shifts the onus of proof in convictions from the police to the publicarchaic a test or trial. a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem. 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. 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.
Of course, your own purpose is for me to be wrong. So you cherry picked a different one. Even using your own chosen definition, your argument falls flat.Dishonesty seems to be a theme with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evlreala Member (Idle past 3106 days) Posts: 88 From: Portland, OR United States of America Joined: |
And you seem to be incapable of understanding my point, that leading a gang of boys to assault another boy is not just "something". 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. 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. Once again, you provide no evidence to support your case, so you resort to acting like a child.
I'm done. Again, you are absolutely right. My mistake for expecting the next president of the US to have a conscience. Grow up, it will only benifit you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Evlreala writes:
No, you don't understand my point. 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. 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.
Once again, you provide no evidence to support your case, so you resort to acting like a child.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My mistake for expecting the next president of the US to have a conscience. Weren't we discussing Mitt Romney?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
DrA writes:
You kidding? With all the Obama haters out there, romney could very well be the next president. Weren't we discussing Mitt Romney? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4176 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
You kidding? With all the Obama haters out there, romney could very well be the next president. Here is a little support for that... Message 252 Not really so funny when you actually think about it.A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ― Edward R. Murrow
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024