Stupid World

[Graystone]

Clearly, you do, since the original comment that started this, wasn't addressed to you or regarding you.



I've given you the context, you keep ignoring it. This is an Impasse. As Katman rightfully pointed out, the accusatory question wasn't against another, it was Rhetorical.

My pointing elsewhere is simply pointing at objective reality, which you keep refusing.



I've given you quotes for all that you've demanded of me.
You've given me zero quotes for all that I've demanded of you.

So, stop using words like 'Gish Gallop' (which this clearly is not), and how about you either:

A: Retract the blatant fabrications (which, given I believe you know them to be false, I refer to as 'lies') you've made.
B: Post up something resembling a Citation.

Given that we both know that neither will happen, I'm entirely justified in calling you a liar on this.



I have done so. You just don't like it. There's the difference.
I've provided you the quotes both before and after that show what the correct context is, you refuse to accept them.
Your refusal is not my burden of proof.
Your moving of the goalposts is also not my burden of proof.



See above. your 'reasoning' is you got caught spewing Bullshit that you can't back up and are trying to weasel your way out of it.

Irregardless of whatever I have or have not done (in your opinion) there is still a burden of proof hanging over your head for your own integrity, not mine to back up what you've said.

A Burden, which if you had any integrity, you'd meet or issue a retraction.

But as I've said (and you keep proving me right on this):

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming.

Reading a post is not the same as following a conversation.

So, why don't you back yourself up and explain what the 'yes' you responded to my question meant? Pointing at 'context' and not linking it to the post in question is not backing yourself up.

Clearly you are now applying a subjective exception to the rule of always backing yourself up. If you had backed yourself up, you could simply repost what that was, and deal with any additional questions, as I have been doing for many pages now on this first point. It's lack, goes to show your massive hypocrisy.

[TheDemonLord]

Reading a post is not the same as following a conversation.

Flip Flop.

So, why don't you back yourself up and explain what the 'yes' you responded to my question meant? Pointing at 'context' and not linking it to the post in question is not backing yourself up.

Pointing at the Context and giving the prior and subsequent quotes is backing myself up. You are refusing to accept it.

As I said - Your refusal is not my burden of proof, nor is your shifting of the goal posts.

Clearly you are now applying a subjective exception to the rule of always backing yourself up. If you had backed yourself up, you could simply repost what that was, and deal with any additional questions, as I have been doing for many pages now on this first point. It's lack, goes to show your massive hypocrisy.

Except I HAVE Backed myself up, you even acknowledge in previous statements I have pointed to specific quotes.

which is still, more than you've done.

Your quibble is that you don't like what I've pointed to. I'll restate - your refusal is not my burden of proof, nor is your shifting of the goal posts.

Now, you refuse my demands to prove your lies against me (because we both know that they are baseless and you don't have the balls to retract them), yet you demand I supply more proof to satisfy your ever-shifting goalposts. And you wonder why I might not be obliging?

All we have here is that you've been caught lying, you tried to hide behind your 'Standards' - Standards which curiously only apply to me (and only when you need them to apply to me) and don't apply to yourself (that would be Hypocrisy). Not to mention all the other crap you've tried to pull in this thread.

[Graystone]

Flip Flop.



Pointing at the Context and giving the prior and subsequent quotes is backing myself up. You are refusing to accept it.

As I said - Your refusal is not my burden of proof, nor is your shifting of the goal posts.



Except I HAVE Backed myself up, you even acknowledge in previous statements I have pointed to specific quotes.

which is still, more than you've done.

Your quibble is that you don't like what I've pointed to. I'll restate - your refusal is not my burden of proof, nor is your shifting of the goal posts.

Now, you refuse my demands to prove your lies against me (because we both know that they are baseless and you don't have the balls to retract them), yet you demand I supply more proof to satisfy your ever-shifting goalposts. And you wonder why I might not be obliging?

All we have here is that you've been caught lying, you tried to hide behind your 'Standards' - Standards which curiously only apply to me (and only when you need them to apply to me) and don't apply to yourself (that would be Hypocrisy). Not to mention all the other crap you've tried to pull in this thread.

I disagree, you have failed to relate the context, to the three posts dealing with a specific question. You have failed to explain why you answered 'yes'. You keep claiming you have provided this link, so where is it? Why do you refuse to back up that claim?

I have backed up my assertions on this first point; you should do the same, otherwise you continue to show your hypocrisy. Your notion that you only need to back yourself up to a level you deem acceptable creates a subjective exception to the rule of always backing yourself up; your further behavior of not providing that (through reiteration) despite claiming it has been covered, only doubles down on that hypocrisy.

[Katman]

You have failed to explain why you answered 'yes'. You keep claiming you have provided this link, so where is it?

It might have something to do with the unsuppressed joy you exhibit when someone you disagree with is censored.

To me, that's much the same as calling for the censoring yourself.

[Graystone]

It might have something to do with the unsuppressed joy you exhibit when someone you disagree with is censored.

To me, that's much the same as calling for the censoring yourself.

Yet that's not the reason, and that's not the same thing.

But keep trying to help ToDoLists out, he needs it, and that you're helping could give him perspective on just how wrong he is

[husaberg]

It might have something to do with the unsuppressed joy you exhibit when someone you disagree with is censored.

To me, that's much the same as calling for the censoring yourself.

Banning people for breaking site rules is okay
First amendment style Free speech rights doesn't apply to privately owned organisations like twitter youtube facebook Kiwibiker etc either.
So who has been censored other than you anyway?

[Viking01]

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...ariffs-us-farm

It amazed me somewhat when I read the above article today.

Given the background of Donald :

- Having started the US - China trade war, and crowing that he was all
in favour of a tariff based trade war ;
- Having levied US tariffs against a much higher value of goods than
the Chinese did in return ( $ 253 billion to date, with $ 267 billion
threatened - vs $ 130 billion by the Chinese in response) ;
- Having set an arbitrary date of March 1 2019 for the $ 267 billion
tranche of exports to have new tariff rates kick in (10% to 25%) ;

Donald now wants the Chinese to remove their current tariffs as some
"gesture of goodwill". What ?

All because negotiations happen to have proceeded longer than his
March 1st deadline, and that he has chosen not to change the tariff
rate (for the $ 267 billion tranche) at this point in time.

Did Donald think that it was "worth a go" (at this particular point in
trade negotiations) ?


Never mind that this "trade war" was always less about trade (US -
China current account trade imbalance), and much more about :

- Made in China 2025 initiative (including 5G and AI) ;
- Alleged cyber theft ;
- Individual companies granting IP to the Chinese as part of an agreement
to manufacture in China ;
- The restricting of Chinese access to "sensitive technologies" and halting
purchase of (or investment in) US technology companies by the Chinese ;
- Gaining increased access to (and control of) companies within the Chinese
service sectors (such as banking and insurance)

While in the meantime, the US has been taking side-action such as :

- Triggering arrest of the Huawei CFO in Canada (with potential extradition
to the US) ;
- Telling the Chinese that they must take action to stop the decline of the
Yuan : USD exchange rate.


Maybe the Chinese will surprise me, but I struggle hard to think of any good
reason why the Chinese would seriously consider accommodating his request.

[TheDemonLord]

I disagree,

Of course you do...

you have failed to relate the context, to the three posts dealing with a specific question. You have failed to explain why you answered 'yes'. You keep claiming you have provided this link, so where is it? Why do you refuse to back up that claim?

As I've said, the Yes, was in relation to the only accusation I made against you. The three posts were to show:

1: The Accusation that was made.
2: The posts, made by you, that prove the Accusation was true.
3: The clarification of the context (which you are hellbent on ignoring)

I have backed up my assertions on this first point; you should do the same,

No, you haven't. And as above, you've confirmed I've provided 3 posts. So stop this dishonest "You haven't provided proof" when clearly and by your own admission I have.

Your notion that you only need to back yourself up to a level you deem acceptable creates a subjective exception to the rule of always backing yourself up; your further behavior of not providing that (through reiteration) despite claiming it has been covered, only doubles down on that hypocrisy.

What a perfect description of exactly what you did with your whole 'Waaaaah I have Standards'

I'll simply repeat - retract the lies or post up a citation.

But we both know you won't.

[TheDemonLord]

Yet that's not the reason, and that's not the same thing.

But keep trying to help ToDoLists out, he needs it, and that you're helping could give him perspective on just how wrong he is

What's that?

A Guilt by association Fallacy?

Colour me surprised...

[Graystone]

Of course you do...


As I've said, the Yes, was in relation to the only accusation I made against you. The three posts were to show:

1: The Accusation that was made.
2: The posts, made by you, that prove the Accusation was true.
3: The clarification of the context (which you are hellbent on ignoring)



No, you haven't. And as above, you've confirmed I've provided 3 posts. So stop this dishonest "You haven't provided proof" when clearly and by your own admission I have.



What a perfect description of exactly what you did with your whole 'Waaaaah I have Standards'

I'll simply repeat - retract the lies or post up a citation.

But we both know you won't.

So it wasn't in response to the question I asked? the same question you quoted immediately before that answer.

The three posts were what I provided to show the context (I'll reiterate them below); I'm unsure to what three posts you refer to.

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
"yes"

They'll keep.

[oldrider]

If this was happening anywhere else in the world - would there not be outrage? - https://twitter.com/i/status/1101949005536415744 - - Why?

[husaberg]

If this was happening anywhere else in the world - would there not be outrage? - https://twitter.com/i/status/1101949005536415744 - - Why?

I dont recall you being outraged at these UN findings
https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-rep...human-shields/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/w...ar-crimes.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20180306...houta-chemical
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.3a04c88a900b
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/w...za-report.html
Quite the opposite

[TheDemonLord]

So it wasn't in response to the question I asked? the same question you quoted immediately before that answer.

The three posts were what I provided to show the context (I'll reiterate them below); I'm unsure to what three posts you refer to.

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
"yes"

They'll keep.

The three posts that you agree I quoted.

I'll simply repeat - you've been given the correct Context - that you continue to ignore it it your problem, not mine. I've fulfilled my Burden of Proof, anything else is not my concern.

My only concern at this point is demonstrating that you:

A: Made knowingly False statements about me (AKA Lying)
B: Refused to retract them when confronted and
C: Hypocritically demand proof from others, whilst coming up with ways to excuse yourself from having to do the same when confronted in the above statement.

Not to mention the myriad of other bullshit you've pulled in your repeated avoidance. An avoidance which serves to highlight and prove the fact that you've been caught lying, acting like a hypocrite and demonstrating zero integrity.

[Graystone]

The three posts that you agree I quoted.

I'll simply repeat - you've been given the correct Context - that you continue to ignore it it your problem, not mine. I've fulfilled my Burden of Proof, anything else is not my concern.

My only concern at this point is demonstrating that you:

A: Made knowingly False statements about me (AKA Lying)
B: Refused to retract them when confronted and
C: Hypocritically demand proof from others, whilst coming up with ways to excuse yourself from having to do the same when confronted in the above statement.

Not to mention the myriad of other bullshit you've pulled in your repeated avoidance. An avoidance which serves to highlight and prove the fact that you've been caught lying, acting like a hypocrite and demonstrating zero integrity.

Backing yourself up requires discussion, I keep asking what your 'yes' was in reply to, because it does not fit with the immediate context, you act as if other context somehow trumps this and changes what you were replying to, but offer only evasion when confronted by this point. That is why backing yourself up only to a subjective 'burden of proof' is an exception that makes you a hypocrite.

Which three posts?

As I've explained, they'll keep until you can demonstrate some intelligence and integrity on this first point.

[mashman]

U.S./China stuff...

James Wolfensohn, former president of The World Bank. He talks of the known production shift to the East and the likely outcomes, among other things, but a good talk that makes the tariff stuff look like nothing more than the accompanying theater.