Stupid World

[TheDemonLord]

Will you? We can move on if you do...

No. Burden of proof is on you.

Do you retract your lies or will you post a citation?

[Graystone]

No. Burden of proof is on you.

Do you retract your lies or will you post a citation?

Which I am trying to satisfy through discussion, I have provided rational justification (as outlined in the bit of the post you failed to quote) on the topic at hand, faced with it, you seek to change the subject. Why should I play along with that? Why would I expect that next time you will find some rationality or integrity when you have just demonstrated you lack these things? It has been the same with your bluster and confusion about the Twitter CEOs remarks, the same as your inability to understand the Argument From Authority fallacy, every time I satisfy your burden of proof you find something else to gallop along to...

[TheDemonLord]

Which I am trying to satisfy through discussion, I have provided rational justification (as outlined in the bit of the post you failed to quote) on the topic at hand, faced with it, you seek to change the subject. Why should I play along with that? Why would I expect that next time you will find some rationality or integrity when you have just demonstrated you lack these things? It has been the same with your bluster and confusion about the Twitter CEOs remarks, the same as your inability to understand the Argument From Authority fallacy, every time I satisfy your burden of proof you find something else to gallop along to...

Irrelevant.

Do you retract your lies or will you post a citation?

[Graystone]

Irrelevant.

Do you retract your lies or will you post a citation?

Discussion and rational justification is irrelevant?

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:

Is the original quote we are discussing, since then (and in reference to this) you have said:

I ignored the question because it was irrelevant.

Which clearly you did not, as you truncated my post to quote only the question, and the response you gave would not have made any sense without the question. So I have cited and back up my points about why you remain wrong on this very simple answer you gave.

You have also said (again in reference to the above quotes):

It may not fit the immediate context, but it does fit the context of what I said, in relation to you and have repeatedly referred to.

Which shows your irrationality, by not seeing anything wrong with answering a question with an answer to a different question which may not have even been asked. So again, I've cited and backed up my claims about you being wrong on such a very simple point.

[TheDemonLord]

Discussion and rational justification is irrelevant?

You are doing neither.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?

Is the original quote we are discussing, since then (and in reference to this) you have said:

When you decide to apply your own standards to yourself, I may be inclined to clarify, until then:

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?

Which clearly you did not, as you truncated my post to quote only the question, and the response you gave would not have made any sense without the question. So I have cited and back up my points about why you remain wrong on this very simple answer you gave.

I've made it clear, I never made that accusation against you, that comment was not directed at you, and that the 'yes' pertains only to that which I have spoken about you.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?

You have also said (again in reference to the above quotes):

Which shows your irrationality, by not seeing anything wrong with answering a question with an answer to a different question which may not have even been asked. So again, I've cited and backed up my claims about you being wrong on such a very simple point.

I've given you the clarification with the prior and subsequent posts that show the correct meaning and context, the question you keep asking has been rendered irrelevant by said clarification. That's the very definition of irrationality, and it's coming from you.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?

[Graystone]

You are doing neither.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?



When you decide to apply your own standards to yourself, I may be inclined to clarify, until then:

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?



I've made it clear, I never made that accusation against you, that comment was not directed at you, and that the 'yes' pertains only to that which I have spoken about you.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?



I've given you the clarification with the prior and subsequent posts that show the correct meaning and context, the question you keep asking has been rendered irrelevant by said clarification. That's the very definition of irrationality, and it's coming from you.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?

Aren't I? Perhaps you should back that up

Which part of my standards am I not applying to myself?

The 'yes' pertains to the question you answered with it. It's absurd that you claim to have been referring to something else entirely, after you took the time to quote only that question. Either you are irrational, and think little of having a logical discussion, or you are dishonest and seek to lie about your response in a post-hoc justification.
It is not a clarification though, as a clarification should add information to reduce confusion or misinterpretation, your clarification only increases those things. Why trim the quote? Why quote at all if you were responding to something different?

[Viking01]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...imulation-rand

[TheDemonLord]

Aren't I? Perhaps you should back that up

Have you fulfilled your burden of proof and posted a citation or Have you retracted the lies?

No?

There's the back up to that statement.

Which part of my standards am I not applying to myself?

Compare the number of times you've asked me for references and citations (and you acknowledge I've given them) to the times I've asked you for such.

Will you retract the lies or will you post a citation?

The 'yes' pertains to the question you answered with it. It's absurd that you claim to have been referring to something else entirely,

Not if the something else is the only accusation I've ever made against you. That's the bit you are leaving out.

Just like you are leaving out the citation or a retraction for the lies.

Either you are irrational, and think little of having a logical discussion, or you are dishonest and seek to lie about your response in a post-hoc justification.

Except the part you are leaving out. Namely the prior statements, which shows that it cannot be a post-hoc justification and confirms what the correct meaning is.

You'd accept that if you were having a logical discussion, but as above - we've proved you aren't.

Which is why you still have not posted a citation or a retraction.

It is not a clarification though, as a clarification should add information to reduce confusion or misinterpretation, your clarification only increases those things. Why trim the quote? Why quote at all if you were responding to something different?

If you are too stupid to understand the Clarifcation, that's neither my burden of proof nor my issue. I don't believe you are that stupid however, so I'm left with you dishonestly choosing not to understand the clarification, an explanation which falls right in line with all your other actions.

Still no citation or retraction...

[Graystone]

Have you fulfilled your burden of proof and posted a citation or Have you retracted the lies?

No?

There's the back up to that statement.



Compare the number of times you've asked me for references and citations (and you acknowledge I've given them) to the times I've asked you for such.

Will you retract the lies or will you post a citation?



Not if the something else is the only accusation I've ever made against you. That's the bit you are leaving out.

Just like you are leaving out the citation or a retraction for the lies.



Except the part you are leaving out. Namely the prior statements, which shows that it cannot be a post-hoc justification and confirms what the correct meaning is.

You'd accept that if you were having a logical discussion, but as above - we've proved you aren't.

Which is why you still have not posted a citation or a retraction.



If you are too stupid to understand the Clarifcation, that's neither my burden of proof nor my issue. I don't believe you are that stupid however, so I'm left with you dishonestly choosing not to understand the clarification, an explanation which falls right in line with all your other actions.

Still no citation or retraction...

Have I been attempting a rational discussion though? Yes. And I have fulfilled my burden of proof and posted a citation in post 10579.

As above, I have been providing such things, the difference is that you want to gallop off to a different topic entirely because this one has not turned out the way you would like, I'm actually requiring you to back yourself up, to adhere to your own standards by highlighting your irrationality and dishonesty on this point.

The something else doesn't matter, as you were not responding to it. Despite you ignoring the latter part of that sentence, you did quote the question you responded to.

It is a post hoc justification since you could have dishonestly changed what the yes referred to after you posted it. Clearly it was in response to the yes/no question you quoted at the time, otherwise why did you quote it? Why did you not provide any additional context for the 'yes' to indicate it didn't refer to the question you quoted and responded to?

If you insist on asserting it is a clarification, then clarify why you trimmed the quote? Why quote at all if you were responding to something different?

[FlangMasterJ]

Cool thread guys.

[husaberg]

Cool thread guys.

If you put one or both on ignore it cuts down the page size a bit.
Kb legend says it started over one, not doing the KB wave to the other.

[FJRider]

... Kb legend says it started over one, not doing the KB wave to the other.

The KB wave is secret. Those without proper security clearance (and the qualifying number in their post count) will not be told (or will admit) there IS a secret wave.

I'm not even sure you have (official) acknowledgement of your status in this regard ...

[Voltaire]

Cool thread guys.

Needs more citations

[husaberg]

[Berries]

Anyone seen the new Laurel and Hardy film?