Stupid World

[TheDemonLord]

No, just calling you out. If you had context that was applicable to add, you could add it. You can't because you are lying about it's applicability. You were asked a simple question, and gave a simple answer. You now refuse to answer the same question with different phrasing. You also refuse to back up your assertions that there was other relevant context.

I've given you the correct Context umpteen times. The fact you still ask for it, shows you've been willfully ignoring it.

The exception was always present in my standard, just because you were not aware of it, doesn't mean it was not there.

And yet, the Timing was impeccable.

Some might even say 'suspicious'

I have explained my exception and standard to you, you cannot argue against the logic, so you pointlessly argue against their admission.

Oh, so now it IS your exception, applied at your Whim (like I said it was all along)

Tell you what - you take some time to work it out, come back to me when you can make two consecutive posts that don't contradict each other. Then we can talk about Logic (and your clear lack thereof)

[husaberg]

Do you accept the Standard of Evidence?



I've never said that, I said that the Women were free to set the limits for themselves and their bodies. If that means people who are worth over $X can do whatever, that's their business.

Why are you concerned as to what Women allow some men to do to them? Are you Jealous?







And since you clearly articulated that Self-harm is a risk factor for Suicide, and your quote was 'Mysoginistic Rant' - would that be sufficient or will you need to do some more Hand waiving?

So not evidence yet aye
Depite you saying you had already posted it.
Why isn't it Here
And Here

ps i think you are confusing me posting stupid stuff to match your equally stupid stuff dude.

Also saying you don't like a headline is when i asked for the objectionable material grasping a straws even for you, you do realise the editors write the headlines and that publications editor is a dude.

[TheDemonLord]

So not evidence yet aye
Depite you saying you had already posted it.
Why isn't it Here
And Here

Curiously, the acknowledgement of the Standard of Evidence is also missing.

You're the one making the demand, yet you refuse to set the parameters of the Demand, most dishonest.

ps i think you are confusing me posting stupid shit to match your stupid shit dude.

You mean trying to change the subject - the thing you accused me of doing? The point was, you seem to have an issue with what some women will let some men do to them.

I'm highlighting this as a hilarious example of Double Standards: You argue from the Feminist perspective, but then implicitly place dictates on what they can do with their body.

Also saying you don't like a headline is when i asked for the objectionable material grasping a straws even for you, you do realise the editors write the headlines and that publications editor is a dude.

I've never said I didn't like the Headline, or the content of the Article, Are you drunk?
The point of those articles was to show that your statement was not only incorrect, but the opposite was actually true: That Feminists for YEARS have been linking 'Mysoginistic rants' (as you put it) with Self Harm (a suicide risk factor) and Suicide itself.

[husaberg]

Curiously, the acknowledgement of the Standard of Evidence is also missing.

You're the one making the demand, yet you refuse to set the parameters of the Demand, most dishonest.



You mean trying to change the subject - the thing you accused me of doing? The point was, you seem to have an issue with what some women will let some men do to them.

I'm highlighting this as a hilarious example of Double Standards: You argue from the Feminist perspective, but then implicitly place dictates on what they can do with their body.



I've never said I didn't like the Headline, or the content of the Article, Are you drunk?
The point of those articles was to show that your statement was not only incorrect, but the opposite was actually true: That Feminists for YEARS have been linking 'Mysoginistic rants' (as you put it) with Self Harm (a suicide risk factor) and Suicide itself.

yet to see this evidence funny how you are now struggling to find it considering you claimed to have already posted it.

You gave the title i asked you twice to post exactly what was in the contents you produced nothing.

now you are saying the feminists for years have linked misogynistic rants with female suicide
seeing as you said this has been going on for years"and post 20 examples of credible material to back up your statement.

[TheDemonLord]

yet to see this evidence funny how you are now struggling to find it considering you claimed to have already posted it.

I'm not struggling at all, I'll elaborate further below.

You gave the title i asked you twice to post exactly what was in the contents you produced nothing.

The Title, in this case, is sufficient. Since it shows clearly that people are doing the opposite of what you said they were.

now you are saying the feminists for years have linked misogynistic rants with female suicide
seeing as you said this has been going on for years"and post 20 examples of credible material to back up your statement.

I posted 3 (well, 4 if you include the Anita Sarkeesian reference), you ignore them and demand 20.

This is your classic moving of the Goal Posts. It's also why you refuse to agree to the standard of evidence I set out, because once you agree to it, you can't move the Goal Posts. It's also why I'm insisting that you set out your requirements for evidence before posting up the exact quotations from the various people I cited (which was what you originally asked for).

I'll simply restate: Agree to the standard of Evidence (which is an articulation of the level of evidence you posted), and I'll proceed.

However, all this Strawmen, Goalpost moving, Non-sequiturs, Red Herrings etc. etc. that you've tried is a demonstration that you have nothing tenable to backup your position.

[husaberg]

I'm not struggling at all, I'll elaborate further below.



T.

If you simply posted your evidence you wouldn't need to go on and on why you weren't posting it.
Especially given you claim to have it
Plus you claim to have already posted it
So post the evidence here or get off the pot.

[Viking01]

Not content with getting up Russian noses in recent times, the UK
Defence Minister has just sized up Chinese noses for good measure
as well - and with quite predictable results ..... 8-)

https://southfront.org/china-dramati...licose-speech/

https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/02/15...hina-with-war/

When your own home team (currently negotiating Brexit) calls you
an idiot for your comments, you know that you've managed to shift
the bar of gross stupidity to new lows. Well done.

[Graystone]

I've given you the correct Context umpteen times. The fact you still ask for it, shows you've been willfully ignoring it.



And yet, the Timing was impeccable.

Some might even say 'suspicious'



Oh, so now it IS your exception, applied at your Whim (like I said it was all along)

Tell you what - you take some time to work it out, come back to me when you can make two consecutive posts that don't contradict each other. Then we can talk about Logic (and your clear lack thereof)

If you simply posted your context you wouldn't need to go on and on why you weren't posting it. I can post mine again if that would help?

"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?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275

Perhaps not posting it is your discretionary exception to the basic standard of evidence and backing yourself up, that you seek to apply to others?

The timing, is due to relevance. The exception, is part of my standard, so I'm not sure why you would think it was anyone else's, but the clarity I provide, means it cannot be applied at a whim. There was no contradiction in the posts, when have I stated it was not my standard or exception?

[TheDemonLord]

If you simply posted your evidence you wouldn't need to go on and on why you weren't posting it.
Especially given you claim to have it
Plus you claim to have already posted it
So post the evidence here or get off the pot.

All could be resolved if you'd simply state your standard of Evidence.

I post 3 articles to show you are talking crap, you dismiss them, and demand 20.

The reason for dismissal is curiously never articulated. You've made claims how I should just believe a Psychologist who works for Mental Health NZ, but are curiously silent when I reference a world-famous Psychologist with 1000's of citations of his work.

We both know the refusal on your part to agree to a standard, is because you are smart enough to know damn well that I can back up what I've said, in such a way that meets said standard - which would be rather inconvenient for your ideologically driven position.

[TheDemonLord]

If you simply posted your context you wouldn't need to go on and on why you weren't posting it. I can post mine again if that would help?

"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?"
to which I replied
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
and you replied "yes", from post 10275

Perhaps not posting it is your discretionary exception to the basic standard of evidence and backing yourself up, that you seek to apply to others?

Did you miss the parts where I repeatedly referred to the prior and subsequent posts, you know, the ones that give the context? Did you miss the part where I linked this specifically to the accusation I made against you, not the question I made against others?

Seeing as you are having trouble with this - see the paragraph of post 10262 (where I made the accusation), the middle of post 10275 (where the evidence for said accusation was given) bottom half of post 10280 (where the context is clarified as to what it's in relation top).

The timing, is due to relevance.

Indeed:

"Oh shit! I got busted, better make up some Bullshit to try and save face"

Very relevant indeed.

The exception, is part of my standard, so I'm not sure why you would think it was anyone else's, but the clarity I provide, means it cannot be applied at a whim.

Except that is exactly what it means. It's fun to see how badly you are tying yourself in Knots here.

Let me help (cause I'm a nice person like that) - If I was to reference the Law on a matter, it's not my Standard, nor am I the one setting it, nor am I the one who sets the exception. All I can do is make comparison between what is presented and the 3rd party, objective standard.

If I'm referencing my own judgement, then any standards I may personally hold and any exceptions are applied solely at my Whim. I may choose to hold to those standards (such as having to defend Alex Jones, because his right is my right) or may choose not to hold those standards (like you are doing, when those standards become a tad inconvenient) but to try and make out that it is anything other than your Whims that dictate how and when you apply your own standards is farcical.

Either set the Standard, hold to it.
Or
Admit your hypocrisy.

Eitherway, we both know your reluctance to do so is because regardless of your choice - I'm going to nail you on it.

There was no contradiction in the posts, when have I stated it was not my standard or exception?

Implicitly, everytime you tried to deny that it was solely at your discretion that this was being applied - see above.

[Graystone]

Did you miss the parts where I repeatedly referred to the prior and subsequent posts, you know, the ones that give the context? Did you miss the part where I linked this specifically to the accusation I made against you, not the question I made against others?

Seeing as you are having trouble with this - see the paragraph of post 10262 (where I made the accusation), the middle of post 10275 (where the evidence for said accusation was given) bottom half of post 10280 (where the context is clarified as to what it's in relation top).





Indeed:

"Oh shit! I got busted, better make up some Bullshit to try and save face"

Very relevant indeed.



Except that is exactly what it means. It's fun to see how badly you are tying yourself in Knots here.

Let me help (cause I'm a nice person like that) - If I was to reference the Law on a matter, it's not my Standard, nor am I the one setting it, nor am I the one who sets the exception. All I can do is make comparison between what is presented and the 3rd party, objective standard.

If I'm referencing my own judgement, then any standards I may personally hold and any exceptions are applied solely at my Whim. I may choose to hold to those standards (such as having to defend Alex Jones, because his right is my right) or may choose not to hold those standards (like you are doing, when those standards become a tad inconvenient) but to try and make out that it is anything other than your Whims that dictate how and when you apply your own standards is farcical.

Either set the Standard, hold to it.
Or
Admit your hypocrisy.

Eitherway, we both know your reluctance to do so is because regardless of your choice - I'm going to nail you on it.



Implicitly, everytime you tried to deny that it was solely at your discretion that this was being applied - see above.

That's a different accusation, there you claimed I just sat idly by. When you answered yes in 10275 you added an accusation that I also called for censorship (by confirming an accusation you made at somebody else also applied to me). If you only meant the original one, you would have answered 'no' to my question in 10272

A rather biased narrative, do you have anything to back that up?

And by clarifying what the standard/exceptions are, it makes an objective measure that anyone can argue the merits for/against. I have set the standard and held to it, if you were going to 'nail' me on it, you would have done so instead of all this whinging about how it can't have any exceptions since I didn't tell you about them before I told you about them

Oh right, 'implicit' contradiction you claim you've made no error when you say yes instead of no, yet try to pull me up on an implicit contradiction? : fuck you love your own biased narrative don't you?

[husaberg]

All could be resolved if you'd simply state your standard of Evidence.

I post 3 articles to show you are talking crap, you dismiss them, and demand 20.

The reason for dismissal is curiously never articulated. You've made claims how I should just believe a Psychologist who works for Mental Health NZ, but are curiously silent when I reference a world-famous Psychologist with 1000's of citations of his work.

We both know the refusal on your part to agree to a standard, is because you are smart enough to know damn well that I can back up what I've said, in such a way that meets said standard - which would be rather inconvenient for your ideologically driven position.

There you go again
Post the facts you claim to have.
i shouldn't be hard to Post them as you claim you already have.
Post them or go away.
As what what "we both know" I know you cant post evidence that backs up your statements.
In any way shape or form that meets any logical conclusion or if using your own criteria you have already illustrated here in this thread for what you accept based on what you have already defined yourself.

[TheDemonLord]

There you go again
Post the fact you claim to have.
i shouldn't be hard to Post them as you claim you already have
Post them or go away.

Then we are at Impasse.

You want evidence, but decline to set the Standard.
I've got no faith that you'll accept the evidence (as per prior behavior, such as dismissing prominent, world renowned feminists as 'Silly bints' or dismissing 3 articles and demanding 20 ), without declaring a Standard that said evidence can be measured against.

Your reluctance is proof positive that your intention was to move the goal posts (see above 3 vs 20) once I'd posted anything,

[TheDemonLord]

That's a different accusation, there you claimed I just sat idly by. When you answered yes in 10275 you added an accusation that I also called for censorship (by confirming an accusation you made at somebody else also applied to me). If you only meant the original one, you would have answered 'no' to my question in 10272

It is different - as I've said multiple times, its the only accusation I've made against you, glad you've finally understood that. I've not added in anything, you did the adding in, then wished to argue against something you want me to have said.

And if I meant the original one, I would have clarified the context in subsequent posts. Just like I did. Y'know - all that Context I kept referencing and you kept ignoring.

A rather biased narrative, do you have anything to back that up?

Your actions thus far would be proof enough. Hell, your actions in this post alone are proof enough.

And by clarifying what the standard/exceptions are, it makes an objective measure that anyone can argue the merits for/against. I have set the standard and held to it, if you were going to 'nail' me on it, you would have done so instead of all this whinging about how it can't have any exceptions since I didn't tell you about them before I told you about them

Ah yes, a post-hoc justification... And you wonder why I might be a tad bit critical?

Except it's not an Objective measure, it's only your measure and it's only you doing the applying.

As for the rest of it, it's really simple: You stated (sans exceptions) that you have this high and noble standard.

Fine.
I expect you to stick to it.

And I called you as such, then miraculously, an exception appears - excusing you from having to meet this high and noble standard.

Then you tried to worm around by disavowing responsibility for the application of said standard and exceptions (as an attempt to make it appear objective, when it clearly is subjective, and being applied to save face) and now you are simultaneously trying to claim it's your standard and your exceptions but it's also objective but it's also not being applied at your discretion.

Oh right, 'implicit' contradiction you claim you've made no error when you say yes instead of no, yet try to pull me up on an implicit contradiction? : fuck you love your own biased narrative don't you?

Let me help you here:

it makes an objective measure

There's your explicit attempt to remove you, your biases and your actions from the equation.

[husaberg]

Then we are at Impasse.

You want evidence, but decline to set the Standard.
I've got no faith that you'll accept the evidence (as per prior behavior), without declaring a Standard.

Yet yoiu still claim to have already posted the evidence yet there is none
Lets see what you have posted
jordan peterson
Well using your already defined theorem hes out on account of this statement alone

Why did he decide to engage in politics at all? He says a couple years ago he had three clients in his private practice.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

really the cure for violence is enslaving women into forced marriage........
you cited him
yet refuse to accept the views of the NZ mental health foundation on the subject of Suicides in NZ claiming you know more that the foundation and the person who made the statement on on account of what you term as radical beliefs.