No, because again with you, the well has effectively been poisoned.
False dilemma fallacy, because what could have have occurred is the accusers felt that Hillary was being threatening in what she said but she was in fact irate about what they "had done for Bill" which she thought was consensual intercourse. Perhaps no one is lying, which is a viable alternative.
For the last time, I'd urge you to take advice from the final portion of my posts in the last page and re-evaluate. I mean that sincerely.
Really? You're still trying this nonsense here? Anyhow: I've not called any of Bill's victims liars. That seems to be a position you've invented and applied it to me.
You disagreed with my edit of your words. This is how this all started.
Again, let's start over:
Robtard's words:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.
My correction:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.
Why do you disagree that Hillary enabled Bill? This is not a "because it's her husband" we've covered this angle already. The accusers are stating things which clearly indicates Hillary knew and was not just choosing her husband's side. She indirectly threatened them and enabled Bill's behavior.
It can only come down to you disagreeing with the accusers and you think they are lying.
So who is lying?
The accusers or Hillary?
This has been my entire point and you keep dodging it. I've asked someone else to read this exchange and they thought my point was pretty obvious and it's clearly being dodged (and this person things I'm full of hot air so it's not a pal) so I'm not going crazy.
Edit - So if you don't think the accusers are liars then you agree with my edit of your wording and the whole "Hillary is just taking her husband's side of things" is a side argument that you now disagree with?
Despite ignoring absolutely everything else discussed here, I didn't think you'd swipe the brush across everything. If it's that bad? Well, then it's that bad.
Holy fuck, are you genuinely doubling down on your original strawmanning? Robtard doesn't think the accusers are lying. We've established this so do you just think you can wish this into something that's true?
What part of "this-is-a-false-dilemma-because-neither-party-may-be-lying" didn't resonate, dadudemon?
BTW, your edit is for sure a false equivocation but that is broaching the tip of an incredibly massive iceberg that likely is the one that fucked the Titanic.
pls stop
__________________
Nothing ever ends.
Last edited by Gehenna on Nov 20th, 2017 at 06:40 PM
No where in that post does it say I believe Bill's accusers are lying and I made it clear from my first post in here that I believe Bill's guilty of being a sexual predator, so I would be believing his accusers.
You dodged my point, entirely. You've been dodging it since the beginning.
To ensure we don't keep getting off track, do you know what my point is? You can use your words or mine: it doesn't matter. From my perspective, you don't seem to understand my point at all.
Edit - If you're trolling me, I admit, you've got me. If you're not, then just summarize what you think my point actually is. I won't be a dick: I promise.
I've dodged nothing of yours, nor am I trolling you. At this point, your point seems to be wanting to muck everything up as you've accused me of using read herrings and strawmanning you, when I've done neither.
edit: You keep asserting that I said/believe Bill's innocent and that his accusers are lying, when I've not done that. The opposite actually.
If you're out, you could just say it, dadudemon. I can sympathize being in your position, as it will be challenging to respond whilst juggling not being able to push past your own pride to admit wrongdoing or being incorrect.
Don't accuse someone of dodging and then pretend I don't exist. I undoubtedly predict some sort of "no, you don't get the point" nonsense but, at the bare minimum, you should respond. It's important to avoid hypocrisy if you're going to go at Robtard regarding his supposed dodging.
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
So you don't understand my point. Great. We can go somewhere form here.
Okay, then I'll clarify it.
Robtard's words:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who believed her crappy cheating sexual predator husband than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.
My correction:
Was going to say a "TIL", but I actually learned yesterday that it's worse to vote for a woman who enabled her creepy cheating sexual predator husband that lied about it than it is to vote for a sexual predator who bragged about it.
I put that she enabled her sexual predator husband in my rewording. Not that she believed. That's a non-issue to me. I don't think it applies to this situation, at all.
I've quoted the victims where they describe Hillary threatening them and indicating she was aware of Bill's illegal sexual activity.
This is what you keep dodging.
Either the victims are lying about the threats and Hillary is telling the truth. Or the victims are telling the truth and Hillary is lying, enabled Bill's behavior, and threatened the victims. This is not a false dichotomy: this is who you believe. You've taken an odd middle ground where you're choosing some of column A and some of column B.
Let's be quite clear at no point did I wish or do I wish to talk about you denying Bill was a predator. That's not something I ever wanted to talk about nor was it even interesting. It was one sentence at the end of multiple jokes where I ****ed up majorly because you've latched onto this as if it is the only point I ever intended to make.
I think I've made it clear that Bill's accusers are not lying, because Bill's a sex-pred and that Hillary is possibly not lying, because she believed her husband's account of the rape allegations(separate from the consensual cheating incidents), as spouses often do believe their significant other. Backfire went on to use a current example with Moore's wife.
Yeah, you know what? I'd pretend I didn't exist either. You're not ignoring me in the DNA thread, dadudemon. Stop sweating and please at least address me. I want a definitive answer if you've conceded or if there is another reason you are pretending I've been vaporized. lol?
__________________
Nothing ever ends.
Last edited by Gehenna on Nov 20th, 2017 at 07:01 PM
You've talked about everything except my point. Why? Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over but still dodge the actual point?
What's your goal?
Again, here is my point:
Either the victims are lying about the threats and Hillary is telling the truth. Or the victims are telling the truth and Hillary is lying, enabled Bill's behavior, and threatened the victims. This is not a false dichotomy: this is who you believe. You've taken an odd middle ground where you're choosing some of column A and some of column B.
No, that's the narrative you're trying to force on me, I never commented on that. This started because you first created a strawman where I apparently thought Bill wasn't a sexual predator(I stated he was from my first post) and when I pointed out what you were doing, you accused me of the strawmanning.
But if someone truly believes something which is false to be true, they're wrong, but they're not lying when they say said falsehood. eg Moore's wife. Anyow, have fun I guess.
It is a false dilemma ("dichotomy" sounded fancier, I take it?), as explained here:
Is you saying "it's not a false dichotomy" when it very clearly is supposed to lend agency to your point? It's just damaging it, DDM.
Also, what you accused him off in the latter sentence that you couldn't describe is known as "argument to moderation", in which someone asserts the truth must be the middle ground. Robtard, however, has not asserted the truth must be the middle ground. He's speculated this could be the case. Your problem is you've now doubled down and think one must be lying. You're making far too many definitive statements without enough proof/information and it's leading to you making several logical mistakes.
In short? You're building a house on a swamp, DDM.
__________________
Nothing ever ends.
Last edited by Gehenna on Nov 20th, 2017 at 07:16 PM
I brought it up that the victims are also accusing Hillary of threats which is why she enabled Bill's illegal sexual behaviors.
Then....you're choosing to ignore the threats and accusations of enablement of Hillary, which is why my original rewording was about, and you refuse to take a stance on it? Is that right? Have I captured your position well?
Then you cannot disagree with my wording and think yours is better until you address the original reason I reworded your post. So we are back to the beginning. You'll have to take a stance in order to disagree with my wording.
DDM, that's... not good. I've brought up legitimate issues you've made in this thread. You're straight up opting out and not even stating why.
I wish you really had conceded because you'd know continuing with your absolutely shattered premise isn't functional. This is a mess, DDM. It's just a debate online. It doesn't take much to admit fault. What is the point of continuing on? I think you know something's off and that's why you won't respond to me.
I doubt Robtard would want to continue. I mean, to what end? You're not up to speed with everyone else here. This is why, pages ago, I told you to re-evaluate and made it clear that it was not just to be condescending. You really ought to do that.
TL;DR: You're fucking up worse than I've ever seen you fuck up.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 20th, 2017 04:42 PM
