Originally posted by The Lost
That is really too bad, Dominic.
Check the edit
Then start from there. Skip the whole misspoke section because it's a non-issue. Robtard already covered it quite well. Edit: here is what I mean:
Originally posted by Robtard
Granted, should probably not have said the last line and is what set things off in a downward spiral.
Start with who you want to call a liar, out of the victims and Hillary, and to what degree. Then explain why your position is correct.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Check the editThen start from there. Skip the whole misspoke section because it's a non-issue. Robtard already covered it quite well.
Start with who you want to call a liar, out of the victims and Hillary, and to what degree. Then explain why your position is correct.
No, because again with you, the well has effectively been poisoned.
So the victims are lying or they are not.
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.
Originally posted by dadudemonStart with who you want to call a liar, out of the victims and Hillary, and to what degree. Then explain why your position is correct.
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.
Originally posted by Robtard
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?
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.
Nope, not crazy. Unreasonable and manipulative.
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.
It can only come down to you disagreeing with the accusers and you think they are lying.
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?
So who is lying?The accusers or Hillary?
What part of "this-is-a-false-dilemma-because-neither-party-may-be-lying" didn't resonate, dadudemon?
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?
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
Originally posted by dadudemon
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?
Already covered that in my response before:
Originally posted by Robtard
The consensual cheating? I'm sure she knew Bill's dick was flying loose, we have the Monica scandal as proof she knew. The unwanted sexual predator accusations, she probably believed Bill that those women wanted more and then turned on him out of spite. Marriages, you know.edit: So yah, what I said is more accurate when we break it down and separate the legal and criminal aspects, instead of lumping them all together to force a narrative
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.
Originally posted by Robtard
Already covered that in my response before: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.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
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.
Originally posted by Robtard
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.
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.
So the known liar here would be Bill Clinton.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've quoted the victims where they describe Hillary threatening them and indicating she was aware of Bill's illegal sexual activity.
Begging the question.
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.
False dilemma.
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?
Originally posted by Robtard
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.So the known liar here would be Bill Clinton.
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.
Are the victims lying about Hillary's threats?
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.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
Are the victims lying about Hillary's threats?
I appreciate you half-addressing me. Christ, DDM.
It is a false dilemma ("dichotomy" sounded fancier, I take it?), as explained here:
Originally posted by The Lost
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.
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.
Originally posted by Robtard
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.
You disagreed with my rewording:
Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, mine's more accurate. Spouses believe each other, even when they know better. Thanks for the equalizing tactics though 👆
And that was a dodge.
I brought it up that the victims are also accusing Hillary of threats which is why she enabled Bill's illegal sexual behaviors.
Originally posted by Robtard
Anyow, have fun I guess.
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.
Originally posted by The Lost
...
lol, goodness gracious, you want my attention so badly. Sorry, not happening. I don't want to address anything you post regarding this.
You win everything, I concede everything. So you can stop wasting your time. 👆
I'll keep responding to Robtard about this if he wishes to continue, though. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, goodness gracious, you want my attention so badly. Sorry, not happening. I don't want to address anything you post regarding this.
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.
You win everything, I concede everything. So you can stop wasting your time. 👆I'll keep responding to Robtard about this if he wishes to continue, though. 🙂
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.