The Mind of a Republican (why they are evil)

[Larkinn]

And sentence structure is your friend. Nowhere can it be implied in that sentence that it was your intent to prove that I can't support the assertion. The way you wrote the sentence it quite clearly says it was the assertion itself that you disproved. If you need to change your story because you got caught, fine. Big vicotry for Larkin. I already admitted the former. I know you will do absoultely anything before admitting to makeing a mistake. I've passed the point of debating the issue. Now the point is to simply let your arrogance hang you. I think we're getting there.

Lmao...you don't think that me saying "I proved that you can't support your bullshit assertion" implies that it was my intent to prove that you can't support the assertion? This gets more amusing as I watch you squirm, while accusing me of changing my story. You are truly pathetic. By the way...as for the "do absolutely anything before admitting to making a mistake" I refer to you when I said you are correct. Instead of taking that in stride, as I did when you made a mistake and (after squirming for a while) finally admitted it, you are continuing, for reasons unknown, to act as if I have never admitted it. Its quite obvious I did to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

 

[Larkinn]

Wrong. That is a logical fallacy. Provide proof why it was absurd or bite the wall pinhead.

Really? When you make an assertion, its a logical fallacy for me to ask you to back that up? I'm curious, what logical fallacy is that SE?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Really? When you make an assertion, its a logical fallacy for me to ask you to back that up? I'm curious, what logical fallacy is that SE?

Depends. One can not be expected to prove a negative, but if your assertion was not a negative, then technically you CAN prove it. BUT generally the one MAKING the initial claim is expected to prove the point.

 

[Larkinn]

Depends. One can not be expected to prove a negative, but if your assertion was not a negative, then technically you CAN prove it. BUT generally the one MAKING the initial claim is expected to prove the point.

My assertion was not a negative, and I can prove it (theoretically). However, as you said, he made the initial claim and is expected to prove the point.

 

[Bern80]

Lmao...you don't think that me saying "I proved that you can't support your bullshit assertion" implies that it was my intent to prove that you can't support the assertion? This gets more amusing as I watch you squirm, while accusing me of changing my story. You are truly pathetic. By the way...as for the "do absolutely anything before admitting to making a mistake" I refer to you when I said you are correct. Instead of taking that in stride, as I did when you made a mistake and (after squirming for a while) finally admitted it, you are continuing, for reasons unknown, to act as if I have never admitted it. Its quite obvious I did to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

Like I said Larkin, whatever you say.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Really? When you make an assertion, its a logical fallacy for me to ask you to back that up? I'm curious, what logical fallacy is that SE?

You're the one who made the assertion that a falsehood existed. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

 

[Larkinn]

You're the one who made the assertion that a falsehood existed. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

*sigh* and your the one who made the assertion in the first place, which is why its on your side. This is really simple stuff, boy.

 

[Scenic Point]

According to an AFP article, "The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday." I am inclined to believe this is true as it supports my belief that conservatives are inherently evil.

It's much easier to believe just the opposite of your conclusions are true.

Voting for Clinton, eh?

 

[roomy]

Once again I have jumped into a thread without reading it, the header was enough for me to come to the conclusion that those in the affirmative are fucking idiots.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

*sigh* and your the one who made the assertion in the first place, which is why its on your side. This is really simple stuff, boy.

*sigh* I thought I was speaking to a lawyer-in-the-making.
Is not a person considered innocent until proven guilty? You are the one claiming my statement is absurd (guilty). Thus it rests upon you to prove me guilty (absurd).

 

[roomy]

*sigh* I thought I was speaking to a lawyer-in-the-making.
Is not a person considered innocent until proven guilty? You are the one claiming my statement is absurd (guilty). Thus it rests upon you to prove me guilty (absurd).

Fuck off.












Dear me..........................................

 

[trobinett]

Certainly wouldn't want ROOMY as my defense lawyer.......

 

[Larkinn]

*sigh* I thought I was speaking to a lawyer-in-the-making.
Is not a person considered innocent until proven guilty? You are the one claiming my statement is absurd (guilty). Thus it rests upon you to prove me guilty (absurd).

Lmfao...

Are we in a courtroom? No? Then why are you citing courtroom procedure?

By the way, I am not trying to prove you guilty of anything, unless being wrong is a crime. We are talking about your statement, not you. Of course you specifically implied this when in the last two sentences you referred to do different things...in the first you referred to your statement, and in the second to yourself. Unless you think those two things are one and the same, it should be patently obvious even to someone like yourself that you can't link them up like that.

 

[Shattered]

Certainly wouldn't want ROOMY as my defense lawyer.......

Why not? He'd have everyone laughing so hard at his little bouts of turrets, everyone would forget why they were there.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Lmfao...

Are we in a courtroom? No? Then why are you citing courtroom procedure?

By the way, I am not trying to prove you guilty of anything, unless being wrong is a crime. We are talking about your statement, not you. Of course you specifically implied this when in the last two sentences you referred to do different things...in the first you referred to your statement, and in the second to yourself. Unless you think those two things are one and the same, it should be patently obvious even to someone like yourself that you can't link them up like that.

Well with you Larky boy it always seems like we are in some stupid courtroom.

You do nothing but pick at discussion details asking for some impossible proof instead of making your own contribution to the discussion with maybe at least a rational counter-argument. You never have anything of substance to say - just your courtroom attack tactics with lots of insults thrown in for good measure. With you it is always a win-lose proposition. It always results in the discussion at hand getting derailed and going nowhere - very predictable and boring.

 

[Larkinn]

Well with you Larky boy it always seems like we are in some stupid courtroom.

Ah, well its a pity that you take what "seems like" its the case to be true and act in that manner. I suppose that is a reasonable reason for the stupidities that are scattered through your political arguments.

You do nothing but pick at discussion details asking for some impossible proof instead of making your own contribution to the discussion with maybe at least a rational counter-argument.

Lmao...I was asking for evidence, not proof. By the way, its a bit foolish to criticize me for something you yourself were also doing .

You never have anything of substance to say - just your courtroom attack tactics

Right...nothing of substance ever gets said in a courtroom...

with lots of insults thrown in for good measure. With you it is always a win-lose proposition.

Well when you are arguing with me it always seems that you lose...but you know keep up the hope!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ah, well its a pity that you take what "seems like" its the case to be true and act in that manner. I suppose that is a reasonable reason for the stupidities that are scattered through your political arguments.

Well at least I have some, stupid or not.

Lmao...I was asking for evidence, not proof. By the way, its a bit foolish to criticize me for something you yourself were also doing .

You were not asking...you were making a claim that my statement was absurd. In return (being sick of your methods) I was asking for proof, evidence, whatever, for you to back up that claim....just doing exactly what you always do - but as expected you weaseled out.

Right...nothing of substance ever gets said in a courtroom...

Certainly not from you.

Well when you are arguing with me it always seems that you lose...but you know keep up the hope!

You mean your frivolous disputes and vain criticisms that go nowhere? I've long given up hope of a rational discussion with you.