When Behavior Doesn't Match the Narrative: The Epstein Files and Trump

[TemplarKormac]

Sure. Let’s start here:

post hoc

www.law.cornell.edu

You're making a classic post hoc fallacy, assuming that because Democrats didn’t leak the Epstein files and Trump was included, that somehow proves Trump didn’t do anything wrong. That’s not how logic works.
It also doesn’t prove he did, and I’ve said that explicitly. So the only person making assumptions here is you.

Got another statement you think I can’t back up? Go ahead. Name it.

Oh, and by the way: Obama didn’t leak that Trump was under FBI investigation in 2016, even though it would’ve helped Clinton politically. And you guys still think he somehow did even now. As a distraction no less for this Trump mess. Want sources for that too?

No. In this hyper-partisan world, if you have something on your opponent that is sure to destroy them and their credibility, you don't hold on to it. The smartest thing you can do is release it and watch the destruction. Furthermore, if there were evidence of criminal activity and wrongdoing, it would have been found by now. It would have been widely disseminated among the populus. It's been going on seven years now, and nothing. Your language assumes guilt, and you simply ignore it. Do you hear yourself right now?

Furthermore, don't presume to lecture me about argumentative fallacies. Your assumption of guilt is a form of Argumentum ad hominem, which allows you to make your presumptions about Trump's character. Moreover, you exploit the ignorance of others about the evidence to incite more assumptions about the person in question, which is a form of Argumentum ad ignorantiam. What's more, you use Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence) by intentionally ignoring the circumstances that favor Trump, namely, the lack of leaks or releases from the files, if there had been any damning evidence.

But wait, there's more! By deliberately overlooking any exculpatory circumstances and the implications of there being no leaks or releases of evidence that could negatively impact Trump, and by simply focusing on the associative elements (Trump meeting with Epstein, Trump flying with Epstein to New Jersey, etc), you engage in a common fallacy known as Fallacia Suppressionis Evidentiae. More commonly known as cherry picking.

And, oh, I'm not done. You commit the classic fallacy Onus Probandi, or more commonly known as Shifting the Burden of Proof, by demanding the accused (Trump) prove his innocence or admit guilt simply based on his close proximity to or past friendship with Epstein, despite the lack of any damning releases against him during the last seven years. It is your responsibility to prove that Trump engaged in wrongdoing, and since the Democrats didn't leak or release any evidence pointing to that, you are unable to prove your claim. Your argument is finished.

Simply put, the lack of releases of damning evidence during the last seven years or during the campaign cycle is exculpatory. You assumed guilt, and I would prefer if you didn't lie.

Moreover, your failure to disprove my argument remains glaring. Instead, you cite an argumentative fallacy to prove your case. Instead of proving your claim, you attack mine because you presume that I have committed a fallacy of my own. That's not gonna fly. This is known as Argumentum ad Logicam or the Fallacist's Fallacy.

Next, you commit another classic, Ignoratio Elenchi, or Red Herring, by focusing on the supposed fallacy in my argument. You are attempting to distract with an irrelevant point, hoping to lead the discussion away from the main topic. That indicates your own argument is failing.

Do I need to write another thesis to disprove you, or are you done being deliberately obtuse?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thread done!

How unoriginal. You have no opinion of your own and resort to the bandwagon approach.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can back up my claims with logic and sources. You ducked the argument and tried to discredit me instead. That’s not just childish it’s dishonest

Was this you?

I want these files to be released and see you guys squirm some more.

It's not easy to spot, but the presumption of guilt is there. That Freudian slip will cost you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It also doesn’t prove he did, and I’ve said that explicitly. So the only person making assumptions here is you.

That was a lie.

I want these files to be released and see you guys squirm some more.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

My point is made. I rest my case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Saying your inference is flawed for presuming his innocence is not a presumption of guilt.

Oh, and let me add that making such an argument leads one in such a direction as you are attempting to presume his guilt.

 

[MarcATL]

How unoriginal. You have no opinion of your own and resort to the bandwagon approach.

Beats being a dishonest hyper-partisan hack like you

 

[Dorian Mode]

It's not hard to find photos of then 1st lady Roslyn Carter with mass murderer Jim Jones but the media never focused on it. The mainstream media lectured us that Bill Clinton's personal life was no business but his own. Today the crazy TDS left has no agenda or future for the U.S. so their only focus is hatred for Trump.

QFT. The left don't care about anything or anyone. They hate America, they hate anything even remotely American, and most of all they hate Trump. It's not even about politics anymore, and I bet they hate politics too. The only reason they live is to continue hating Trump. It's an obsession for them and they can't beat it. In comparison it is relatively easy to beat fentanyl addiction. It will take decades for the psychiatric profession to eradicate TDS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Beats being a dishonest hyper-partisan hack like you

What an absolutely stunning concession.

 

[multivita-man]

Simple question: If there had been any damning information about Trump in the Epstein files, don't you think that when the Democrats were in power, they would have released it?

You're too blinded by your loyalty to Orange Julius to realize that Democrats' values are different from MAGAs. For all their faults (and there are many), they generally don't weaponize the government the way this administration does.

 

[Frankenstein]

Well, no.

You seem to think the Democrats are as corrupt as you are. That is not the case. We are not like you.

Democrats don't politicize the justice system. They've never done so, and only those most deeply in the thrall of Satan, those headed for an eternity in hell, only souls that depraved will claim otherwise. Democratic admins stay hands off.

You and your side, you suckle at the anus of corruption, which leaves you unable to understand that normal people aren't as depraved as you are. You're corrupt party hacks, so you assume Democrats have to be corrupt party hacks as well. Ethical behavior is so alien to you, you can't even imagine someone else behaving ethically.

Again. We are not like you. We are not like you. Get that through your head.

Your party is by definition a cult, your every move is political. it's all you have ever done. You will spend eternity in hell for your motives. You don't care about people you care about votes. You don't care about lying it's you nature to lie or tell half truths. Your only goal is political power and how you can suppress people with it till they agree with you or else. Question genius, if you are the protectors of democracy as you claim, although I'm not sure where you live if you say that as we are a constitutional republic. How could you, having those files with so called evidence of Trump in them, not save everyone, and the democracy(take a civics class) and allow him to become President.

 

[SeaMajor7]

You're too blinded by your loyalty to Orange Julius to realize that Democrats' values are different from MAGAs. For all their faults (and there are many), they generally don't weaponize the government the way this administration does.

IRONY

 

[forkup]

Your assumption of guilt is a form of Argumentum ad hominem, which allows you to make your presumptions about Trump's character.

Moreover, you exploit the ignorance of others about the evidence to incite more assumptions about the person in question, which is a form of Argumentum ad ignorantiam. What's more, you use Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence) by intentionally ignoring the circumstances that favor Trump

By deliberately overlooking any exculpatory circumstances and the implications of there being no leaks or releases of evidence that could negatively impact Trump, and by simply focusing on the associative elements (Trump meeting with Epstein, Trump flying with Epstein to New Jersey, etc), you engage in a common fallacy known as Fallacia Suppressionis Evidentiae. More commonly known as cherry picking.

You commit the classic fallacy Onus Probandi, or more commonly known as Shifting the Burden of Proof, by demanding the accused (Trump) prove his innocence or admit guilt simply based on his close proximity to or past friendship with Epstein

No I didn't.

but also to protect the people whose only crime is associating with Epstein. And who you can't proof in a court of law are guilty.

The problem with it is, that those kinds of things aren't criminal just embarrassing.

I would prefer if you didn't lie.

I didn't. You just read what you want to read.

Instead, you cite an argumentative fallacy to prove your case. Instead of proving your claim, you attack mine because you presume that I have committed a fallacy of my own. That's not gonna fly. This is known as Argumentum ad Logicam or the Fallacist's Fallacy.

Next, you commit another classic, Ignoratio Elenchi, or Red Herring, by focusing on the supposed fallacy in my argument. You are attempting to distract with an irrelevant point

If your OP is based on a fallacious argument. Pointing out it's fallacious nature is fundamental.

Do I need to write another thesis to disprove you

You could. If it's anything like this one though I wouldn't in your case.

No. In this hyper-partisan world, if you have something on your opponent that is sure to destroy them and their credibility, you don't hold on to it.

Not in this case apparently.

Oh, and by the way: Obama didn’t leak that Trump was under FBI investigation in 2016, even though it would’ve helped Clinton politically. And you guys still think he somehow did even now. As a distraction no less for this Trump mess. Want sources for that too?

So., next time you write another thesis I would suggest you don't do so to someone who's got time to kill, and who knows how fallacies work, and how to avoid them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No I didn't.





I didn't. You just read what you want to read.

If your OP is based on a fallacious argument. Pointing out it's fallacious nature is fundamental.



Not in this case apparently.



So., next time you write another thesis O would suggest you don't do so to someone who's got time to kill, and who knows how fallacies, and how to avoid them.

Please stop. You're not helping yourself.

 

[forkup]

It's not easy to spot, but the presumption of guilt is there. That Freudian slip will cost you.

It's not just difficult to spot it's not there. Recognizing that a card of a hand drawn naked woman were Trump talks about shared secrets with a pedo does political damage and be glad for it. Is not the same as saying he is actually guilty of being a pedophile. It looks suspicious but doesn't prove anything.

You again are making inferences that aren't backed up by available information. It wasn't Freudian nor a slip. I'm precise with my language precisely so I can beat bad faith actors across the head with it.

 

[forkup]

Please stop. You're not helping yourself.

I’ll stop when you stop misrepresenting what I said. Until then, I’ll keep clarifying, not for you, since you’ve shown neither the will nor the capacity for a good-faith exchange, but for anyone else reading, who can now see clearly how you’d rather condescend and mislead than admit a misstep.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I’ll stop when you stop misrepresenting what I said

I am doing no such thing. You committed a Freudian slip earlier, which cued me in on your hopes of Trump's guilt. That helped me glean your true feelings on the matter.

"I hope the files are released, so I can watch you squirm," or something to that effect. It doesn't take much, but you revealed your true feelings with one meager statement.

 

[JoeB131]

Simple question: If there had been any damning information about Trump in the Epstein files, don't you think that when the Democrats were in power, they would have released it? Of course! It was an election year, and they could have easily torpedoed his campaign with it. So, why not? If there was something so scandalous in those files about Trump, why didn't Democrats release it when they had unfettered access to the files during Biden's administration? They had plenty of chances.

Professional courtesy.

Why didn't we find out about JFK and RFK Double-teaming Marilyn Monroe until years after they were all dead? Do you think the Republicans were unaware of what was happening at the time?

Maybe Biden was holding onto the "October Surprise" of the Epstein files, and after his fellow Democrats forced him out, no one bothered to tell Kamala this info was available.

The behavior doesn't match the narrative. It will continue not to, unless and until the files are released in full. I invite the leftists to stop acting like they know what's in the files. Just because his name appears in the files doesn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing on Trump's part. That's not how any of this works. You give the benefit of the doubt until contrary evidence is given.

GIven all the shit Trump has pulled in the last decade, I don't think he gets the benefit of any doubt.

He's the one actively suppressing the files, because he was told that his name appears in them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

GIven all the shit Trump has pulled in the last decade, I don't think he gets the benefit of any doubt.

Sigh. I don't know where you get that deep-seated bitterness from, but it's tiresome. I would think, given where you sit in life, that Trump's machinations would be the furthest from your mind. I mean, how much of what he's done has meaningfully impacted you?

As much at odds as we are with one another, I would give you the benefit of the doubt first, no matter how callous or crass you come across. What differentiates us is the fact I see you, an adversary, just as worthy of that benefit as those who ally with me in the political realm.

 

[Dragonlady]

Simple question: If there had been any damning information about Trump in the Epstein files, don't you think that when the Democrats were in power, they would have released it? Of course! It was an election year, and they could have easily torpedoed his campaign with it. So, why not? If there was something so scandalous in those files about Trump, why didn't Democrats release it when they had unfettered access to the files during Biden's administration? They had plenty of chances.

The behavior doesn't match the narrative. It will continue not to, unless and until the files are released in full. I invite the leftists to stop acting like they know what's in the files. Just because his name appears in the files doesn't necessarily imply any wrongdoing on Trump's part. That's not how any of this works. You give the benefit of the doubt until contrary evidence is given.

Hey fool!!! It’s not the Democrats who are demanding the release of the Epstein Files. It’s Marjorie Taylor Greene, Dan Bongino, Joe Rogan and the rest of the MAGA elite who have been pushing conspiracy theories about Democrats and Epstein for DECADES.

No, I do not think they would have released it. Why? Because the Democrats didn’t release the Steele Dossier when they got that. They gave it to the Republican Party so THEY could deal with the allegations it contained.

Trump has implicated himself with underage girls without any help from anyone. That interview he gave Howard Stern was creepy as they come. The girls hated it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He's the one actively suppressing the files, because he was told that his name appears in them.

The appearance of his name in the files does not automatically imply his guilt or the commission of any unthinkable acts.