By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 19 September 2018
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:

If you tell me to go read your ten pages of evidence, and the first five are literally nonsense, I feel justified in not reading the other five.  You presented the links as showing "Plenty of reasons that sure make it look like there have been plenty of leaks from Muellers team, whether the leaks went straight to the media or through another source."  I gave the first 50% of the evidence you cited a good solid read and it did not support your statement at all.  I don't mean "not sufficiently to convince me", I mean "not sufficiently to even suggest what you are claiming is one iota more likely than before I read this."  It's possible I missed something, but until that's shown, you can try to turn this around on me all you want, but it's not going to work. 

Regarding your point about smoke and fire, I hope you're not seriously suggesting that we can never establish an observed pattern of behavior and use that to make judgments about what is likely (not 100% absolutely known, but likely) to be true in other situations.  The argument is that Trump's pattern of behavior is to lie or bullshit or somehow think he's telling the truth but be massively wrong (in ways that he could have fact-checked in literally two minutes) time and time again.  This has not been established to be true of certain other parties.*  Similarly, White House leaks vs. Mueller leaks.  (vs. congressional leaks?  Not sure if that would apply in this case)

If you think the topic has been derailed, and don't want to go there, then by all means try to rein it back in and only discuss what you originally wanted to discuss.  But you weren't doing that.* 

* (For example, you say the media lies more than Trump.  Perhaps true by raw number of lies if you consider the number of journalists on the whole planet and include North Korean state-run media and InfoWars, but the claim is certainly false given "mass media, on a percentage basis, in the United States".  I'd like to know what evidence you were basing your statement on but it would probably be a path you don't want to go down.)

What if the other 5 make up for the first 10 you didn't find useful? If the world doesn't hand you everything immediately on a silver platter you just move on instead? I did not present my statement as proof of the links. Your assuming this. You want me to try and convince you, when you didn't bother to go over everything, and then tell me it won't change your mind anyway?

I didn't suggest you can't bring indirect evidence into the matter, the other individual in the conversation did. I was just pointing out those rules were apparently in play. If you don't agree with that, don't complain to me.

Well based on my previous points about spin on a level where it never ends, mostly from the media, it's not always that easy to try and rein it back in, without having someone try and call you out, and/or assume your simply using more 'excuses' to get out of an argument you can't 'win'. At this point, it seemed like it was clear nothing I was saying was going to be taken seriously and was going to be labeled an excuse regardless, and there is no point continuing a conversation in that case, which is why I brought it up.

Your asking me to go through the entire history of the media and it's lies, and figure out the ratio's, and do the same for Trump, and compare them to see who's the bigger liar? That in itself is ridiculous, especially considering you would only read half of just one of my posts. Equality?