By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 22 September 2018
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:

Your analogy is flawed, a little like your brain.  It's easy enough to fix the analogy, though.  Let's say you brought in a car and told me that all four brakes are completely trashed and need replacing.  I look at it and call you back, saying that I checked the front brakes and they're in perfect condition.  Are you sure you brought me the right car?  There are a few options for you at that point: 
1.  I must have made a mistake, please check the back brakes. 
2.  You're wrong, the front brakes are actually trashed. 
3.  I don't care if they are in perfect condition, replace them anyway. 

#3 doesn't apply because the analogy isn't a 100% match to our situation.  More on this later.  #1 fails because you have never acknowledged that the links I read didn't support your claim.  And as for #2, you've deliberately refused to go with that one. 

Going back to the first paragraph, I never claimed that the contents of the links were what convinced YOU.  In fact, I pretty much said the opposite!  Please pay more attention.  Even if you're a troll, please try to be a higher-quality one.  Anyway, what I said was that (a) YOU claimed that the contents of the links would give a reasonable person good cause to believe Mueller's team was the source of the leaks; and (b) the claim I just described in (a) is wrong (based on analyzing the first two links, and taking the first two as representative of all four, which you haven't disputed). 

Besides, if I said I read ALL FOUR of the links and they ALL were as unsupportive of your position as the first two were, what about your response to my claim would really change?  You'd still brush me off and refuse to answer the objection.  Which is why I didn't waste the time.  I'm not on a fucking scavenger hunt here.  You don't get to say, "here's 100 links, go read them, 10 of them have relevant information", and expect to be seen as the reasonable one. 

"You really think if your not going to go to the effort of completely trying to understand where I am coming from, and just offer excuses to get around it, that I should go out of my way to completely cater to where your coming from?" 
That's a pretty bold twisting of the facts.  It's like you hand me a book and say, "this cookbook explains the dinner I made last night", and I read the first twenty pages, flip through the rest of the book, and say "this is a mystery novel."  Am I really unqualified to comment on whether it's a cookbook or a mystery novel just because I didn't read the whole thing cover to cover?  It it really unreasonable of me to ask you to explain how it's a cookbook before I finish reading? 

You're not paying me.  The only thing I'm asking you to pay is to pay attention to me, and you're asking me to pay attention to you.  If you're really trying to use that analogy to set yourself up as being the one in charge because you're the paying customer, then fuck off.  Maybe that's not how you meant it, but if that's the case then you need to pay attention to your own words. 

Incorrect. In your analogy I have no idea if the brakes are any good or not when I bring the vehicle in, and I'm leaving it entirely up to the garage. In mine, I know I want them changed based on the condition. There are people who aren't certified mechanics who can make this decision for themselves, and there are certified mechanics who shouldn't ever be trusted with any vehicle that travels down a highway. Just because you can't, doesn't mean someone else can't either. This applies to basically anything and everything. The reason for you to change the analogy to the way you presented it, would be based on the assumption that everything I provided was simply copy and paste, which isn't the case as I've mentioned.

In your version of the analogy, the mechanic calls to let me know I'm wrong and that the brakes are fine, and yet I know based on their condition, I want them changed regardless, period. Just because that mechanic doesn't think the breaks need to be changed, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be changed. You mention #1, which I did say my evidence isn't completely 100% indisputable, which is why more would be needed to make backing up my claim worthwhile, so when I would ask for the 'back breaks' to be checked, based on your example, the mechanic refuses to because even though they didn't check them, their just going to assume there fine. That could very well lead to a car crash, which as per how you've been handling this, seems to be headed that way.

You asked me to explain the links because you didn't agree based on what you read, but if you didn't think that's what convinced me, why would you want to know what about them convinced me enough to use them? So who's trolling? I didn't claim that, which I explained already, and you still don't seem to agree with that, so that's fine, think whatever you want. I did dispute it. I said read them all. You refuse to. That's fine. If basing your knowledge of everything is based on 50% of the whole, then good luck. I'll give a great example of what happens in those scenarios. The left only paid attention to the left, and because of it, the right has the power and Trump is President.

Well considering you've made it clear your not going to read them, I guess we'll never know. Giving you the benefit of the doubt again, as generous as I am, I'll tell you if you had read them and disagreed, I would respect your decision and explain again, neither side seems to have strong enough evidence to make a case, so what's the problem with that? I do get to say that, because why else would I offer them, and you also can read some or all, agree or disagree, call me names, or heck, you could have even not bothered jumping into the conversation at all, and yet you chose to, so here we are. I don't make your choices, you do. How about the fact that kids get sent to school for a quarter of their life, only to ever require a small portion of that knowledge at best? Should everyone pull their kids out of school since their just wasting time? This is a political topic so the expectation coming into it should be that there will be a disagreement and likely it will end that way. If it doesn't and ends in agreement, or agreeing to disagree, then I'd consider that things going well.

It has nothing to do with whether or not your qualified. To assume you or I were a lawyer or member of government wouldn't make much sense since not only would it be unlikely, but the odds are pretty good they would be knowledgeable enough make us both look like fools, or they would come right out and mention their basic background. What your saying is you want me, who offered you a cookbook, to admit it's a mystery novel, just because that's what you think it is, even though what I've already told you is that it is a cookbook, just not a very good one, that has a few items missing from the recipe that couldn't be added to the meal because the rules say the meal must be made a certain way?

I already made the payment argument, and your side said that didn't matter, and you didn't correct them, so I'm not touching that one. I've paid attention, and yet after explaining the same thing over, in different ways, you still don't get it or just don't agree. The same seems to be true from your side. It seemed clear to me already that this was very well a scenario where we should probably agree to disagree, yet you don't seem to be able to accept anything less than you 'winning' and me 'losing', and you know where I stand on that.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 22 September 2018