I Do Too Back Up My Arguments!!

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 8, 2015 12:13:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 12:00:23 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

By absolute law of nature, or statistically speaking?

take your pick.  most acts of terrorism have been committed by non-Muslims.

Interesting claim. I'll admit I don't know if it is true- can you support it?

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 12:48:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 12:47:26 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Interesting claim. I'll admit I don't know if it is true- can you support it?

have i ever been unable to support a claim?

Yes.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 19:44:39 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 12:48:21 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

have i ever been unable to support a claim?

Yes.

i wasn't asking you.  but since you chimed in, what claim have i failed to support?

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 19:45:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 19:44:39 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Yes.

i wasn't asking you.  but since you chimed in, what claim have i failed to support?

I know you weren't asking me... but it's absolutely true.

Posting things that are provably incorrect isn't "support"... it's propaganda. You have been known to do that, in conversations with me.

ETA: You failed to support your disenfranchisement argument, for one... that's the most recent.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 19:48:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 19:45:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i wasn't asking you.  but since you chimed in, what claim have i failed to support?

I know you weren't asking me... but it's absolutely true.

prove it.

Posting things that are provably incorrect isn't "support"... it's propaganda. You have been known to do that, in conversations with me.

you mean statements that are objectively false, yet are passed off as true?

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 19:50:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 19:48:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I know you weren't asking me... but it's absolutely true.

Posting things that are provably incorrect isn't "support"... it's propaganda. You have been known to do that, in conversations with me.

you mean statements that are objectively false, yet are passed off as true?

Remove "objectively", and I'd agree with that statement.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 19:56:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 19:50:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you mean statements that are objectively false, yet are passed off as true?

Remove "objectively", and I'd agree with that statement.

statements like "Obama is the worst president in US history"?

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 19:58:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 19:56:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Remove "objectively", and I'd agree with that statement.

statements like "Obama is the worst president in US history"?

Provably true... in some aspects... debatable in others. But the fact that it's provably true in some aspects (debt increase, for example) makes it acceptable as truth.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 20:00:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i might point out that "supporting a claim" is a pretty low bar, Richard.
even your claims about Obama were supported by you.
the support was not convincing, but it was there.
i support everything i post here.
so, your claim that this is untrue, is, in fact, a lie.

I don't lie. As an adult, I never have, and I never will.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 20:01:19 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 19:58:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

statements like "Obama is the worst president in US history"?

Provably true... in some aspects... debatable in others. But the fact that it's provably true in some aspects (debt increase, for example) makes it acceptable as truth.

and it is provably false in some ways, as well.  that is what makes it opinion, not OBJECTIVE fact.

i can see why you wanted to delete that word.  but deleting it also makes it meaningless.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 20:04:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:02:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I don't lie. As an adult, I never have, and I never will.

then you are ignoring the facts.  i support every claim i make, Richard.

you might not ACCEPT the support.  that's fine.  you are free to do that.  but to say that i abandon my claims to the wild is utterly false.

but again, if you disagree, just show me where i have done that, even ONCE, among my 30,000+ posts.

I also don't ignore facts.

As to your request, already done.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 20:06:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:04:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

then you are ignoring the facts.  i support every claim i make, Richard.

you might not ACCEPT the support.  that's fine.  you are free to do that.  but to say that i abandon my claims to the wild is utterly false.

but again, if you disagree, just show me where i have done that, even ONCE, among my 30,000+ posts.

I also don't ignore facts.

As to your request, already done.

thread title and post number?  otherwise, it is not done- you just THINK it is done.

note: this is a really unfair tactic, Richard.  if you are going to go after someone's claims, then you should be able to cite your accusation.

otherwise, you are just engaging in unwarranted slander.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 19:48:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 19:45:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i wasn't asking you.  but since you chimed in, what claim have i failed to support?

I know you weren't asking me... but it's absolutely true.

Posting things that are provably incorrect isn't "support"... it's propaganda.

agreed.  you should really stop doing that.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 20:25:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 19:48:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I know you weren't asking me... but it's absolutely true.

Posting things that are provably incorrect isn't "support"... it's propaganda.

agreed.  you should really stop doing that.

Hard to stop doing something one has never started.

[mmhmm]

If you're going to claim someone is posting things that are incorrect, you need to provide proof they're incorrect. Something is not incorrect because you disagree with it. You'll need to have proof that can be cited.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 20:07:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:06:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:04:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

then you are ignoring the facts. i support every claim i make, Richard.

you might not ACCEPT the support. that's fine. you are free to do that. but to say that i abandon my claims to the wild is utterly false.

but again, if you disagree, just show me where i have done that, even ONCE, among my 30,000+ posts.

I also don't ignore facts.

As to your request, already done.

thread title and post number? otherwise, it is not done- you just THINK it is done.

note: this is a really unfair tactic, Richard. if you are going to go after someone's claims, then you should be able to cite your accusation.

otherwise, you are just engaging in unwarranted slander.

I believe the word you are looking for is "libel"... but since that's not what I am doing, the correct word is irrelevant.

You asked the following question: "have i ever been unable to support a claim?"
The answer to which was: "Yes"

You did NOT ask if you "abandon" anything nor have I suggested that you do. You hang on until the other side has given up. Something I am now doing.

You asked a question, your question was answered. If you don't like the answer... maybe you should ask different questions.

As to "thread title and post number" of my example... this thread, post #67 has the answer to that question for you.

Now, with that all cleared up, This conversation is over (my part of it anyway).

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 20:46:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If you're going to claim someone is posting things that are incorrect, you need to provide proof they're incorrect. Something is not incorrect because you disagree with it. You'll need to have proof that can be cited.

Agreed.

[mmhmm]

Jan 8, 2015 20:50:56 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:46:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If you're going to claim someone is posting things that are incorrect, you need to provide proof they're incorrect. Something is not incorrect because you disagree with it. You'll need to have proof that can be cited.

Agreed.

In that case, quit making such accusations. You're saying a claim was not supported when, in fact, it was supported. You just don't agree with the reasoning. What you don't agree with is not necessarily incorrect.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 20:49:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

As to "thread title and post number" of my example... this thread, post #67 has the answer to that question for you.

post #67 was made by you, and contains no claims, on my part, only a factual statement, and a question.

so, no, this conversation is NOT over.  i want you to correct your false accusation if you are unable to substantiate that claim, or back it up.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 20:50:56 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:46:25 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If you're going to claim someone is posting things that are incorrect, you need to provide proof they're incorrect. Something is not incorrect because you disagree with it. You'll need to have proof that can be cited.

Agreed.

cool.  still waiting for that. 

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 20:54:55 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:50:56 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Agreed.

In that case, quit making such accusations. You're saying a claim was not supported when, in fact, it was supported. You just don't agree with the reasoning. What you don't agree with is not necessarily incorrect.

It's impossible to quit something you haven't done.

[mmhmm]

Jan 8, 2015 21:19:44 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:54:55 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

In that case, quit making such accusations. You're saying a claim was not supported when, in fact, it was supported. You just don't agree with the reasoning. What you don't agree with is not necessarily incorrect.

It's impossible to quit something you haven't done.

I agree. I imagine dj does, as well, don't you?

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2015 20:56:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:49:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

As to "thread title and post number" of my example... this thread, post #67 has the answer to that question for you.

post #67 was made by you, and contains no claims, on my part, only a factual statement, and a question.

so, no, this conversation is NOT over.  i want you to correct your false accusation if you are unable to substantiate that claim, or back it up.

As a lawyer might say: "Asked and answered."

At this point that will be the extent of my commentary, because, as I said, "This conversation is over (my part of it anyway)."

Further requests will get the same type of response. Ask as many times as you want to read it.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 21:22:51 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:56:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

post #67 was made by you, and contains no claims, on my part, only a factual statement, and a question.

so, no, this conversation is NOT over.  i want you to correct your false accusation if you are unable to substantiate that claim, or back it up.

As a lawyer might say: "Asked and answered."

you might have just answered the post rather than editing your old post.  i didn't catch it until now. 

but, tit for tat.  i just did the same thing back with this post.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 19:48:30 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

ETA: You failed to support your disenfranchisement argument, for one... that's the most recent.

false.  i absolutely supported it.  you posted the definition of disenfranchisement.  it is as follows:

Deprive (someone) of a right (usually to vote)

if you pass a law that requires ID in order to vote, you immediately disenfranchise anyone who does not have an ID, by definition.  now, it is true that there may be a remedy for that.  if:

a)    the voter is aware that an ID is required AND
b)    if the voter is able to get an ID in the requisite amount of time AND
c)    if they have the resources in terms of access, etc to get that ID

i could also add d) if they actually get it- but for sake of argument, i will leave that out, as i am confident that there are a fair number of people that do not meet ALL of the other three requirements.

if, however, the voter is unaware that an ID is required OR does not have sufficient time or resources, then they REMAIN disenfranchised.

that is a fact, Richard.  you can CHOOSE to not accept it, but that does not make it untrue.

and, since i already made all of these arguments elsewhere, this would be an example of me supporting my claim, and i think most here would agree, doing so convincingly.

but of course, that is not unusual for me.  it is how i work.

edit: i have a question: why don't voter ID laws make sending each registered voter an ID as part of the law, rather than requiring citizens to do it?

[Deleted]

Asked and answered.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 21:39:29 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Asked and answered.

not convincingly.  but yes.  thanks for the effort.  i am much more confident now that nothing slipped through the cracks.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 20:02:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:00:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i might point out that "supporting a claim" is a pretty low bar, Richard.
even your claims about Obama were supported by you.
the support was not convincing, but it was there.
i support everything i post here.
so, your claim that this is untrue, is, in fact, a lie.

I don't lie. As an adult, I never have, and I never will.

for the record, i lie quite regularly.  just not on the board.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 8, 2015 21:45:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 8, 2015 20:02:01 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I don't lie. As an adult, I never have, and I never will.

for the record, i lie quite regularly.  just not on the board.

You tend to be more of a "sometimes support my contentions with really shaky arguments" kind of guy, rather than a "don't bother to support my contentions" kind of guy.

Although, having said that, one case that immediately comes to mind was you accusing the NRA of "bitching about" the Byron Smith conviction, which turned out to be a complete fabrication. The NRA hadn't taken a position on the case.

There was the NAMBLA thread where you vehemently denied that NAMBLA members self-identified as liberals, before later switching to "well maybe they do, but it doesn't count because of thus and such criteria I just added to the definition of 'liberal'".

You insisted there was no such thing as "secular religion", until I pointed you to the lengthy Wiki article on the subject.

And who can forget your "this Quinnipac poll is junk, but this Quinnipac poll (which I didn't realize was also Quinnipac) is spot on" from back in December. By that time, you'd even come up with a term for people calling BS on your arguments: "gotcha crap". "Stop with the gotcha crap, Virgil," I believe were your exact words.

Jim Morrison handed your arguments about nuclear Iran back to you on several occasions, but in fairness I can't recall whether that was a "shaky basis" or a "no basis" situation on your part. It may well have been the former.

You're good with not blue-skying your arguments. Not perfect. Nobody is. As for "lying", I don't think you've ever made a baseless statement you knew was wrong a priori, hence I'll credit you for that. That doesn't seem to be what your row with Richard is about, however.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2015 22:40:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 8, 2015 21:45:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

for the record, i lie quite regularly.  just not on the board.

You tend to be more of a "sometimes support my contentions with really shaky arguments" kind of guy, rather than a "don't bother to support my contentions" kind of guy.

i think i support things quite well, Virgil.  for example, in the recent discussion about supply side economics, i posted about 20 pages worth of studies on the topic to support my POV, as well as some data that took me an entire weekend to compile.  i honestly don't recall anyone else on this board ever being that thorough with any topic presented here in the last three years, but perhaps i am forgetting someone.

then again, we weren't talking about anyone else, just me.

Although, having said that, one case that immediately comes to mind was you accusing the NRA of "bitching about" the Byron Smith conviction, which turned out to be a complete fabrication. The NRA hadn't taken a position on the case.

i have no idea who you are talking about.  you must be mistaking me for another poster.  for the record, i am a gun rights advocate.

There was the NAMBLA thread where you vehemently denied that NAMBLA members self-identified as liberals

no.  that is not what i denied.  what i denied is that there was anything liberal about that organization.  your claim was basically that liberals would welcome NAMBLA with open arms (i believe you used the term "natural fit"), and that was clearly false.  i don't know of ANYONE that wants to be associated with NAMBLA other than NAMBLA.  liberals are not for taking liberties with those incapable of consent.  THAT is what the argument consisted of.  i don't mind you saying that you think liberals welcome sinners just as much as any good religious person does, but i take great umbrige (sic) with the idea that we have some sort of natural affinity for child molestors, my friend.  that is a whole different ball of yarn, and you are never going to get that one past me, so don't even try.  it was just as upsetting NOW as when you did it.

edit: for the record, i considered that whole discussion a MATTER OF OPINION.  no facts were presented, other than some idiots self identify as liberals (which is meaningless, since some idiots also self identify as conservatives, i am sure you will agree).  you presented your opinion, and defended it.  i presented my opinion, and defended it.  i don't think either of us convinced the other.  but i think BOTH of us defended our points of view quite well, for the record.  i leave it to others to decide who had the most compelling argument.

, before later switching to "well maybe they do, but it doesn't count because of thus and such criteria I just added to the definition of 'liberal'".

oh, bullshit.  you are forgetting what the argument consisted of.  period.

You insisted there was no such thing as "secular religion", until I pointed you to the lengthy Wiki article on the subject.

it is not a lengthy article.  it is two paragraphs.  and it was an intentional oxymoron (the person who coined it was referring to COMMUNISM).  look it up, Virgil

And who can forget your "this Quinnipac poll is junk, but this Quinnipac poll (which I didn't realize was also Quinnipac) is spot on" from back in December. By that time, you'd even come up with a term for people calling BS on your arguments: "gotcha crap". "Stop with the gotcha crap, Virgil," I believe were your exact words.

no, i said they were both junk.  you mistook what i was saying.  i said that one just happened to be more accurate than the other, but they were both junk.  even a broken clock is right twice a day.  and yes, i did say that.

Jim Morrison handed your arguments about nuclear Iran back to you on several occasions, but in fairness I can't recall whether that was a "shaky basis" or a "no basis" situation on your part. It may well have been the former.

You're good with not blue-skying your arguments. Not perfect. Nobody is. As for "lying", I don't think you've ever made a baseless statement you knew was wrong a priori, hence I'll credit you for that. That doesn't seem to be what your row with Richard is about, however.

i never claimed that i was perfect.  only God is perfect.  i am weak, flawed, vile, and stupid.  i make tons of mistakes.  and i am wrong about a LOT of things.  but none of that had ANYTHING to do with my claim.  what i claim is that i can back up what i post.

have i ever failed to do that, Virgil?

answer honestly.

and please forgive me for point by pointing, but you are putting me on trial here, and i had to address that count by count.