First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Who is Huma Abedin?
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

"I can't refute the information therefore attack the method of acquiring the information"

When will this meme end?


"Your assertion is unsubstantiated due to untrustworthy sources" is a valid rebuttal. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the accusation. If one does not provide the necessary proof (or if they provide "proof" which stands on highly shaky footing), no further "debunking" is required.

For example, a few weeks ago some assertions were made which linked backed to an Onion-esque parody news site. Pointing out that the origin of this news is a parody news site is all that is required to rebut said assertions. It then again falls on the accuser to prove their accusations are more than parody news.

Also worth noting, some assertions are impossible to prove false. Take for example "Clinton is a reptillian". Lets say someone were to make this thread, and post evidence about how the way she acted proved this (obviously) ludicrous assertion. How would someone go about proving this information to be false? Outlandish assertions are often difficult to prove false as the evidence that would counter this assertion is so niche as to not be readily available, or it could be an unscientific assertion that can neither be proven nor disproven.

Note: This comment was made in the abstract and does not specifically relate to any of the information presented in this thread.
md4124 
48307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/3/16
Just another post from another the alt-right fascists who have turned the Crunchyroll forums into stormfront light.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/3/16

DeadlyOats wrote:
Back at ya, with your pro-Hillary sources (which I hardly ever see you site).


I'm citing reality. Unless you are really going to tell me you actually believe Obama is a secret Communist Muslim cabal leader bent on destroying America, the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated all levels of government and Hillary and Huma are off having a wild, lesbian affair.



DeadlyOats wrote:
All I ever see you do is dissect other peoples' posts and say stuff like (paraphrased), 'So what?' 'That's not a big deal.' 'You're reading too much into this.' 'Another conspiracy, etc, etc.'


So does that mean you are going to actually explain why a potentially unconstitutional religious test is a good thing or how criticizing a colleague's awful judgement is a bad thing? These are examples you provided from your "sources" to support whatever argument you were trying to make. So you do, by definition, support the contents therein as part of your argument. Otherwise why would you link them?


Posted 11/3/16

sundin13 wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:

"I can't refute the information therefore attack the method of acquiring the information"

When will this meme end?


"Your assertion is unsubstantiated due to untrustworthy sources" is a valid rebuttal. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the accusation. If one does not provide the necessary proof (or if they provide "proof" which stands on highly shaky footing), no further "debunking" is required.

You're seriously talking about "valid" when the source is leaks of their own conversations about their misdeeds?

Congratulations on finding the marble in the oatmeal, genius.

Now not only did Anonymous provide all of this ( in case you missed indications that the white hats include members of the spook community) but now Weiner gave the NYPD a copy of this, and now the FBI is forced to further investigate...

You just have to be so intellectually dishonest to still think the Clintons are innocent at this stage of the game.
32395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / St.Louis - USA
Offline
Posted 11/3/16
a person
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/16

RaisedInACult wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:

"I can't refute the information therefore attack the method of acquiring the information"

When will this meme end?


"Your assertion is unsubstantiated due to untrustworthy sources" is a valid rebuttal. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the accusation. If one does not provide the necessary proof (or if they provide "proof" which stands on highly shaky footing), no further "debunking" is required.

You're seriously talking about "valid" when the source is leaks of their own conversations about their misdeeds?

Congratulations on finding the marble in the oatmeal, genius.

Now not only did Anonymous provide all of this ( in case you missed indications that the white hats include members of the spook community) but now Weiner gave the NYPD a copy of this, and now the FBI is forced to further investigate...

You just have to be so intellectually dishonest to still think the Clintons are innocent at this stage of the game.


Note: This comment was made in the abstract and does not specifically relate to any of the information presented in this thread.

Try reading the whole comment next time.
Posted 11/3/16 , edited 11/3/16

sundin13 wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:

"I can't refute the information therefore attack the method of acquiring the information"

When will this meme end?


"Your assertion is unsubstantiated due to untrustworthy sources" is a valid rebuttal. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the accusation. If one does not provide the necessary proof (or if they provide "proof" which stands on highly shaky footing), no further "debunking" is required.

You're seriously talking about "valid" when the source is leaks of their own conversations about their misdeeds?

Congratulations on finding the marble in the oatmeal, genius.

Now not only did Anonymous provide all of this ( in case you missed indications that the white hats include members of the spook community) but now Weiner gave the NYPD a copy of this, and now the FBI is forced to further investigate...

You just have to be so intellectually dishonest to still think the Clintons are innocent at this stage of the game.


Note: This comment was made in the abstract and does not specifically relate to any of the information presented in this thread.

Try reading the whole comment next time.


Nice attempt at wiggling out of that one, but you fail again.

Read what you were responding to.

Now account for context between that and your reply.

Or do posts just exist as one instant in your head and we can just ignore all the context of what the thread is or what everyone's responding to?

What the hell did you think people would read your words as? Its apples and oranges and the only relation winds up being that like all hil bots, simply declaring a source untrustworthy is precisely the logical fallacy used to "rebut" the fact that the emails exist and prove her to be a criminal.

You go off to left field talking about reptiles THEN talk abstract? When you've already used the above logical fallacy in other threads here?


Do you think people have no memory or something? *facepalm*
13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/16 , edited 11/3/16

RaisedInACult wrote:

Nice attempt at wiggling out of that one, but you fail again.

Read what you were responding to.

Now account for context between that and your reply.

Or do posts just exist as one instant in your head and we can just ignore all the context of what the thread is or what everyone's responding to?

What the hell did you think people would read your words as? Its apples and oranges and the only relation winds up being that like all hil bots, simply declaring a source untrustworthy is precisely the logical fallacy used to "rebut" the fact that the emails exist and prove her to be a criminal.


I clearly put a note saying that I was speaking in the abstract. What don't you understand about that? A comment was made in the abstract. I responded to that comment in the abstract. Anything you are pulling from my comment further than that is simply your own interpretation and has no bearing on any actual meaning that was intended. I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post, but I made the correct interpretation as clear as possible.

However, without assigning blame, now that I have cleared up the misunderstanding and reemphasized that my statement was meant to be taken in general terms, I suggest you either respond to the intended meaning of my original comment or move on. Nothing will be gained by you demanding that I meant something with my comment that I didn't actually mean, but plenty of time will be lost.

EDIT: In response to your edit, yes, I used an example (reptilians) that everyone would agree would be ridiculous as to not drag in any controversial examples which could potentially muddle my more general point. That should have been clear.
Posted 11/3/16
the issue is you've used the tactic before, an not once, so can you actually blame me for treating this as another regurgitation of it?
Posted 11/3/16
oh, snap

13153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/16

RaisedInACult wrote:

the issue is you've used the tactic before, an not once, so can you actually blame me for treating this as another regurgitation of it?


Okay, so it was a misunderstanding. Glad we agree? Not really sure what you are trying to argue right now.

That said, I disagree with your assertion that I frequently use "the tactic", though this isn't the place to discuss that. If there is a post of mine you take issue with, please respond to that post specifically.
37459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/3/16

octorockandroll wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:

Everyone kept talking about her, and how that she was real close to Hillary, and that now she's missing, or in hiding, or just staying out of sight. So, I decided to find out what I could about her.

Here are a couple of results:

Vanilla Internet results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-iZvr70GB8

Vanilla only goes back to when she was in college. (Hillary calls Huma Abedin, "One of my Staffers." Talk about abandoning a trusted friend and ally....)

Deep Dark Internet results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRu3U-nwyhw

Deep Dark goes back to when she was born.... (It's absolutely crazy....)


Deep Dark Internet is a youtube video by your definition?

I admire your innocence.


LOL I actually am kind of a babe in the woods, when it comes to the Deep Internet. LOL Actually, I've not been to there. (I don't think I have, unless going down the rabbit hole while looking at a chain of videos counts....)
37459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/3/16

runec wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:
Back at ya, with your pro-Hillary sources (which I hardly ever see you site).


I'm citing reality. Unless you are really going to tell me you actually believe Obama is a secret Communist Muslim cabal leader bent on destroying America, the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated all levels of government and Hillary and Huma are off having a wild, lesbian affair.



DeadlyOats wrote:
All I ever see you do is dissect other peoples' posts and say stuff like (paraphrased), 'So what?' 'That's not a big deal.' 'You're reading too much into this.' 'Another conspiracy, etc, etc.'


So does that mean you are going to actually explain why a potentially unconstitutional religious test is a good thing or how criticizing a colleague's awful judgement is a bad thing? These are examples you provided from your "sources" to support whatever argument you were trying to make. So you do, by definition, support the contents therein as part of your argument. Otherwise why would you link them?




Trump even made the same proposal in his speech. There is NOTHING unconstitutional about doing a more thorough background check on a group of people originating from a country or region that is a hot bed for terrorist training camps and terrorist warfare. It is unbelievably irresponsible for our government to have let in so many Syrians into our country without carefully identifying them, to be sure that terrorists had not snuck into the country, hidden within the innocents who fled for their lives.

Incidentally, did you see the post with the image of the Anonymous posts? If that's authentic, then be ready for the video I posted to be vindicated - if it's authentic.
46665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 11/3/16


Soooo...as far as I can tell this was about 7 hours ago you posted this and I don't see anything. Don't tell me reddit tricked you again!?! Damn them.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/3/16

DeadlyOats wrote:
Trump even made the same proposal in his speech. There is NOTHING unconstitutional about doing a more thorough background check on a group of people originating from a country or region that is a hot bed for terrorist training camps and terrorist warfare. It is unbelievably irresponsible for our government to have let in so many Syrians into our country without carefully identifying them, to be sure that terrorists had not snuck into the country, hidden within the innocents who fled for their lives.


But thats not what your link said. Your link was about increased screening for Muslims. It did not mention a country of origin. It said Muslims. And for the record, the people you speak of already are the most heavily vetted immigrant group. Something that both you, and Trump, would know if you had looked into the matter first.

They are carefully vetted. To an almost absurd degree. Trying to take that avenue to sneak into the US would actually be a pretty stupid route all things considered. There are much easier channels that don't involve hoping for a 1 in 200 chance to get on an 18 month waiting list to be paraded in front of every security agency the US has.



DeadlyOats wrote:
Incidentally, did you see the post with the image of the Anonymous posts? If that's authentic, then be ready for the video I posted to be vindicated - if it's authentic.


If its authentic they also just admitted they would be dumping a load of child porn. >.>

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.