TPP - And Trump Idiocy

[carpedm9587]

For someone with no dog in this fight you sure are determined to rationalize the original fake quote.

No. You continue to miss the point of my post. I was disagreeing with your claim of "no evidence." I was not trying to substantiate that "Trump said X." I believe I have said several times that I do not know that he did or did not say it.

I thought better of you than that. I am disappointed. I guess you actually do have TDS.

Your disappointment is irrelevant. You are apparently misunderstanding the purpose of my posts.

[carpedm9587]

well we can make it an actual test and see.

Go for it. But remember - I control my response...


...so you would be kind of lobbing me a softball...

[Sparko]

Go for it. But remember - I control my response...


...so you would be kind of lobbing me a softball...

oh it won't be the example I gave if I do it.

[carpedm9587]

oh it won't be the example I gave if I do it.

I'll try to stay alert...


Seriously, Sparko. I hope my positions are self-consistent and I am reasonably self-aware. Your little experiment would certainly determine if that is even marginally true. So if you find yourself hesitating out of a sense of not wanting to be "cruel," don't. It would be interesting to see if I react as I hope I would.

[Mountain Man]

So it appears you have a different definition of "evidence" than I do. That may be the basis of our disagreement.

That's because your definition is absurd. When you claim X, and then present a fact that demonstrates not-X, that is not evidence for X, nor does it lend credence to X.

[carpedm9587]

That's because your definition is absurd. When you claim X, and then present a fact that demonstrates not-X, that is not evidence for X, nor does it lend credence to X.

It is not clear to me that something I presented demonstrates "not X." Where, exactly, did that happen?

[Sparko]

I'll try to stay alert...


Seriously, Sparko. I hope my positions are self-consistent and I am reasonably self-aware. Your little experiment would certainly determine if that is even marginally true. So if you find yourself hesitating out of a sense of not wanting to be "cruel," don't. It would be interesting to see if I react as I hope I would.

I don't have to actually play a trick on you because you have already shown your position is not consistent.

For a while now you have been on my case about me "mind reading" you and claiming you meant something you did not. Yet in a similar situation where someone makes a claim of an actual word for word quote claiming what Trump said, you think it is OK and claim there is actually evidence to support the claim.

That is not consistent.

[carpedm9587]

I don't have to actually play a trick on you because you have already shown your position is not consistent.

For a while now you have been on my case about me "mind reading" you and claiming you meant something you did not. Yet in a similar situation where someone makes a claim of an actual word for word quote claiming what Trump said, you think it is OK and claim there is actually evidence to support the claim.

That is not consistent.

What?

Sparko...where exactly have I been mind reading someone, or giving them permission to mind read?

Here is the sequence - from my perspective.

Starlight: posts a claim about three things Trump said and their respective contexts, (five pieces of information, four of which were validated by sources)
Sparko: requests documentation that Trump said X (the quote from the private meeting - the one piece of information NOT validated by sources)
Starlight: he doesn't really show much to address the specific piece of information Sparko is asking for
Sparko: Claims there is "no evidence" Trump made that statement.
Carpe: (focusing on the "no evidence") pointed out that there actually is evidence, it's just not very good or compelling evidence, so "no evidence" is too absolute a statement

Pretty much from that point on you and MM have been responding to me as if I claimed Trump actually said it, that Starlight was right to accuse him, and a whole host of other observations (including this new one about my approving "mind reading"). I had ONE point in my posts: the claim "no evidence" is too absolute. "Inadequate evidence" would be accurate. "Unconvincing evidence" would be accurate. "The evidence is hearsay," would be accurate. "No evidence" is not.

It was simply an observation on logic and the making of an argument, not on whether or not Trump did or did not say X. You are certainly free to disagree with me and insist there is NO evidence if you wish, and life will go on. The rest of what you are attributing to my posts I did not put there; you and MM did.

And, at this point, after the multiple repetitions of what I was trying to say, I'm going to give you folks the last word. If you don't get it this time, I don't think you will just by repeating it all yet again. And this has long since passed the point of being somewhat ridiculous...

[Starlight]

Sparko, the statement by my quoted source about Trump being fine with killing civilians was a paraphrase of Trump's publicly stated opinions (about being fine with killing the families of terrorists, wanting to kill civilian truck drivers that were taking supplies into ISIS, getting 'the lawyers' out of the pentagon's actions, asking 'why wait?' until the terrorist was out of a house with other people in it before drone striking it, that drone strikes should be dramatically scaled up (which means hitting targets the pentagon is unsure about in addition to targets it is sure are bad guys) etc) not a direct quote. You seem to have wrongly thought it was a direct quote. His point was that Trump has consistently indicated he is okay with civilian causalities through his statements and actions.

[rogue06]

Sparko, the statement by my quoted source about Trump being fine with killing civilians was a paraphrase of Trump's publicly stated opinions (about being fine with killing the families of terrorists, wanting to kill civilian truck drivers that were taking supplies into ISIS, getting 'the lawyers' out of the pentagon's actions, asking 'why wait?' until the terrorist was out of a house with other people in it before drone striking it, that drone strikes should be dramatically scaled up (which means hitting targets the pentagon is unsure about in addition to targets it is sure are bad guys) etc) not a direct quote. You seem to have wrongly thought it was a direct quote. His point was that Trump has consistently indicated he is okay with civilian causalities through his statements and actions.

Ah, so is it fair to say that it's a paraphrase of what someone thinks Trump must have meant that you tried to pass off as a quote from Trump or his inner circle?

[Roy]

Terrorist's families are not "civilians" and are probably just as culpable and supportive of the terrorism, but it was a reckless statement.

I do not know that definitively. I'm sure it is sometimes the case. I am reasonably sure it is not always the case.

I am absolutely sure it is not always the case, since terrorists' families include children too young to be culpable or supportive of anything.

[Sparko]

What?

Sparko...where exactly have I been mind reading someone, or giving them permission to mind read?

Read what I said. I said you have been on MY case about me mind reading YOU. Claiming you meant something when you say you did not. You don't seem to like me doing that. Yet when this reporter actually attributes an actual QUOTE to Trump, you rationalize the weakest of "evidence" to justify what he did as plausible.

Here is the sequence - from my perspective.

Starlight: posts a claim about three things Trump said and their respective contexts, (five pieces of information, four of which were validated by sources)
Sparko: requests documentation that Trump said X (the quote from the private meeting - the one piece of information NOT validated by sources)
Starlight: he doesn't really show much to address the specific piece of information Sparko is asking for
Sparko: Claims there is "no evidence" Trump made that statement.
Carpe: (focusing on the "no evidence") pointed out that there actually is evidence, it's just not very good or compelling evidence, so "no evidence" is too absolute a statement

Pretty much from that point on you and MM have been responding to me as if I claimed Trump actually said it, that Starlight was right to accuse him, and a whole host of other observations (including this new one about my approving "mind reading"). I had ONE point in my posts: the claim "no evidence" is too absolute. "Inadequate evidence" would be accurate. "Unconvincing evidence" would be accurate. "The evidence is hearsay," would be accurate. "No evidence" is not.

It was simply an observation on logic and the making of an argument, not on whether or not Trump did or did not say X. You are certainly free to disagree with me and insist there is NO evidence if you wish, and life will go on. The rest of what you are attributing to my posts I did not put there; you and MM did.

And, at this point, after the multiple repetitions of what I was trying to say, I'm going to give you folks the last word. If you don't get it this time, I don't think you will just by repeating it all yet again. And this has long since passed the point of being somewhat ridiculous...

And the above is you just either being totally off base or trying to pretend you are in order to avoid confronting my point, and then you are doing your "I will give you the last word" so you can run away again. Fine. This is my last word. You are inconsistent when it comes to the matter of Trump and in this case where you have attempted to rationalize the reporter making up a bald-faced lie about Trump by claiming that there is "evidence" just not very good evidence.

[Sparko]

Sparko, the statement by my quoted source about Trump being fine with killing civilians was a paraphrase of Trump's publicly stated opinions (about being fine with killing the families of terrorists, wanting to kill civilian truck drivers that were taking supplies into ISIS, getting 'the lawyers' out of the pentagon's actions, asking 'why wait?' until the terrorist was out of a house with other people in it before drone striking it, that drone strikes should be dramatically scaled up (which means hitting targets the pentagon is unsure about in addition to targets it is sure are bad guys) etc) not a direct quote. You seem to have wrongly thought it was a direct quote. His point was that Trump has consistently indicated he is okay with civilian causalities through his statements and actions.

And yet you put the paraphrase in quotes as if Trump said it. And it was worded as if Trump said it, even to his pattern of speech. And you presented it as "Trump Tells Top Officials He's In Favor Of Bombing Civilians"

It was nothing but a lie. There is no defending it, Starlight.

[rogue06]

And yet you put the paraphrase in quotes as if Trump said it. And it was worded as if Trump said it, even to his pattern of speech. And you presented it as "Trump Tells Top Officials He's In Favor Of Bombing Civilians"

It was nothing but a lie. There is no defending it, Starlight.

IOW, more fake news. Par for the course I'm afraid.

The more the left keeps concocting stories like these the more likely the public will simply shrug off something that's real. It's like the boy-who-cried-wolf.

[Mountain Man]

It is not clear to me that something I presented demonstrates "not X." Where, exactly, did that happen?

Just because I'm bored, I'm going to connect the dots:

Dimbulb posted a source which purported to be a direct quote from Trump, saying, "Don't care if we kill civilians, totally fine to kill civilians, and we're done we're out of there now." (For those keeping score at home, this is X.)

When Sparko asked for a source to prove the quote, you immediately jumped in to defend Dimbulb saying, "Presumably, since part of this was apparently a Fox and Friends interview, there is footage."

After a couple more exchanges with Sparko, you finally pointed to a source which you claimed was evidence supporting the quote in question despite the glaringly obvious fact that the cited article explicitly quoted Trump as not saying it but saying something entirely different. (For those keeping score at home, this is not-X.)

You then absurdly claimed that even though your source quotes the President as explicitly not making the statement in question, that it somehow "lends credence" to the assertion that he did say it.

So the original claim is X. You presented a source that demonstrated not-X yet insisted that this somehow lent credence to X. But being a post-modernist, such a blatant contradiction in logic probably doesn't even give you pause.