Open carrier in the news, and not in a good way.

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

I was presenting no strawmen. I took your statements verbatim, and showed them to be false. The part I colored in blue above is where you finally make a valid statement based upon the news story you quoted.

Again, semantics. The point remains the same. You derailed the argument, in a poor attempt to prove it wrong, because you failed at drawing obvious conclusions that even a blind person could see. The end result remains the same, Faux is not news and is not authoritative, quoteable, or credible for use in a debate. Nothing has changed despite your inability to understand the original point.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.

Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

There is your statement, verbatim.



WHERE did they state that "they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do?"

Your inability to draw obvious conclusions doesn't change anything.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

I was presenting no strawmen. I took your statements verbatim, and showed them to be false. The part I colored in blue above is where you finally make a valid statement based upon the news story you quoted.

Again, semantics. The point remains the same. You derailed the argument, in a poor attempt to prove it wrong, because you failed at drawing obvious conclusions that even a blind person could see. The end result remains the same, Faux is not news and is not authoritative, quoteable, or credible for use in a debate. Nothing has changed despite your inability to understand the original point.

Actually, that is exactly the opposite of what happened. You made multiple unsupportable statements, and kept altering them in attempts to discredit Fox. All because you did not want Gordie to be able to use the article he linked as a source. It is you who derailed the argument with your false statements about Fox, in attempts to support your desire to discredit them as a source.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

To claim it as you do, you have to put words into their mouths that were not stated. As the article mentions, they took no position of truth/lie. They only argued in court what was needed to arrive at their desired outcome. Claiming that as admission to lying is completely unwarranted.

Here is a simple question for you:

"Did their direct quote include an admission of lying?"

lulz

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

There is your statement, verbatim.



WHERE did they state that "they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do?"

Your inability to draw obvious conclusions doesn't change anything.

LOL, I point out the obvious fallacy of your statements, show that Idid not create strawmen against you, and that is all you got.


I see that you completely refuse to support your statements.

 

[Chaingun81]

imported post

This thread is SOOOO off topic now. Can someone please bring it back on track or just close it. There are couple of folks on this forum who consistently derail threadsjust to engage in aworthless argument...

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

This thread is SOOOO off topic now. Can someone please bring it back on track or just close it. There are couple of folks on this forum who consistently derail threadsjust to engage in aworthless argument...

Good luck with that.



Now back to the topic, other than his statements here, I saw nothing in the news article to indicate if he was actually OCing during the event in question.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

I was presenting no strawmen. I took your statements verbatim, and showed them to be false. The part I colored in blue above is where you finally make a valid statement based upon the news story you quoted.

Again, semantics. The point remains the same. You derailed the argument, in a poor attempt to prove it wrong, because you failed at drawing obvious conclusions that even a blind person could see. The end result remains the same, Faux is not news and is not authoritative, quoteable, or credible for use in a debate. Nothing has changed despite your inability to understand the original point.

Actually, that is exactly the opposite of what happened. You made multiple unsupportable statements, and kept altering them in attempts to discredit Fox. All because you did not want Gordie to be able to use the article he linked as a source. It is you who derailed the argument with your false statements about Fox, in attempts to support your desire to discredit them as a source.

They ARE discredited as a source. The end, period, over and done. I don't give two @#$%s about his article. I don't need to hear about Faux's love of lying from their own lips to know that they aren't a credible source. You have successfully strawmaned and semantics debatd theoriginal argument into oblivion, just as you're sogood at.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

I was presenting no strawmen. I took your statements verbatim, and showed them to be false. The part I colored in blue above is where you finally make a valid statement based upon the news story you quoted.

Again, semantics. The point remains the same. You derailed the argument, in a poor attempt to prove it wrong, because you failed at drawing obvious conclusions that even a blind person could see. The end result remains the same, Faux is not news and is not authoritative, quoteable, or credible for use in a debate. Nothing has changed despite your inability to understand the original point.

Actually, that is exactly the opposite of what happened. You made multiple unsupportable statements, and kept altering them in attempts to discredit Fox. All because you did not want Gordie to be able to use the article he linked as a source. It is you who derailed the argument with your false statements about Fox, in attempts to support your desire to discredit them as a source.

They ARE discredited as a source. The end, period, over and done. I don't give two @#$%s about his article. I don't need to hear about Faux's love of lying from their own lips to know that they aren't a credible source. You have successfully strawmaned and semantics debatd theoriginal argument into oblivion, just as you're sogood at.

So for me to directly quote your post is now considered a strawman? :? Wow.

If you didn't give two &#^% about his article, you needn't have posted your attempt to discredit Fox, and the ensuing false statements you based on the article you posted. Had you simply avoided that, most of this would likely be back on track. You simply don't like your false statements to be pointed out. I see you STILL do not acknowledge them. :quirky
You introduced that into this thread. You should at least accept responsibility for it.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

If you didn't give two &#^% about his article, you needn't have posted your attempt to discredit Fox, and the ensuing false statements you based on the article you posted. Had you simply avoided that, most of this would likely be back on track. You simply don't like your false statements to be pointed out. I see you STILL do not acknowledge them. :quirky
You introduced that into this thread. You should at least accept responsibility for it.

The point remains the same. You derailed the argument, in a poor attempt to prove it wrong, because you failed at drawing obvious conclusions that even a blind person could see. The end result remains the same, Faux is not news and is not authoritative, quoteable, or credible for use in a debate. Nothing has changed despite your inability to understand the original point.

 

[unreconstructed1]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Now back to the topic, other than his statements here, I saw nothing in the news article to indicate if he was actually OCing during the event in question.

well, during the "crazed dad" episode, the reader can only be left with the impression that he was OC'ing, since teh father saw the gun immediately, but i'd have to agree with you on the drug deal gone bad situation; nothing anywhere indicates that he was OC'ing at the time.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

If you didn't give two &#^% about his article, you needn't have posted your attempt to discredit Fox, and the ensuing false statements you based on the article you posted. Had you simply avoided that, most of this would likely be back on track. You simply don't like your false statements to be pointed out. I see you STILL do not acknowledge them. :quirky
You introduced that into this thread. You should at least accept responsibility for it.

The point remains the same. You derailed the argument, in a poor attempt to prove it wrong, because you failed at drawing obvious conclusions that even a blind person could see. The end result remains the same, Faux is not news and is not authoritative, quoteable, or credible for use in a debate. Nothing has changed despite your inability to understand the original point.

LOL, I have not failed to understand the point you underline. But, you have failed to admit your false statements, upon which you based what you call your "end result." And your "end result" is not a foregone conclusion, but is your opinion.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

LOL, I have not failed to understand the point you underline. But, you have failed to admit your false statements, upon which you based what you call your "end result." And your "end result" is not a foregone conclusion, but is your opinion.

AWDstylez:

Your inability to draw obvious conclusions doesn't change anything.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10__ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20



What goes in the blank spot? Reasonable person says 11. Idiot that's only interesting in arguing for arguing's sake says, "there's no proof it's 11."

Some people just don't get the whole deductive reasoning/implication thing.



If people here were held to debate tournament standards this entire board would grind to a hault. Even the admins would have nothing to post.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

LOL, I have not failed to understand the point you underline. But, you have failed to admit your false statements, upon which you based what you call your "end result." And your "end result" is not a foregone conclusion, but is your opinion.

AWDstylez:

Your inability to draw obvious conclusions doesn't change anything.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10__ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20



What goes in the blank spot? Reasonable person says 11. Idiot that's only interesting in arguing for arguing's sake says, "there's no proof it's 11."

Some people just don't get the whole deductive reasoning/implication thing.



If people here were held to debate tournament standards this entire board would grind to a hault. Even the admins would have nothing to post.

I do "get it." You do draw false conclusions.
In the above example, a reasonable person would state that 11 goes in the blank. That is a far cry from the conclusions you have been drawing. Frankly, you fail. Miserably. And when it is pointed out to you, you resort to childish name-calling. Another (to use your terms) "epic fail." :quirky

Even the admins hold to standards, evidenced in their "cite to authority" rule. Even they "get it" as you fail to do, on a regular basis.
Something does not mysteriously become "fact" simply because you desire it and attempt to declare it.

If you do not wish people here to be held to some arcane "debate tournament standards," does this mean you will stop presenting the false "strawmaning" cries (whatever that is)?

 

[KBCraig]

imported post

Chaingun81 wrote:

This thread is SOOOO off topic now. Can someone please bring it back on track or just close it. There are couple of folks on this forum who consistently derail threadsjust to engage in aworthless argument...

Looks to me like this is a good place to keep the pissing contestants busy, so they don't soil the other threads.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

If you do not wish people here to be held to some arcane "debate tournament standards," does this mean you will stop presenting the false "strawmaning" cries (whatever that is)?

There's a world of difference between blatant strawmans and your inability to see the problem with a "news" network claiming a constitutional right to lie.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

If you do not wish people here to be held to some arcane "debate tournament standards," does this mean you will stop presenting the false "strawmaning" cries (whatever that is)?

There's a world of difference between blatant strawmans and your inability to see the problem with a "news" network claiming a constitutional right to lie.

Yet you have been consistent in your inability to actually identify true strawman arguments in this thread. It seems to be the label you trot out when you do not desire to address the fallacious nature of your statements. How are you at addressing your false claims so far? I have you at about 0 for 3.

False statement #1:

AWDstylez wrote:

The point of the article is that American media lies for views. Faux News isn't even ashamed of its lying. It admits to it and claims it's coveredunder the 1A.

False statement. The article you copy/pasted never showed that to be true. Fox did not admit to lying.

False Statement #2:

You're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.[/quote]False. The article you copy/pasted does not support that statement. Nowhere does Fox state that they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do.

False Statement #3:

AWDstylez wrote:

Basically, Faux flat out lies and fabricates to give their neo-con fan base exactly what it wants to hear. American media is all about turning a profit.

Once again, false. Nowhere have you shown this to be the case.

0 for 3.


Claim that Fox is low on credibility all you wish, but when you continue to make false allegations to get to your conclusions, you have no credibility.



Stylez, you must have missed my response to your facetious poker example. I already agreed with that. It still does not support your false claims. :quirky

 

[PT111]

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

Chaingun81 wrote:

This thread is SOOOO off topic now. Can someone please bring it back on track or just close it. There are couple of folks on this forum who consistently derail threadsjust to engage in aworthless argument...

Looks to me like this is a good place to keep the pissing contestants busy, so they don't soil the other threads.

Good point. Like the police chife whan asked whay he allowed all the whore houses on main street, he said it was so he could keep an eye on them. I really have no idea what this thead is about but it is entertaining.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

wrightme wrote:

If you do not wish people here to be held to some arcane "debate tournament standards," does this mean you will stop presenting the false "strawmaning" cries (whatever that is)?

There's a world of difference between blatant strawmans and your inability to see the problem with a "news" network claiming a constitutional right to lie.

Yet you have been consistent in your inability to actually identify true strawman arguments in this thread. It seems to be the label you trot out when you do not desire to address the fallacious nature of your statements. How are you at addressing your false claims so far? I have you at about 0 for 3.

False statement #1:

AWDstylez wrote:

The point of the article is that American media lies for views. Faux News isn't even ashamed of its lying. It admits to it and claims it's coveredunder the 1A.

False statement. The article you copy/pasted never showed that to be true. Fox did not admit to lying.

False Statement #2:

/users/17482.htmlYou're a funny guy. Maybe you missed the part where they DID (attempt) to lie in the case of that story. Go back to the poker example. The fact that theybelieve lying is a perfectly ok thing to do makes them lose all credibility. That's not even to mention the numerous lies they're guilty of, which you can easily find all over the internet.

False. The article you copy/pasted does not support that statement. Nowhere does Fox state that they believe lying is a perfectly ok thing to do.

False Statement #3:

AWDstylez wrote:

Basically, Faux flat out lies and fabricates to give their neo-con fan base exactly what it wants to hear. American media is all about turning a profit.

Once again, false. Nowhere have you shown this to be the case.

0 for 3.


Claim that Fox is low on credibility all you wish, but when you continue to make false allegations to get to your conclusions, you have no credibility.

More semantics. Point remains the same. Nothing has changed. You have a future in politics.



To demonstrate you inability to use deductive reasoning and draw reasonable, logical conclusions, consider this conversation:



Person 1 - "You cheated at the last poker game."

Person 2 - "I have every right to cheat."

Person 1 - "See, you don't even deny it."

Person 2 - "The constitution guarantees me a right to cheat."



Did person two cheat? More importantly, would you play poker with person two?