jakee

Right. You can tell it's really from Trump because it has Trump's face on it. That's proof that is.

Ha, I don't use zoom but, good offer. Appreciate it

Um, probably just those two? Why?

Ask youself this - why would I believe you when you can't even tell the truth about whether you love or hate vegetables? You're joking aren't you? You refuse to apologise even for the intentional lies you tell about other posters and you want an apology for an entirely reasonable assumption? A10 pops up out of nowhere, he makes a bunch of posts that are stylistically similar to yours employing some of your favourite rhetorical tricks, and he does it all in a gap between your posts. Seems perfectly reasonable to state that he makes me think of a sockpuppet of you. If you don't like that you can be more honest in your posting habits and, sometime in the future when you've rehabiitated your reputation enough, you won't seem reminiscent of this type of poster anymore.

My one sentence replies? That just goes to prove that you haven't even read this thread, let alone anything else on the site. Hmm, what does that level of honesty remind me of... yep, Turtlespeed sockpuppet.

Helpful hint. When you jump into a discussion out of nowhere and your first two paragraphs are spent in saying that the people in it are engaging in mentally unhealthy obssessive behaviour, it kinda comes across sounding as if you're after an argument. Maybe just keep that in mind for next time eh?

Oh for fuck's sake, it's a Turtlespeed sockpuppet.

I don't need to bait you into saying what you had already offered up. That's exactly the point. I would absolutely not constitute [sic] your post as discussion.

Agreed. The people who pop up only to question the motives and mental health of those they disagree with instead of attempting to use their reason and principles to address the issues under discussion do tend to drag the place down, don't they?

Orders? This is a discussion. You put forward your point of view because you wanted it to be heard. You have been defending it because you want to be believed. You now avoid the central question because... I didn't ask you to answer that question because I want to tell you what to do, I asked because it's the single key point in question. You're not avoiding it to prove 'I'm not the boss of you' - that's just empty bluff and bluster. You're avoiding it because you can't answer it, but at the same time you can't possibly just say "oh yeah, I was wrong". So you just try this boring twist, obfuscate and avoid thing again. Wouldn't it be easier to just give a genuine answer to the question like a normal person having a discussion?

No. You don't see it's telling that you couldn't answer the one part of my post where I said if you answer anything, answer this? Again, if Phil answered Bart's question with "I donated X dollars" how would that line of thinking preclude him criticising Trump for not donating?

I think just when it's this ironic.

Right - so how does asking the question 'how much have you donated' disqualify Phil from criticising Trump for not donating? If Phil says 'I donated nothing' - OK, there you go. You can call Phil out for being a hypocrite. How can he attack Trump for not donating when he hasn't donated himself!?! That would be fair. If Phil says 'I donated <insert amount of $ here>' - how does that 'line of thinking' disqualify him criticising Trump? If you only answer one thing from this post, answer that. Imagine the conversation: Bartsdaddy: How much have you donated Phil? Phil: I donated $1000. Turtlespeed: Then you can't attack Trump for not donating! Tell me how that makes sense to you. That is all highly convoluted. Luckily I don't have to untangle it all because it is simply irrelevant. Bartsdaddy didn't ask "how much would you have donated if you were a billionaire". He asked "how much have you donated". That's the line of thought. How much real money has the real Phil donated from his real bank account. Your hypothetical flight of fancy regarding billionaire Phil is nonsensical and wierd. I think it's fairly obviously just a post hoc excuse.

As far as I'm aware Phil has not made any such claim. And as a more general point - if one can fully excuse a failure to live up to standards set for oneself by just pointing to someone else and saying "it's fine because they didn't live up to my standards either" then in what meaningful way can one ever actually possess one's own standards or hold oneself to account? That's a crap way of looking at the world.

Then why did you state that the line of thinking 'doesn't allow one to bash Trump'? If Phil has donated anything at all then I cannot think of any possible way that either Bart's question or Phil's response would invalidate his criticism of Trump. The only way the question could possibly disallow Phil from bashing Trump is if the answer is that he had not donated. Ergo, the assumption he has not donated is implicit in your post.

Why do you assume he hasn't donated anything? Do you not claim to try and look for the best in people first?

Which is why in the other thread you're blaming Bigun for failed sarcasm, and not blaming other people for responding to something you claim he didn't mean? See, this is the kind of twisting in the wind that means no-one trusts you. This is the kind of situational flip-flop that makes people accuse you of trolling all the time. It wouldn't make things easier for me. I'm not at all bothered that you, a proven goldfish, can't remember the details of an exchange from a few days ago. But hey, since you asked so nicely, here you go.

I think you've failed to either read or understand the article linked. It is talking about how to compare Covid-19 deaths within the USA to flu deaths within the USA. It doesn't matter whether you look at per capita or absolute, since both Covid 19 and the flu exist within the same reality, and the population of the USA is therefore the same for both.

That's your problem. I should blame someone who didn't post it instead?

I figured you'd be able to understand a joke. Funny how this sense of humour you're so proud of keeps disappearing whenever you see an opportunity to be snide instead. Anyway, about a week ago maybe? Why?

Obviously not. The discussion (such as it is) is around factors that would automatically disqualify a candidate. Wherever you set that line it is by definition going to be short of the criteria you would use to try and find your best candidate. Further than that, the two things don't even need to be related. For instance, the statement that no rapist is an acceptable candidate in no way indicates that the speaker thinks that any non-rapist is a good candidate. Not being a rapist simply means you are not disqualified from consideration, it doesn't factor at all into making a positive decision about who is suitably qualified.

2 hours ago, it says so at the top of the post.

Then do something about it. Be better. Post things you really believe. Post things that reflect your actual values and not just your partisanship. Acknowledge when you make mistakes. Present your personality here in a better way.

Sounds just like when you claimed there weren't any churches left in Edinburgh. Except the reporter at least had the good grace to admit it when she was exposed. More seriously though, that link itself says that after substantive concerns were raised the Post themselves investigated, found the story to be false, made that public and returned the award. Similar to Jayson Blair and the NYT. They investigated him internally, they found out he had been fabricating stories and they published a front page story laying everything bare. What those affairs ultimately show is that, regardless of falling prey to rogue individuals a couple of times over the last half century, to both of those institutions journalistic integrity is their number one priority. More important than prizes and more important than avoiding public embarrasment. Unlike these guys. The Mueller report completely exonerated Trump? That article is fake news.

Good to see your argument has maintained the same level of intellectual honesty from start to finish