Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

GOP candidate: "God Intended" Pregnancies from RapeFollow

#127 Oct 26 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Allegory wrote:
And has nothing to do with what I said.

You claimed many people voted for President Obama simply because he is black. That is a quantifiable statement. You need to prove that. You need to present a number for how many people voted for President Obama because he was black.


If 10 people voted for President Obama, then you would have a point. Since millions of people voted, you do not have a point. You would have had to ask every single person who voted, not that less than 1/2 of 1 percent crap. Even then, how can you tell that they are telling the truth and not lying? Answer: You can't, because it isn't quantifiable. In theory, yes, in practice no.

Allegory wrote:
"Many Jews live in El Salvador." Do you see how without numbers that is a meaningless statement that's technically true--in the sense that at least one Jew lives in El Salvador)?


Note my theory vs practice comment
#128 Oct 26 2012 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Gbaji, I'm not at all interested in getting into this debate with you, because I don't feel like slamming my head into that particular brick wall at the moment.

My only point is that your argument wasn't ignoring the most important point, and that your defense for it was invalid. I don't need to tell you why this instance itself is an issue because you used flawed logic to arrive there.

It's a logical rule the terms "It is not the case that all Xs are Y" is compatible with "Some Xs are Y."

You made an assumption that it's acceptable for women not to have statistical representation by women because it's not important for other groups to have statistical representation.

That's not an argument, it's just stupid.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#129 Oct 26 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You can't, because it isn't quantifiable. In theory, yes, in practice no.

But you have to. If you don't think it's provable, then you shouldn't have made the assertion. You said many people voted for Obama because of his race. The natural follow up is "how many?" You don't have an answer. What's more, you don't think that question can be answered.
#130 Oct 26 2012 at 9:31 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Even then, how can you tell that they are telling the truth and not lying?

Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You can't, because it isn't quantifiable. In theory, yes, in practice no.

But you have to. If you don't think it's provable, then you shouldn't have made the assertion. You said many people voted for Obama because of his race. The natural follow up is "how many?" You don't have an answer. What's more, you don't think that question can be answered.


It's not that I don't think, I know it can't be answered. It's impossible, that's why you're position is silly. Your theory is flawed, because it only applies to things that is measurable. You can not measure people's feelings towards anything, but that doesn't stop people from making assertions on the said feelings. Again, you claiming that love is meaningless because you can't measure it.

Actions speak louder than words. I don't have to be able to measure my "likeability" to know that person A likes me more than person B. That doesn't mean their feelings toward me is void. No, there is a difference and even though I can't measure it, doesn't take it away.

Same with the 2008 election. No one knew about President Obama. He had no impressive record. He didn't have any defined plans. Clinton had experience, plans and likeability. Then everyone talked about how great a speaker President Obama was, how young he was, his looks and possibly being the first black president. If you don't think those factors didn't play a part in his election even though people in the media blatantly admitted to it, then you're in denial.

So, next you will say that people aren't voting for the "lesser of two evils" or a person because of their political affiliation.
#131 Oct 26 2012 at 9:45 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
you're insisting this is the case, but there is no evidence to back you up. There are numbers of people that voted and the like that indicate you're probably wrong, but you refuse to acknowledge them because they contradict your "gut feeling" Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#132 Oct 26 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If you don't think those factors didn't play a part in his election even though people in the media blatantly admitted to it, then you're in denial.

In the absence of evidence, just say that anyone who doesn't hold your opinion is fooling themselves Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Oct 26 2012 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
you're insisting this is the case, but there is no evidence to back you up. There are numbers of people that voted and the like that indicate you're probably wrong, but you refuse to acknowledge them because they contradict your "gut feeling" Smiley: oyvey

And the weird part is that you aren't even arguing with gbaji.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#134 Oct 26 2012 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you don't think those factors didn't play a part in his election even though people in the media blatantly admitted to it, then you're in denial.

In the absence of evidence, just say that anyone who doesn't hold your opinion is fooling themselves Smiley: laugh


The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



Edited, Oct 27th 2012 12:10am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#135 Oct 26 2012 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you don't think those factors didn't play a part in his election even though people in the media blatantly admitted to it, then you're in denial.

In the absence of evidence, just say that anyone who doesn't hold your opinion is fooling themselves Smiley: laugh


I am sure there are some voters who voted based on the fact he was black, and that he had a *****, I also believe that some voters voted for Clinton because she was white, and a woman. But I hardly believe it had a majority impact. Heck Id wager some voters shied away from Clinton, because it would put Bill back in a position to indirectly form position on the country...then again maybe some voted for her because of that.

You can look back and pick apart things and probably assert them to particular singular aspects, but there is really limitless reasons you could argue for or against. In the end the candidate who possessed the most traits that their constituents found to be presidential won.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#136 Oct 26 2012 at 10:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
I am sure there are some voters who voted based on the fact he was black, and that he had a *****

Out of something like 130,000,000 voters, I'm sure there's people who voted for him because he's black, against him because he's black, against him because he's not black enough, for him because they thought he was a secret Muslim, against him because they thought he was an open Muslim, yadda yadda yadda.

I don't think any of those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 Oct 27 2012 at 2:30 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
In an interesting phenomenon, conservatives might get to start complaining about ACTIVIST DOCTORS if abortions are banned except for when the mother's life is at risk. In Australia, when that was the only legal case for abortions, doctors took their inch and ran a mile. Basically enough psychiatric evidence came out of studies that showed that an unwanted pregnancy, forced to carry to term, unacceptably raised the risk of suicide, severe mental illnesses, and somatic disorders in the mother. (Let alone the raised risk of the above in the unwanted children, even when adopted into happy homes.)

So after a while, a woman wouldn't even need a letter from a psychiatrist if she wanted to terminate a pregnancy. All she had to do was tell two doctors she didn't want the child, wait a week for a cooling-off/thinking-about-it period, and then she'd get an abortion appointment. Payed for by the government.
#138 Oct 27 2012 at 6:21 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Out of something like 130,000,000 voters, I'm sure there's people who voted for him because he's black, against him because he's black, against him because he's not black enough, for him because they thought he was a secret Muslim, against him because they thought he was an open Muslim, yadda yadda yadda.

I don't think any of those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election.


And your conclusion is no different than mine. So, you unless you can provide these "magical fictional" numbers to show that it didn't have a significant impact, then you're no different than me. We are free to have our own opinions. When I see candidates who belittle each other, the all of the sudden their once opponent is the BEST thing for the country, it's hard for me to believe that people voting because candidates follow their vision, assuming they have one.

Just looking at Romney flip flop on positions and centering himself in the final days only confirms that the candidates don't even follow their own vision. People run for office and vote for the wrong reason and I strongly believe if you remove all of those people from the scene it would be a lot less than 130,000,000 voters.

Besides, I was specifically talking about the primaries not the general election. The primary race was close enough to where I believe it would have made a decision.
#139 Oct 27 2012 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:

And your conclusion is no different than mine. So, you unless you can provide these "magical fictional" numbers to show that it didn't have a significant impact, then you're no different than me.

Wouldn't the burden of proof be on you to provide the numbers, as you're the one who made the claim in the first place? Smiley: dubious

Edit: Also, proving a negative? Terrible logic. You claim something happened, show proof for it. Demanding that someone prove it "didn't happen" is pretty silly.

Edited, Oct 27th 2012 9:56am by LockeColeMA
#140 Oct 27 2012 at 8:01 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
It is impossible to prove a negative. That's the FIRST lesson of any class in Logic. Or Debate. Or Argumentative Essays.
#141Almalieque, Posted: Oct 27 2012 at 8:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That was my point. Funny how you don't realize it until I turn it around. How is "I don't think any of those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election" conceptually different than "I think those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election."
#142 Oct 27 2012 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
It is impossible to prove a negative. That's the FIRST lesson of any class in Logic. Or Debate. Or Argumentative Essays.


That was my point. Funny how you don't realize it until I turn it around. How is "I don't think any of those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election" conceptually different than "I think those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election."

Hint: It isn't.


Hint: It is. The latter factors can be raised and examined for their relative effects on the outcome of the election. The earlier factors are as useful to raise as theories about how aliens from alpha centauri, the alignment of the nearest quasar, and the merits of Havarti versus Edam cheese affects the outcome of the election.
#143Almalieque, Posted: Oct 27 2012 at 10:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) In order to know that the factors singularity did not have a significant impact on the election, you would have to know the impact. Whatever way you chose to calculate the impact, the answer will equally tell you if it did or did not have an impact.
#144 Oct 27 2012 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Almalieque wrote:
please tell me how you can get an accurate conclusion

Not our job. You made a claim you couldn't prove. No one here has to fix your **** up.
#145 Oct 27 2012 at 12:55 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
please tell me how you can get an accurate conclusion

Not our job. You made a claim you couldn't prove. No one here has to fix your **** up.


Learn to read. I'm not asking you to prove my claim. I'm asking to prove Jophiel's claim. So, I'll keep waiting. Unless, you're cool with not proving claims.
#146 Oct 27 2012 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'll keep waiting.

Don't hold your breath. Hint: Joph's claim wasn't that blackness was or was not a significant factor in the previous election, it's that you had no evidence as to how much it played a role. And it remains proven until you... present evidence.
#147 Oct 27 2012 at 1:31 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'll keep waiting.

Don't hold your breath. Hint: Joph's claim wasn't that blackness was or was not a significant factor in the previous election, it's that you had no evidence as to how much it played a role. And it remains proven until you... present evidence.


Again, learn to read.

Jophiel wrote:
I don't think any of those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election.

#148 Oct 27 2012 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'll keep waiting.
Don't hold your breath. Hint: Joph's claim wasn't that blackness was or was not a significant factor in the previous election, it's that you had no evidence as to how much it played a role. And it remains proven until you... present evidence.
Again, learn to read.
Jophiel wrote:
I don't think any of those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election.
I also wrote:
I do not believe it primarily due to lack of evidence to the contrary.

So I'm supposed to prove... a lack of evidence?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Oct 27 2012 at 2:03 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'll keep waiting.
Don't hold your breath. Hint: Joph's claim wasn't that blackness was or was not a significant factor in the previous election, it's that you had no evidence as to how much it played a role. And it remains proven until you... present evidence.
Again, learn to read.
Jophiel wrote:
I don't think any of those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election.
I also wrote:
I do not believe it primarily due to lack of evidence to the contrary.

So I'm supposed to prove... a lack of evidence?


and I also wrote:

If your answer is "no", then you are favoring the belief that the number of people who voted for President Obama simply because of his physical appearance, skin color, age, speaking ability or any other irrelevant trait wasn't high enough to make a difference. At that point, your accusation is no different than mine because you are unable to substantiate it.


You only have two options. Either you have a yes/no answer or you have no opinion. You can't give an answer and then say you have no opinion. If you say "no", then that's your claim, so back it up. If you say that you don't have an opinion because it can't be proven, then you can't ask me for proof because you just said that it can't be proven. As I said, just because you cant measure love doesn't mean you can't say that you love one thing more than another.
#150 Oct 27 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You didn't answer me. Am I supposed to prove a lack of evidence?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Oct 27 2012 at 2:51 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I did answer you. It depends on your answer. Is your answer, "I don't think any of those factors singularly had a significant impact on the election." or "there isn't any evidence to prove one way or the other". It can't be both. Either there isn't enough evidence or you have a yes/no answer.

If your answer is "no", then it can't be because there isn't enough evidence, because not having enough evidence doesn't default to "no" or "yes". In that case, you must prove why it's "no". If your answer is "it's not enough evidence", then there isn't anything to prove. In that case, you can't ask me to prove anything either because you just said "it's not enough evidence". Your only argument would be "you can't have an opinion!".
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 308 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (308)