RE: The Official "Damned Trump" Thread
March 4, 2021 at 9:32 am
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2021 at 9:47 am by Angrboda.)
(March 4, 2021 at 3:41 am)SUNGULA Wrote:Quote:I have no standard that people should provide evidence they haven't been asked for, so your claim is a bunch of shit. I have no standard that people must supply evidence. You're a lying cunt.Irrelevant you still ask for evidence to one set of claims while absolving your own from the condition of evidence. That's not consistent.
I never did any such thing. You're just telling lie after lie after lie. I could have refused to provide evidence or I could have provided it. You'll never know because you never asked.
(March 4, 2021 at 3:41 am)SUNGULA Wrote:Quote:I have no obligation to provide anything, nor do I demand that anyone provide something I haven't asked for. Cut the shit, asshole. There was no inconsistency. Now you're just telling a bunch of lies.Again you ask for evidence for a claim but don't do this yourself for your own claims. This is not consistent.
You're right, I didn't ask myself for evidence, because that would be stupid. I asked you for evidence and nobody asked me for evidence, which is inconsistent, but I don't control others asking or not asking.
You keep conflating asking with providing. There is a difference between the providing because there was a difference in the asking. That's as it should be. As a practical matter, the evidence one could provide for any claim could be limitless. I might be asked to provide statistics and end up being pressed for a treatise on Fisher's groundbreaking work on statistics to back up my interpretation, and then the theory of measurement to back up Fisher and so on until doomsday. What stops that is the requirement of the person who is skeptical and what their level of satisfaction requires. And that's indicated by their asking or not asking for more.
(March 4, 2021 at 3:41 am)SUNGULA Wrote:Quote: Whether you acknowledge that you meant to make a moral implication, accusing someone of inconsistently applying their standards in the way you suggest is hypocrisy, the claim of which has very definite moral implications, so that's another lie.No, it's not hypocrisy that requires willful duplicity of which I have not accused anyone. It's possible for a person to simply be oblivious to inconsistency in their actions and that can be Amoral. So it's not a lie.
Anyway, this conversation seems to be going nowhere.So this will be my last response on the matter. Good night
Quote:hy·poc·ri·sy
/həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Nothing about intent. You claimed I had a standard and that I wasn't meeting it. That's hypocrisy. It would be worse if it were intentional hypocrisy, but it needn't be.
Yes, I fully understand why you're abandoning this discussion, too. You're reduced to telling lies about even the meaning of words!