That’s just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you’re going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election…You’re going to look at all that and say it had ‘nothing to do’ with those same protests.
Not, ‘there were other factors’, nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
Of course not. And even if you want to pretend you were actually unclear on it, it was then explained to you several times. So whether or not its on you to know it is irrelevant. You did know it, and chose to continue your argument in bad faith from there on out.
If you claim something is proof of something, be prepared to prove it when asked, or don’t say it.
So change the word “proof” in the parent comment to “strong evidence”. Is it clear to you now? Do you understand?
So if I have no proof the protests didn’t cause this, and you have no proof they did, I’d say it’s a wash and both are wrong.
Which was my point all along.
Just accept that a good thing happened without taking credit for something someone who you do nothing but shit on did.
Also, Internet discussions aren’t something one worries about “crushing” when they’re an adult. I’m not here to “crush” anything. I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
Nothing more. Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
It’s redundant to point out what can be readily observed by all, but however ineffective you are, it’s clear you are trying to “crush” this.
I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
You appear to actually disagree with my definition of evidence, since I’ve been open about the distinction, and you’ve ignored repeated offers to engage with my evidence, opting instead to double down on demanding proof in the face of overwhelming evidence.
One last try for posterity: why are you so sure that the protests had nothing to do with it, given how numerous, persistent, widely covered they are, and given the fact that they are happening during what may be the most impactful US presidential race in modern history?
Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
Your gaslighting is as clumsy as your attempts at discourse. I am writing this from my mobile phone, sat at a nice lakeside park on a lovely if overcast day, during my lunch break. You might be excited, but this isn’t even taxing my pulse. Maybe stop projecting. We started this out agreeing to disagree, I just wanted you to check your tether to reality, though it’s clear to me now that it’s been dangling uselessly for a while now.
That’s just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you’re going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election…You’re going to look at all that and say it had ‘nothing to do’ with those same protests.
Not, ‘there were other factors’, nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
So your proof is no proof. Correlation isn’t causation. Check your work and try again.
Provide proof please.
So this whole time you’re simply being pedantic about the word “proof”?
That’s pretty pathetic.
If they claim it’s proof without there being proof, it’s a bad faith statement. It’s not pedantic to call it out just because you disagree with it.
It’s disingenuous to take credit for something where no credit was ever given.
What’s actually bad faith is knowing what someone meant, but continuing to argue that a single word choice voids their sentiment.
No. The onus isn’t on me to “know what they meant.” That’s how misunderstanding happens. The responsibility lies in what you say and how you say it.
If you claim something is proof of something, be prepared to prove it when asked, or don’t say it.
Of course not. And even if you want to pretend you were actually unclear on it, it was then explained to you several times. So whether or not its on you to know it is irrelevant. You did know it, and chose to continue your argument in bad faith from there on out.
So change the word “proof” in the parent comment to “strong evidence”. Is it clear to you now? Do you understand?
Okay man. I’m really fucking tired of you people constantly rearranging my comments to fit your shitty little narrative.
I’m blocking you as well as the others.
Learn what nuance is.
Better luck next time. If you’re going to be pedantic, at least be good at it.
Hey you’re crushing this whole internet discussion thing, provided we all join you in persistently ignoring all of the circumstances I keep mentioned.
I have no proof. I have a mountain of evidence, and I am keen to hear your erudite take on why none of it matters.
The, if you like, you can share your evidence, but I doubt you want to.
So if I have no proof the protests didn’t cause this, and you have no proof they did, I’d say it’s a wash and both are wrong.
Which was my point all along.
Just accept that a good thing happened without taking credit for something someone who you do nothing but shit on did.
Also, Internet discussions aren’t something one worries about “crushing” when they’re an adult. I’m not here to “crush” anything. I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
Nothing more. Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
It’s redundant to point out what can be readily observed by all, but however ineffective you are, it’s clear you are trying to “crush” this.
You appear to actually disagree with my definition of evidence, since I’ve been open about the distinction, and you’ve ignored repeated offers to engage with my evidence, opting instead to double down on demanding proof in the face of overwhelming evidence.
One last try for posterity: why are you so sure that the protests had nothing to do with it, given how numerous, persistent, widely covered they are, and given the fact that they are happening during what may be the most impactful US presidential race in modern history?
Your gaslighting is as clumsy as your attempts at discourse. I am writing this from my mobile phone, sat at a nice lakeside park on a lovely if overcast day, during my lunch break. You might be excited, but this isn’t even taxing my pulse. Maybe stop projecting. We started this out agreeing to disagree, I just wanted you to check your tether to reality, though it’s clear to me now that it’s been dangling uselessly for a while now.
Right. I’m trying to crush being the opposition in a wind-tunnel.
Get over yourself man. This smug self-righteousness works in high school, but it’s obnoxious to an adult.
I made my point. I wont apologize because you don’t like it.
Blocking you now.
Well who could have predicted that little cranky fit? Okay, bye!