|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Vahn421]
#26882461 - 08/15/20 10:29 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: It's obvious that vahn believes in the killary conspiracy, where is your demand for evidence?
Vahn said "People that try to expose Hillary mysterious die." That actually happened to a lot of people.
Now, there are two different approaches to a rebuttal:
1. Vahn, you're so stupid, and a big fat poo poo head! 2. Vahn, do you have any evidence of this, or is this only a suspicion based on coincidence?
Vahn - can you answer the second question please?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26882474 - 08/15/20 10:47 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There ya go! Only took a dozen pages over 3 threads
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,329
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 minutes, 38 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26882489 - 08/15/20 11:04 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: It's obvious that vahn believes in the killary conspiracy, where is your demand for evidence?
Vahn said "People that try to expose Hillary mysterious die." That actually happened to a lot of people.
Now, there are two different approaches to a rebuttal:
1. Vahn, you're so stupid, and a big fat poo poo head! 2. Vahn, do you have any evidence of this, or is this only a suspicion based on coincidence?
Vahn - can you answer the second question please?
Lol he’s probably just gonna use the WND link you provided. Are you gonna call it make believe?
Anyways, I’m not interested in seeing his “evidence.” He’s not gonna show us anything we haven’t seen before, and it’s just not a serious claim. It’s laughable and has been thoroughly debunked already in this forum.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,329
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 minutes, 38 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods]
#26882491 - 08/15/20 11:06 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Cops staged for protests on my friends block tonight. DC is heating up. They detained a couple dozen protesters without charges the other night.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods]
#26882492 - 08/15/20 11:06 PM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: there are two different approaches to a rebuttal:
1. Vahn, you're so stupid, and a big fat poo poo head! 2. Vahn, do you have any evidence of this, or is this only a suspicion based on coincidence?
Vahn - can you answer the second question please?
Lol he’s probably just gonna use the WND link you provided. Are you gonna call it make believe?
Anyways, I’m not interested in seeing his “evidence.” He’s not gonna show us anything we haven’t seen before, and it’s just not a serious claim. It’s laughable and has been thoroughly debunked already in this forum.
I see koods is voting for option 1.
We'll see what Vahn says...
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26882537 - 08/16/20 12:00 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
. Vahn, do you have any evidence of this, or is this only a suspicion based on coincidence?
Dude fal this is the nicest way you've ever said "source or make believe?"
How is suspicion based on coincidence not the same as make believing?
Come on dude
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26882545 - 08/16/20 12:10 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said:
Quote:
. Vahn, do you have any evidence of this, or is this only a suspicion based on coincidence?
Dude fal this is the nicest way you've ever said "source or make believe?"
How is suspicion based on coincidence not the same as make believing?
Come on dude 
Two reasons:
1. His statement wasn't technically make believe; hence I asked for clarification. If koods had a suspicion about Hillary, he'd say something more like "Hillary did it". That's koods' style and it pisses me off. 2. People here have been total assholes to Vahn, and I think he has potential, so I'm hoping the assholes don't scare him away. The guy's already admitted to be wrong more than anyone I can recall, so we both have to adjust to each other's style.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26882548 - 08/16/20 12:12 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
He's been a member since 2012 and he's got potential to replace xul. Bout it.
This isnt just about koods. You do it to everybody. Pretty sure everybody here can validate that claim
--------------------
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26882555 - 08/16/20 12:17 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ok so you took vahns comment on the face of it instead of inferring that he believed the clintons were having them killed?
How do you decide when it's appropriate to take peoples words super literally or to infer their meaning through context?
It seems obvious to me that vahn was implying that the clintons had these people killed. Was that not obvious to you?
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26882557 - 08/16/20 12:18 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: He's been a member since 2012 and he's got potential to replace xul. Bout it.
He starting posting to the political forum last month, so he's pretty new here.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: This isnt just about koods. You do it to everybody. Pretty sure everybody here can validate that claim
Only when people are make believing.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26882558 - 08/16/20 12:19 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,329
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 minutes, 38 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26882562 - 08/16/20 12:22 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It doesn’t even make sense in any other context. I cannot imagine a context where that statement isn’t intended to imply she’s killing off her enemies. Falcon certainly believed that was the context, since he immediately posted the WND article.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (08/16/20 12:23 AM)
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods]
#26882565 - 08/16/20 12:26 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I know. He really doesnt want to call ANY of vahns positions potential make believe.
It's actually pretty interesting to see.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,329
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 minutes, 38 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26882570 - 08/16/20 12:29 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
People that try to expose Hillary mysterious die.

See, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about Shivas.
On the one hand, you have information that appears to support Vahn's claim: 'Clinton death list': 33 spine-tingling cases
“Information that appears to support Vahns claim.” What was his claim? I thought we couldn’t know exactly what vahn meant 🤔
Seriously dude, this isn’t going well for you.
Quote:
natedawgnow said: I know. He really doesnt want to call ANY of vahns positions potential make believe.
It's actually pretty interesting to see.
When vahn posts make believe, the source is provided by falcon and is called “information that appears to support” his claim. Everyone knows that information that supports a claim is clearly make believe.
Edited by koods (08/16/20 12:32 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26882580 - 08/16/20 12:38 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: Ok so you took vahns comment on the face of it instead of inferring that he believed the clintons were having them killed?
How do you decide when it's appropriate to take peoples words super literally or to infer their meaning through context?
It seems obvious to me that vahn was implying that the clintons had these people killed. Was that not obvious to you?
Yes, Vahn did infer that he believed Hillary was behind the killings. But look at the wording he chose:
Vahn said: "People that try to expose Hillary mysterious die."
Though I think that's Vahn's opinion, he CLEARLY didn't express it as a fact (we don't have enough evidence to call it a fact).
Koods believes that Putin is behind the killings, but look at the wording koods chooses:
Koods said: "Right wing Hillary conspiracy theory nonsense has nothing to do with the fact that Putin has opponents, detractors, defectors and nosy journalists murdered."
Koods said: "If you think Putin isn't fond of killing his political opponents despite years of him doing so, then me making the argument is useless."
Koods said: "A Russia that is run by a dictator who kills his political opponents."
Do you see the difference? Koods insists he's right (which pisses me off), Vahn only implies he thinks he's right, which is cool because he might be. But there's no evidence for him to insist he's right, and I don't think he will.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods]
#26882585 - 08/16/20 12:43 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: When vahn posts make believe, the source is provided by falcon and is called “information that appears to support” his claim. Everyone knows that information that supports a claim is clearly make believe.
Which of the 33 deaths is make believe? (this is the 3rd time I'm asking)
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (08/16/20 12:48 AM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,329
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 6 minutes, 38 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26882598 - 08/16/20 12:55 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
koods said: When vahn posts make believe, the source is provided by falcon and is called “information that appears to support” his claim. Everyone knows that information that supports a claim is clearly make believe.
Which of the 33 deaths is make believe? (this is the 3rd time I'm asking)
What a fucking bullshit question. You know the issue isn’t that they’re dead or not. JFC you’re a total hack.
Quote:
Though I think that's Vahn's opinion, he CLEARLY didn't express it as a fact (we don't have enough evidence to call it a fact).
Actually my response to his “‘mysteriously dead” line was 
Not only did you assume what my laugh meant, you assumed I inferred he meant that Hilary was killing off people AND you infered it yourself because you then posted the make believe from WND
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#26882599 - 08/16/20 12:56 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Dude obviously none of the deaths are make believe. Bad faith tactics.
The make believe is the assertion that hillary had anything to do with their deaths. For the record I cant stand hillary I'm not saying she for sure didnt, but until there is solid evidence posted, not just a list, it's make believe.
Also, this isnt the only time you have refused to call out vahn on outrageous claims.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods]
#26882625 - 08/16/20 01:20 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, sorry. What's "the make believe from WND" that "is clearly make believe"?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26882644 - 08/16/20 01:36 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: People that try to expose Hillary mysterious die.
'Clinton death list': 33 spine-tingling cases . Which of the WND deaths didn't happen? . I don't believe Hillary is a murderer. I've said so here, and here, and here.
So let’s get this straight. Falcon believes that Clinton isn’t killing people left and right, but instead of calling out Vahn on his make believe, he backs him up and provides a fake news source. 🤔
Technically, Vahn didn't make believe. He didn't say "Hillary had these people killed", he said these people "mysteriously die".
Now, you'll probably say "but it was clear from the context that Vahn implied Hillary was behind it". To which I say now you can read context when it works in your favor, but you can't read context otherwise? 
--------------------
|
|