Mueller Investigation pt4

[The Big Dog]

The word "so" in this context means nothing more than "this follows from the preceding", i.e., that from the previous premises, we draw the following conclusion. It is synonymous with "thus", "hence" and "therefore".

The "rule" of so thus is nothing more or less an excuse to dismiss any conclusion that TBD doesn't like, so long as it was introduced by a certain two-letter conclusion indicator. The third paragraph of Seth's thread, for instance, is this:

The conclusion indeed follows from the premise (the quoted material) and is utterly uncontroversial.

TBD is, as usual, playing games. Indeed, his previous pretense of being a Bernie supporter was intellectually more honest than this pathetic reliance on his own personal made-up rule. Might as well just shout "La la la la!" to avoid conclusions he doesn't like.

You see, you are wrong, what Seth is purporting to do is RESTATE the sentence in the article, and give it his own spin in order to support his conclusions.

Sentence: "[Burr] acknowledges now that the investigation is broader, and perhaps more consequential, than it has long been thought to be."

Restatement: "So America doesn't realize how much troubling material the Senate has found—or how far-flung and important to our future the material is." That is a profound exaggeration of what the actual quote is (particularly in context) and yet you purport to claim it is not controversial?

That is amazing.

I get that am the bad guy for suggesting that people stop letting Seth to tell them what to think with his hysterical hyperbole and web of lies.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Lol, you keep saying that but have never once shown that. You sure as **** didn't here, because day that ends in "y."

It is fine. remember that time you said it wasn't a fallacy because someone "wasn't making an argument"? That blew warm breezes up my kilt! So funny!

Not that it's really necessary, but are you now confessing that you don't understand the meaning of "logical argument?"

 

[fagin]

Seth is Trump's secret identity?

It has occurred to me on occasions that given the number of credulous and substance free links to Seth's tweets on this forum that Seth is a member here.

Nope, no way he could fit in as many homilies and lols as you...

 

[The Big Dog]

Not that it's really necessary, but are you now confessing that you don't understand the meaning of "logical argument?"

Um, I think it was pretty clear that I was explaining that my correspondent didn't understand what an "argument" was. So, might wanna work on that?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Um, I think it was pretty clear that I was explaining that my correspondent didn't understand what an "argument" was. So, might wanna work on that?

You didn't explain anything. Here's a shovel: Give us your definition of "logical argument."

 

[The Big Dog]

You didn't explain anything. Here's a shovel: Give us your definition of "logical argument."

Oh dear. I think I see where you went off the rails! You have "logical argument" in quotes, despite the fact that i never used that phrase. Let me walk you though it, again

TBD: that argument contains a fallacious statement.
Reply: har, har, you don't know what teh fallacy is!
TBD: Strewth? Please explain
Reply: Ummm, because it was not an argument at all!
TBD and Planet earth: FACE PALM.

arguments that contain fallacies are still arguments. One may wish to review this

 

[ServiceSoon]

Yes. And the interview with Burr makes it clear that it's closer to the beginning than it is the end.

How can you support that comment when Burr was quoted in the interview as saying:

"We know we're getting to the bottom of the barrel because there're not new questions that we're searching for answers to."

My favorite exerts are:

"My only advice to you is, be careful. There are a lot of false narratives out there,"

"I have no belief that at the end of our process, people that love Donald Trump are going to applaud what we do. And I have no belief that people that hate Donald Trump are going to reverse and say, 'Well, you know, this clears him.' They are solidly in one camp or the other," he said.

Thanks for the link to the actual article TBD.

 

[Belz...]

No I am good, and super excited to show in detail why Seth's insipid spin on an article anyone can read for themselves is grossly flawed.

Next.

Actual article:

"We'll be judged at the end of this on the product that we produce," he said solemnly. "We'll also be judged on the process that we chose ... None of us ever anticipated that this would be two years."

Seth's spin: ""What [has]...extended the life of the [Senate] investigation...is a better understanding of...how coordinated and organized the effort was." So it was the "coordination" and "organization" of what Russia did—uh, coordinating with *whom*?—that has shocked the Senate.

And "shock" isn't too strong a word, as Burr says "none of us"—meaning *even the Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee who hate Trump the most*—"ever anticipated that this [investigation] would be two years." Burr made this comment to CBS, CBS says, "solemnly." That's eerie."

What the hell? Shock is a hysterical and total exaggeration. Saying that the Senate was shocked is a flat out lie of course.

By the way, look at this grift: "meaning *even the Democrats on the Senate Intel Committee who hate Trump the most*" Those words never appear in the actual article, and Burr does not use any language remotely like that to suggest that there are people on the Committee who hate Trump.

y'all are being played by a professional grifter.

I scanned this post just to see if the word "grifter" would pop up.

Like clockwork.

 

[Belz...]

You see, you are wrong, what Seth is purporting to do is RESTATE the sentence in the article, and give it his own spin in order to support his conclusions.

Wrong.

Your mastery of the English language is not improving over the years.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wrong.

Your mastery of the English language is not improving over the years.

oK.

I have a dream, it is a small dream, but a dream nevertheless.

It is that a person would just once claim TBD is wrong, and then actually go ahead and try to show how I was wrong rather than make some insipid claims about English language comprehension or the like.

I know, it is silly and we know that it will likely never happen, still, a fella can dream....

 

[Belz...]

oK.

I have a dream, it is a small dream, but a dream nevertheless.

It is that a person would just once claim TBD is wrong, and then actually go ahead and try to show how I was wrong rather than make some insipid claims about English language comprehension or the like.

My dream is that, every time what you describe is actually done, you'd acknowledge it and correct yourself rather than pretend it didn't happen and then claim that you'd really want people to do it.

It's clear that it isn't your dream; otherwise you wouldn't need to ignore every argument thrown at you. Your entire contribution here is ideological, not empirical.

 

[The Big Dog]

Someone types this "wrong. Your mastery of the English language is not improving over the years." and in the very next post accuses the target of that slur of ignoring arguments "thrown at" him.

You literally cannot make stuff like that up. Oh well.

 

[Belz...]

Someone types this "wrong. Your mastery of the English language is not improving over the years." and in the very next post accuses the target of that slur of ignoring arguments "thrown at" him.

You literally cannot make stuff like that up.

As usual you see irony where none exists.

The reason why I'm not explaining further to you why you're wrong all the time is BECAUSE you _always_ ignore the explanation, and then go on to claim that none was provided.

You're a grifter.

 

[plague311]

oK.

I have a dream, it is a small dream, but a dream nevertheless.

It is that a person would just once claim TBD is wrong, and then actually go ahead and try to show how I was wrong rather than make some insipid claims about English language comprehension or the like.
I know, it is silly and we know that it will likely never happen, still, a fella can dream....

People do that to your arguments all of the time. Your ******** article you linked to the other day has been proven to be nothing other than dumbass conspiracy theory nonsense that you defended with rigor. Now it's being completely ignored because you couldn't find any credible evidence. Whenever you're confronted with facts you go into this tap dance of addressing an "audience" followed by 2-3 snide comments, that are all substance free. If that fails you project the fallacies you don't understand (tu quoque and ad hominem) on others to try and disregard the factual representation. While entertaining to point out the flaws, the conversation itself is garbage.

 

[The Big Dog]

Remember the other day I posted a link to a letter Stomne's counsel sent to Congress?

Yeah, **** just got real:

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said it was "deeply concerning" to him how CNN appeared to have advance knowledge of a raid on the home of political operative Roger Stone.

"It was deeply concerning to me as to how CNN found out about that,” Whitaker stated during an oversight hearing to the House Judiciary Committee on Friday morning.

You are welcome.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Oh dear. I think I see where you went off the rails! You have "logical argument" in quotes, despite the fact that i never used that phrase.

Well, I thought we were talking about logical argument since you were "literally" throwing fallacy labels around, but this is just contradiction.[/MichaelPalinVoice]

Let me walk you though it, again

TBD: that argument contains a fallacious statement.
Reply: har, har, you don't know what teh fallacy is!
TBD: Strewth? Please explain
Reply: Ummm, because it was not an argument at all!
TBD and Planet earth: FACE PALM.

arguments that contain fallacies are still arguments. One may wish to review this

You called the "fallacious statement" a specific type of fallacy -- an ad hominem -- which is an invalid inference that doesn't necessarily follow from the premises. There was no inference posited by the post, hence no such fallacy, nor apparently were you able to express any implicit "argument" that you thought he was making. Neither would you step up to asserting that the "fallacious statement" was false. Nope, just the usual, slap a meaningless term on it and then ignore it.

Thanks for the lesson in dog language, but I'll stick to the standard meaning of words.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Remember the other day I posted a link to a letter Stomne's counsel sent to Congress?

Yeah, **** just got real:



You are welcome.

The guy involved with crazy patent scams is not credible.

 

[plague311]

Remember the other day I posted a link to a letter Stomne's counsel sent to Congress?

Yeah, **** just got real:



You are welcome.

LoL the **** does that mean? Who cares what that dick whistle thinks?

Got a link to something worth a ****** Didn't think so. Thanks TBD, moving on.

 

[The Big Dog]

You called the "fallacious statement" a specific type of fallacy -- an ad hominem -- which is an invalid inference that doesn't necessarily follow from the premises.

falls down dead, I am actually surprised that someone tried to actually show how the big dog was wrong! Well done.

Of course you tried to show it by using a definition of formal fallacy (an invalid inference that doesn't necessarily follow from the premises) as opposed to an informal fallacy (an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument) and given that an ad hominem fallacy is an informal fallacy...

Well, at least you tried, and maybe learned something.

 

[Segnosaur]

Remember the other day I posted a link to a letter Stomne's counsel sent to Congress?
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said it was "deeply concerning" to him how CNN appeared to have advance knowledge of a raid on the home of political operative Roger Stone.
Yeah, **** just got real:

And where exactly is his proof that CNN was 'tipped off' in advance?

From: https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...eply-concerning-how-cnn-found-out-about-stone
Whitaker did not share if the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proof that CNN was told about the Stone raid in advance.

What you have here is a statement, without any sort of evidence, from an individual who has been critical of the Mueller probe in the past and who ignored a suggestion from an ethics advisor that he step aside from being involved in the investigation.

Frankly, you should be worried that an individual who is so keen to be involved in such conspiracy theory nonsense is about to take a key position in the government.