• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Has it slipped your notice that others are presenting new information and I am mostly responding to it? Just as you do. But nice try.
As for 'why?", I already addressed that in my last post.



They may not be defending it, but there are plenty...including you...arguing that her credibility is irrelevant to the case. It's not.



Why do you keep refuting the fact that credibility IS important in cases such as this? Despite the fact you've been quoted and cited evidence from multiple sources that it isvery important. Whether you think it should be is irrelevant. In reality, it is.

Using words like "attacking" is an obvious appeal to emotion. To 'attack' something is negative. I'm not attacking her credibility; I'm discussing it.
Click to expand...


She did bad things X, Y and Z. Therefore, her credibility is in question. She has lied about A, B and C. Therefore, she is probably lying about rape allegations.

Believe Women...unless they have done bad thing and lied before.
 
xjx388 said:
She did bad things X, Y and Z. Therefore, her credibility is in question. She has lied about A, B and C. Therefore, she is probably lying about rape allegations.

Believe Women...unless they have done bad thing and lied before.
Click to expand...

Why do think someone’s credibility isn’t relevant to the veracity of the claims they make?

Are you in the habit of believing proven liars in the absence of corroborating evidence?
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Why do think someone’s credibility isn’trelevant to the veracity of the claims they make?

Are you in the habit of believing proven liars in the absence of corroborating evidence?
Click to expand...

I think the argument that credibility is irrelevant is intellectual dishonesty. In real life, people do take it into account, especially when there is no corroborating evidence. Those being most vocal and decrying it as character assassination and reputation smearing have certainly done it despite their protestations otherwise. They'd be fools not to.
 
Stacyhs said:
I think the argument that credibility is irrelevant is intellectual dishonesty. In real life, people do take it into account, especially when there is no corroborating evidence. Those being most vocal and decrying it as character assassination and reputation smearing have certainly done it despite their protestations otherwise. They'd be fools not to.
Click to expand...

Whether we believe Biden raped somebody should not depend on their credibility, but on the evidence they present to support their allegation.

Credibility is good for risk assessment. In job interviews, for example. Someone who isn't credible may not be a good employment risk for your business. It's totally useless for determining whether or not any specific thing they've said is actually a lie.

We're not trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Joe Biden could rape someone?" We're not even trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Tara Reade is lying?" We're trying to answer the question, "did Joe Biden rape Tara Reade?" And the answer to that has nothing to do with her credibility. It has everything to do with the evidence that supports her claim.

Why is it so important to go beyond "the claim has no evidence, therefore it's rejected"? Is anybody here trying to defend the claim on the grounds of Reade's credibility?

Who exactly are you even arguing against, with your credibility deep dive? What is the actual argument being made, that is refuted by your "she's not credible"?
 
theprestige said:
Whether we believe Biden raped somebody should not depend on their credibility, but on the evidence they present to support their allegation.

Credibility is good for risk assessment. In job interviews, for example. Someone who isn't credible may not be a good employment risk for your business. It's totally useless for determining whether or not any specific thing they've said is actually a lie.

We're not trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Joe Biden could rape someone?" We're not even trying to answer the question, "is there a risk that Tara Reade is lying?" We're trying to answer the question, "did Joe Biden rape Tara Reade?" And the answer to that has nothing to do with her credibility. It has everything to do with the evidence that supports her claim.

Why is it so important to go beyond "the claim has no evidence, therefore it's rejected"? Is anybody here trying to defend the claim on the grounds of Reade's credibility?

Who exactly are you even arguing against, with your credibility deep dive? What is the actual argument being made, that is refuted by your "she's not credible"?
Click to expand...

Around and around and around we go with the same questions and answers being repeated ad nauseam. If you don't understand or accept the points made by me and others over the last few weeks, you never will. Fine. But please, don't try and claim the high ground by trying to minimize your own part in keeping this topic alive.
 
Stacyhs said:
Around and around and around we go with the same questions and answers being repeated ad nauseam. If you don't understand or accept the points made by me and others over the last few weeks, you never will. Fine. But please, don't try and claim the high ground by trying to minimize your own part in keeping this topic alive.
Click to expand...

I understand the points just fine. Reade isn't a very credible person. What I don't understand, and what I don't think you've actually explained in the past few weeks(!) is why you've spent the past few weeks establishing this. Was anybody here actually appealing to Reade's credibility?

And, once you first established it a few weeks ago, why spend the next few weeks going around and around re-establishing the same point over and over again?
 
theprestige said:
I understand the points just fine. Reade isn't a very credible person. What I don't understand, and what I don't think you've actually explained in the past few weeks(!) is why you've spent the past few weeks establishing this. Was anybody here actually appealing to Reade's credibility?

And, once you first established it a few weeks ago, why spend the next few weeks going around and around re-establishing the same point over and over again?
Click to expand...

No matter what I say, you'll have a comeback and end up asking me the exact same thing.
Just give it a frigging rest, will ya?
 
Stacyhs said:
No matter what I say, you'll have a comeback and end up asking me the exact same thing.
Click to expand...
Not really.

If you said, "Member X is insisting that Reade's accusation lacks evidence but has credibility, and that needs to be addressed," I'd say, "makes sense, carry on."

Just give it a frigging rest, will ya?
Click to expand...
If you won't explain to me why you shouldn't give it a rest, can you at least explain to me why I should? I mean, there are other aspects of Candidate Biden we could talk about instead, if you want to give the Reade thing a rest. The questions about Hunter Biden's reputation and credibility didn't go away just because Reade distracted us for a bit. Biden's gaffe machine didn't stop rolling product off the assembly line. If you don't want to talk about those things, we could take a look at the antics of people trying to audition for his Veep slot. Or we could keep talking about Reade. What do you think? Can we give the Reade thing a rest? Or is there important Reade material you still need to address?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Not really.

If you said, "Member X is insisting that Reade's accusation lacks evidence but has credibility, and that needs to be addressed," I'd say, "makes sense, carry on."


If you won't explain to me why you shouldn't give it a rest, can you at least explain to me why I should? I mean, there are other aspects of Candidate Biden we could talk about instead, if you want to give the Reade thing a rest. The questions about Hunter Biden's reputation and credibility didn't go away just because Reade distracted us for a bit. Biden's gaffe machine didn't stop rolling product off the assembly line. If you don't want to talk about those things, we could take a look at the antics of people trying to audition for his Veep slot. Or we could keep talking about Reade. What do you think? Can we give the Reade thing a rest? Or is there important Reade material you still need to address?
Click to expand...

Give it a rest. Period. I have no more interest in playing your 'wear 'em down' game. You're like a kid who keeps asking "Why" every time his parents give him an answer.
 
Stacyhs said:
Give it a rest. Period. I have no more interest in playing your 'wear 'em down' game. You're like a kid who keeps asking "Why" every time his parents give him an answer.
Click to expand...

Just gonna keep trying to wear us down about Reade's credibility? Even though none of us actually think it matters to the question?

Also, how is this "give it a rest" thing supposed to work, exactly? You get to keep bringing it up for discussion on a discussion board, but none of us are allowed to discuss it, because that would wear you down somehow? Have you considered just starting a blog, with comments disabled?
 
Last edited:
I don't know why you are arguing with a person who is not really having a discussion in good faith. Trump supporters could care less if Tara Reade's accusations are sincere or not.
 
001cf7f9771769f3e0dbe3b537c1b683.jpg

Say what you will about DJT, but he wastes no time.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
I know, right?

Let’s hope OAN wins all the Noble Prizes this year!
Click to expand...


How can we locate that study which found all MSM outlets are probably trustworthy around pharma issues even though they all have execs who also sit on the boards of Big Pharma Corporations.. What was the name of the people who made those findings anyway....anyone recall?

I will let ya know if I remember it
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200523/001cf7f9771769f3e0dbe3b537c1b683.jpg[/qimg]
Say what you will about DJT, but he wastes no time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, DJT did a great job updating his campaign's website.

Biden's a gaffe machine, yet still hasn't told people to inject bleach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom