• 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.

Merged Osama bin Laden dead,

I Am The Scum said:
Are you aware that long-distance communication had taken place long before the invention of the telephone?


Why should anyone have to provide specific details to refute your argument? It's your argument. If you need to prove that Bin Laden never used any form of non-phone communication, then go ahead and prove it. Waiting for others to prove you wrong is a thinly-veiled argument from ignorance.

And all the while, you ask others not to speculate. That's all you've been doing. Where's your evidence?
Click to expand...

How do you prove something that's never happened? You've been on this forum long enough to realize you can't prove a negative. The claim is that he was in communication with AQ.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Click this link. I dare you. I double dare you.
Click to expand...

Why would you dare me to click that? It took all of 8 posts for it to be pointed out to you that your entire premise is based on a double negative, which is of course, mathematically, as well as gramatically, a positive.

What you've done is help illustrate why proving what OBL never has done is impossible. What we can do is provide evidence for what he has done, such as communicate with AQ.

If we are going to be cold skeptics, the claim would go as follows:

OBL communicated with AQ while staying in the house in Abbotabad.

What is the evidence for that claim?

A CNN article which describes the information from flash drives.

That's not evidence, that's a report. Has the flash drive been verified? Are there forensics, electronic or otherwise, which connect OBL to the flash drive?

Goddam commie conspiracy theorist.
 
RedIbis said:
You missed the part where I asked you to please not speculate.
Click to expand...

Well, let's use simple logic.

You want to get a message to a friend. You have no phone, or internet. You cannot leave your house.

Here are some things you do have.

Computers
Video
Cameras
external storage devices
assistants who can leave the compound.


Use your brain there Red. Don't be obtuse.
 
triforcharity said:
Well, let's use simple logic.

You want to get a message to a friend. You have no phone, or internet. You cannot leave your house.

Here are some things you do have.

Computers
Video
Cameras
external storage devices
assistants who can leave the compound.


Use your brain there Red. Don't be obtuse.
Click to expand...

What is possible and what happened are not the same thing. In the general sense, you either require evidence or you don't. There were a tremendous amount of conflicting reports when this operation went down. Unless there is any verification, you are merely accepting what you are being told.
 
RedIbis said:
What is possible and what happened are not the same thing. In the general sense, you either require evidence or you don't. There were a tremendous amount of conflicting reports when this operation went down. Unless there is any verification, you are merely accepting what you are being told.
Click to expand...

What made you believe that the helicopter crashed in the compound Red?
 
And RedIbis, stop trying to pretend that you're the skeptic here. We all know that absolutely nothing would convince you. I mean, you're not convinced that planes crashed at the Pentagon and Shanksville and the evidence is irrefutable.
 
RedIbis said:
How do you prove something that's never happened? You've been on this forum long enough to realize you can't prove a negative. The claim is that he was in communication with AQ.
Click to expand...

Who cares,apart from Bin Laden groupies?
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
Why do you always avoid answering a question with a question?
Click to expand...

I pointed that out to her,but it is still her method of avoiding awkward questions. Red does it too,as all truthers do. Maybe one day they will put their money where their mouths are,if they ever summon up the guts to do it.
 
redibis said:
why would you dare me to click that? It took all of 8 posts for it to be pointed out to you that your entire premise is based on a double negative, which is of course, mathematically, as well as gramatically, a positive.

What you've done is help illustrate why proving what obl never has done is impossible. What we can do is provide evidence for what he has done, such as communicate with aq.

If we are going to be cold skeptics, the claim would go as follows:

Obl communicated with aq while staying in the house in abbotabad.

What is the evidence for that claim?

A cnn article which describes the information from flash drives.

That's not evidence, that's a report. Has the flash drive been verified? Are there forensics, electronic or otherwise, which connect obl to the flash drive?

Goddam commie conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

who cares!
 
RedIbis said:
Why would you dare me to click that? It took all of 8 posts for it to be pointed out to you that your entire premise is based on a double negative, which is of course, mathematically, as well as gramatically, a positive.

What you've done is help illustrate why proving what OBL never has done is impossible. What we can do is provide evidence for what he has done, such as communicate with AQ.

If we are going to be cold skeptics, the claim would go as follows:

OBL communicated with AQ while staying in the house in Abbotabad.

What is the evidence for that claim?

A CNN article which describes the information from flash drives.

That's not evidence, that's a report. Has the flash drive been verified? Are there forensics, electronic or otherwise, which connect OBL to the flash drive?

Goddam commie conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

You're not a skeptic. You're not questioning any of the nonsense you're spouting.

First of all, if you had read my post, you would have realized that the point is that the "negative" vs. "positive" distinction has neither a coherent definition, nor a practical application. Your contention that I made a "double negative" is not a refutation. If you'd like to point out how I'm wrong, by all means, post a response in the thread.

The reason I brought this up in the first place was to illustrate that I have spent a great deal more time considering these matters than you have. I know that the "can't prove a negative" canard is often repeated (you are engaging in it right now), but after consideration, I realized it was false. Allow me to demonstrate.

What you've done is help illustrate why proving what OBL never has done is impossible.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true, then there has to be a flaw in the following argument:

1. If Osama Bin Laden had successfully assassinated Stevie Nicks, then Stevie Nicks would be dead.
2. It is not the case that Stevie Nicks is dead.
C. Therefor, Osama Bin Laden has never successfully assassinated Stevie Nicks. (from 1 and 2, modus tollensWP)

So what I've done is shown a conclusion that purports to do that which you say cannot be done: Prove that Bin Laden did not perform a given task. So either my argument is wrong, or you are. The logical structure is valid, so we can rule that out. What about the premises? Shall you argue that assassination does not necessarily lead to death? Shall you argue that Stevie Nicks is, in fact, dead? Did she know too much? Why did Bin Laden kill Stevie Nicks? Did she make him cry? Make him break down? Shatter his illusions of love?
 
I Am The Scum said:
You're not a skeptic. You're not questioning any of the nonsense you're spouting.

First of all, if you had read my post, you would have realized that the point is that the "negative" vs. "positive" distinction has neither a coherent definition, nor a practical application. Your contention that I made a "double negative" is not a refutation. If you'd like to point out how I'm wrong, by all means, post a response in the thread.

The reason I brought this up in the first place was to illustrate that I have spent a great deal more time considering these matters than you have. I know that the "can't prove a negative" canard is often repeated (you are engaging in it right now), but after consideration, I realized it was false. Allow me to demonstrate.


If what you say is true, then there has to be a flaw in the following argument:

1. If Osama Bin Laden had successfully assassinated Stevie Nicks, then Stevie Nicks would be dead.
2. It is not the case that Stevie Nicks is dead.
C. Therefor, Osama Bin Laden has never successfully assassinated Stevie Nicks. (from 1 and 2, modus tollensWP)

So what I've done is shown a conclusion that purports to do that which you say cannot be done: Prove that Bin Laden did not perform a given task. So either my argument is wrong, or you are. The logical structure is valid, so we can rule that out. What about the premises? Shall you argue that assassination does not necessarily lead to death? Shall you argue that Stevie Nicks is, in fact, dead? Did she know too much? Why did Bin Laden kill Stevie Nicks? Did she make him cry? Make him break down? Shatter his illusions of love?
Click to expand...

That is a hell of a lot for a truther to digest. It involves actually thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom