Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[Jrrarglblarg]

How many more words should be used to ask for evidence for a claim?

Two. Don't forget to say please.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yeah sure, I'll believe that. You're in a discussion on a forum dedicated to skeptical thinking and you don't post the slam-dunk evidence you have because you don't have time to deal with requests for evidence.

Huh? You're battling strawmen that only exist in your mind.

You claimed to have evidence, and didn't support it. It was, thus, a baseless claim. That's basic English, here.

Where did I claim to have evidence?

How many more words should be used to ask for evidence for a claim?

It's not so much the number of words. It's the specification of precisely what part of a claim you're skeptical about, and why. Otherwise, it's too easy to pester somebody. I could ask you for evidence of every single statement you make just to annoy you and prevent you from having an interesting discussion, if that's what I wanted to do. It's never what I want to do, but it is the strategy for a lot of people here.

 

[Stacko]

Two. Don't forget to say please.

That's so PC.

 

[sunmaster14]

This is completely antithetical to critical thinking and skepticism. "Good faith" is a term that means nothing and really just another claim. You may truly believe what you're saying is true, but that doesn't mean it is true and, as a purported experienced and knowledgable critical thinker, you should be aware of that as well of suspicious of it.

A critical thinker should be skeptical of their own beliefs as well as that of others. The benefit is not only justifying your beliefs to others (which you apparently deem of low value) but also justifying your beliefs to yourself.

Skepticism only needs to be justified when it comes despite overwhelming evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the one questioning the claim.

I don't make claims for which I don't have evidence (unless I'm doing it as a goof). But actually collecting that evidence in linkable form and arguing about it can be exhausting. I'm here to learn, but I am willing to give back by teaching. However, digging up evidence and showing that it's relevant and cogent requires extra work. If I decide it's not worth the work, that's not being any less of a critical thinker. It's simply deciding that it's not worth the effort to try to convince somebody else. Just because I know calculus, it doesn't mean that I have to explain how to integrate every time somebody asks.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't make claims for which I don't have evidence (unless I'm doing it as a goof).

When you make claims but refuse to or can't provide evidence, it is functionally equivalent to you not having evidence.

I'm here to learn, but I am willing to give back by teaching. However, digging up evidence and showing that it's relevant and cogent requires extra work.

And yet, you accuse others of being lazy and tedious?

If I decide it's not worth the work, that's not being any less of a critical thinker.

Yes. Yes, it does. That is exactly what it means. If you make a claim, but refuse to support it with evidence that others can review, you are not being a critical thinker.

Although much less formal in this setting, peer review of evidence and argument is a completely necessary part of the critical thinking process. Without it, you have no ability to detect things like personal confirmation bias or leaps in logic. Without testing your argument, you are relying on your own perspective to evaluate your own ideas. It's the same reason that authors require editors or programmers require testers ...or scientists need peer review. You don't question assumptions or premises that you don't realize your argument has.

It's simply deciding that it's not worth the effort to try to convince somebody else. Just because I know calculus, it doesn't mean that I have to explain how to integrate every time somebody asks.

No one is asking you to explain calculus out of the blue. People are asking you, in the metaphor, to prove a theorem that you have claimed is true.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah sure, I'll believe that. You're in a discussion on a forum dedicated to skeptical thinking and you don't post the slam-dunk evidence you have because you don't have time to deal with requests for evidence.

That's because he is making it up. Yesterday I challenged him about his claim that Hillary frequently throws temper tantrums. What he provided was a non-corroborated story of a woman who never saw one at the height of the Lewinsky scandal. I'm so reminded of the arguments I have had with the birthers, the 9-11 truthers and the morons who said Amanda Knox was guilty. It was all crap based on wild innuendo that they made up or someone else made up with NO substance.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't make claims for which I don't have evidence (unless I'm doing it as a goof). But actually collecting that evidence in linkable form and arguing about it can be exhausting. I'm here to learn, but I am willing to give back by teaching. However, digging up evidence and showing that it's relevant and cogent requires extra work. If I decide it's not worth the work, that's not being any less of a critical thinker. It's simply deciding that it's not worth the effort to try to convince somebody else. Just because I know calculus, it doesn't mean that I have to explain how to integrate every time somebody asks.

I beg to differ. You almost never have the evidence. And I can't imagine what you could possibly be learning posting scurrilous and almost always fabricated nonsense about Hillary Clinton.

It's one thing if you came to the site to suggest that Hillary's tax proposals are wrong and why, but that isn't what we hear.

I'd discuss Donald's proposals on anything if I felt he believed in any of them. But I'm never sure he'll be supporting any of those proposals next week let alone after the election.

 

[Belz...]

Where did I claim to have evidence?

Make up your mind: either you have information that we don't know you have an refuse to post here, or you don't have it at all, which is my own conclusion. Stop pretending to hide between vague words.

 

[sunmaster14]

I beg to differ. You almost never have the evidence. And I can't imagine what you could possibly be learning posting scurrilous and almost always fabricated nonsense about Hillary Clinton.

I don't think I have posted anything scurrilous or nonsensical about Hillary Clinton, unless it was done obviously in jest. Can you give me an example?

 

[sunmaster14]

Make up your mind: either you have information that we don't know you have an refuse to post here, or you don't have it at all, which is my own conclusion. Stop pretending to hide between vague words.

You claimed that I claimed to have evidence. I deny that I claimed to have evidence. Since your claim was something about me personally, I believe that that you should either provide evidence for it or retract it. Sound fair?

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think I have posted anything scurrilous or nonsensical about Hillary Clinton, unless it was done obviously in jest. Can you give me an example?

Yesterday you said she throws more temper tantrums than Trump and then provided an absurd citation to backup your claim. It's more than clear that your main interest is in smearing Hillary than anything else.

 

[Belz...]

You claimed that I claimed to have evidence. I deny that I claimed to have evidence. Since your claim was something about me personally, I believe that that you should either provide evidence for it or retract it. Sound fair?

I asked you to stop hiding behind vague words and you double down. How honest of you.

 

[NoahFence]

deleted

Obvious bait is obvious.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yesterday you said she throws more temper tantrums than Trump and then provided an absurd citation to backup your claim. It's more than clear that your main interest is in smearing Hillary than anything else.

Yeah, absurd references count as support, right?

I mean, if he has to cite Pravda, well then, that's what it takes!

 

[catsmate]

lol wut.

I think it is pretty clear who is lying here.

Indeed it is.

 

[catsmate]

More bad news for Killary: Seems like the "conspiracy theory" about Google using their astonishing manipulation power to help her is based in truth after all. <gibber snip>

Still parroting Russian state propaganda and Epstein's unproven allegations?
Maybe he'll threaten to sue again?

 

[Mader Levap]

Make up your mind: either you have information that we don't know you have an refuse to post here, or you don't have it at all, which is my own conclusion. Stop pretending to hide between vague words.

I think we already had one poster here that tried this kind of defense in thread about Obama's narcissism. It didn't went well for him.

 

[catsmate]

Let me guess, a Russian propaganda site?

Yep. Government owned and operated. Where else would you find Epstein's ramblings being given any credibility? He's been saying the same things for four years without providing any evidence. Not to mention the debacle over this threatened lawsuit.

No, because it's a valid question that has been raised.

And yet you fail to address equally, and often far more valid, concerns about The Trumpet, e.g. his refusal to release his tax returns, his dubious letter about his medical status, his connections to Russia and the illegal actions emanating from there in support of his campaign et cetera.

Her medical history plus recent incidents can andhave lead reasonable persons to suspect her health status.

No actually they haven't. Despite the mud-slinging by those supporting The Trumpet.

The simplest way to resolve this situation is by an independent examination by a non-partisan panel of health experts. For fairness sake, the other candidates should also be examined.

And when this shows nothing, wil you apologise for the invasion of privacy?

I think scandals and health questions are likely to fade. It will be all about the debates.

Until The Trumpet loses them, they the Trumpettes will drag they out again.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Hillary's latest campaign strategy: persistent coughing at one end, and soiling her adult diaper at the other end.

When she loses in November, she can always do "I've fallen and I can't get up" commercials for Life Alert.

#CrookedHillary
#BasketOfDeplorables

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Hillary's latest campaign strategy: persistent coughing at one end, and soiling her adult diaper at the other end.

Ew.

But if the latter proves to be the case, her handlers should try to spin them as "astronaut diapers"!