Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aridas said:
Mmm. If facts are taken in isolation, you do have a bit of a point. On the other hand, we've got plenty to indicate the "pro," too. From the numerous lies that fairly consistently keep changing in that direction when publicly shown to be false to the numerous documented attempts by Russia to make it happen to the stuff like Jr.'s "I love it" that shows clear intent... there's more than enough to pass the bar for "reasonable doubt."
Click to expand...

"I love it" doesn't imply an exchange.
 
The Shrike said:
Appeal to authority no worries, though?


Here's something really important that y'all are wrong about.
Really?
Yeah, really.
How so?
Here's a link that explains how, so I'm off the hook from explaining it even though I'm the one making the unsupported claim.
Your link, in fact, does not explain that.
Yeah, but there's a link in that link . . .
Click to expand...

Oh man, you dont understand the appeal authority fallacy either? Protip, it is not fallacious to cite an actual authority.

You also know that was presented to rebut another claim and was dismissed because it did not contain backup, despite having actual citations in it?

Hooboy, i suggest you declare victory and depart the field because this aint going at all well for you.
 
BobTheCoward said:
"I love it" doesn't imply an exchange.
Click to expand...

True! In context, however, it showed openness and intent to do so. When you combine that with the fact that action was then actually taken to try to get it to happen and criminal action was taken to conceal it, that alone is likely enough to guarantee a conviction for attempted quid pro quo, before getting to all the rest of the relevant information.
 
Aridas said:
True! In context, however, it showed openness and intent to do so. When you combine that with the fact that action was then actually taken to try to get it to happen and criminal action was taken to conceal it, that alone is likely enough to guarantee a conviction for attempted quid pro quo, before getting to all the rest of the relevant information.
Click to expand...

It doesnt show any intent to give something in return. T
 
The Big Dog said:
On what ******* planet is recommending an architect a subject of discussion let alone a subject of concern????

Ridiculous....
Click to expand...

Drip... drip... drip...

It's yet another tidbit in the avalanche of tidbits showing that Trump Family Crime Syndicate, as opposed to "Oh, I wasn't involved in that and never heard anything about it or read anything about it" are lying, and were copied on emails and were suggesting architects or designers and coming up with marketing strategies.

The plural of tidbit = data.
 
The Big Dog said:
On what ******* planet is recommending an architect a subject of discussion let alone a subject of concern????
Click to expand...

Yes, you can keep pretending that this all means nothing, if you like. That'll work for a while, then you'll have to find a new tactic.

Since you're so big on authorities, though, outside of the Fox Newses and the Breitbarts, everybody thinks this is a big deal. Including Popehat.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yes, you can keep pretending that this all means nothing, if you like. That'll work for a while, then you'll have to find a new tactic.

Since you're so big on authorities, though, outside of the Fox Newses and the Breitbarts, everybody thinks this is a big deal. Including Popehat.
Click to expand...

Ivanka was not mentioned in your link. That was the point of the post. Your post doesn't counter that.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yes, you can keep pretending that this all means nothing, if you like. That'll work for a while, then you'll have to find a new tactic.

Since you're so big on authorities, though, outside of the Fox Newses and the Breitbarts, everybody thinks this is a big deal. Including Popehat.
Click to expand...

clicks link.
control f- architect
result ZERO.

who ya think you are kidding??
 
And TBD again pretends not to understand something simple in someone else's post order to try to score a cheap point.
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh man, you dont understand the appeal authority fallacy either? Protip, it is not fallacious to cite an actual authority.

You also know that was presented to rebut another claim and was dismissed because it did not contain backup, despite having actual citations in it?

Hooboy, i suggest you declare victory and depart the field because this aint going at all well for you.
Click to expand...

It is you that doesn't understand the appeal to authority fallacy. Pro tip: It doesn't make a difference if the authority is an authority or not. Referencing an authority alone DOESN'T refute an argument. That is the fallacy.

You could for example say Quantum Mechanics doesn't work and cite Albert Einstein's famous line 'that God doesn't play with dice' to back up your argument and that would be the 'appealing to an actual authority' on physics. It would also be a fallacy'. It also would be wrong.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
On what ******* planet is recommending an architect a subject of discussion let alone a subject of concern????

Ridiculous....
Click to expand...

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Yes, you can keep pretending that this all means nothing, if you like. That'll work for a while, then you'll have to find a new tactic.

Since you're so big on authorities, though, outside of the Fox Newses and the Breitbarts, everybody thinks this is a big deal. Including Popehat.
Click to expand...

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And TBD again pretends not to understand something simple in someone else's post order to try to score a cheap point.
Click to expand...

Oh golly, did I miss where the link you posted mentioned the thing I was referring to in the post you were “replying” to?

Control f like crazy.

Recommending an architect, big deal....

:rolleyes:
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh golly, did I miss where the link you posted mentioned the thing I was referring to in the post you were “replying” to?

Control f like crazy.

Recommending an architect, big deal....

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Getting copied on emails .... big deal

Working out merchandising schemes.... big deal

Suggesting an architect.... big deal


drip... drip... drip....


This from the point man on the team that tried to say Hillary emailing about her return time to the Hamptons was a security breach. Apparently dot-connecting is only viable if one is a TBD enemy.

M.E.G.O.
 
acbytesla said:
It is you that doesn't understand the appeal to authority fallacy. Pro tip: It doesn't make a difference if the authority is an authority or not. Referencing an authority alone DOESN'T refute an argument. That is the fallacy.
Click to expand...

THIS

In general when people make an appeal to authority, they have searched the web looking to cherry pick one authority who supports their claim, bypassing all the authorities who do not. Its also quite possible that this authority is wrong

Sidetrack: This sort of argument reminds me of the famous "Great Debate" of the 1920s - are galaxies inside or outside of the Milky Way? The two protagonists, Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis, were both THE foremost authorities in cosmology of their time. Shapley argued that the universe was comprised of a single galaxy (the Milky Way) and that all the galaxies we observe are within it, while Curtis held that the universe consisted of many galaxies, of which the Milky Way was just one. Both men had what they considered irrefutable proof that they were right and the other was wrong... and one of them HAD to be wrong. In the end Edwin Hubble's discovery that M31 (the Andromeda galaxy) was composed of stars proved Curtis was right and Shapley was wrong. The lesson from this is that no matter how well educated, and how much of an authority you are on a subject of study, you have no immunity from being wrong.

As to this issue, the "perjury trap" is most certainly a unicorn defence; a fantasy that simply has no basis in reality (yes, I have read the link, and the link within the link - I find them both underwhelming).

It is impossible for a prosecutor to trap you into perjuring yourself, unless you are stupid or a liar (sound familiar). If you are caught in a position, when under oath, such that you cannot tell the truth without incriminating yourself, it means that you have lied and/or committed an illegal act beforehand, i.e. you have been caught in a trap of your own making.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom