(06-25-2020 12:14 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 10:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Big... let me use that very real example I just did... maybe this will help, maybe not, but it IS an honest attempt.

There are people out there advancing this 'lie' from the left... that Trump is cutting funding to testing to manipulate the numbers. I haven't seen you advance that theory, but let's say for sake of this argument that you did.... because someone said it, and it made sense on its surface to you. Those two events did happen... the question is coincidence or causation... IF I provided you evidence that this was the COVID Task Force plan all along... I strongly suspect that as an intelligent person, your argument would change to be easily discernible from 'DemBots' and 'the fake news' who would continue to push the false narrative. You might still have issues... i.e. you could argue Trump may not have planned it, but knew it was coming and let this secret slip or that it's just bad policy or whatever else.... but I wouldn't remotely expect you to continue to advance a false narrative, that this was something he came up with in response to the rise.

If I continued to say that your arguments were indistinguishable from those DemBots, that would be pretty insulting... and quite honestly, if you said that you thought about it all on your own and still reached the same conclusion... I think that would actually be an even bigger insult.

I haven't dug into whether this is truth or lie and consequently I have not repeated it anywhere. I wouldn't repeat it if you showed it was false (and I wouldn't repeat it if I determined it was false). If I purposefully repeated something that was demonstrably false, I would be fine with you calling me much worse than a DemBot because it would be true in that instance. If I had passed along the information without thought/research and was subsequently proven to be incorrect, I would agree that I acted like a DemBot. If I came to the same conclusion as a DemBot but for different reasons (or even the same reason after thought/research), then I expect you would respect the process and not call me a bot, even if you did not agree with the decision I came to. None of these results would insult me.

So you start off by completely rejecting the entire premise upon which my example was based... which is just a long way around avoiding the question.... and instead you answer the question you want to answer. Note... I didn't say I called you a dembot... I said your conclusions were indistinguishable from theirs, just as you did.... so you made the same leap you are screaming at us about... to the point of saying... I'll be honest, sometimes I honestly wonder if some of you are much dumber than I give you credit for

Still, you did touch on my point.

It should be abundantly clear that none of us remotely feel that you were respecting the process by which we reached our conclusions. You knew we would be offended by your comparison and you said it anyway. Nothing in your post implies 'respect' for anything but At Ease's confusion.

At this point, I really don't care anymore that you don't understand why we're offended. I'm more bothered that you'd rather insist on my use of your specific language while you are allowed to dance around mine... than simply respect the process by which ALL of us have reached a similar conclusion that what you said about us is (in our opinion) demonstrably false and insulting. If you don't accept that premise, then you sure aren't respecting the process by which we have all reached that same conclusion. Of course you have now made it clear that you don't feel that way... but you sure spent a lot of time avoiding such a simple correction.... focusing all your energy on whether you called us 'bots' vs 'reached conclusions indistinguishable from them' as opposed to focusing on the mindless comparison of either comment.

(06-25-2020 12:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Somehow one of Hambone's posts a few posts ago showed up under my name. Weird. I deleted it (sorry, Hambone).

No worries. I'm sure it wasn't important.