War Room Lounge v61: Fun Fact: 'Race Bannon' describes two different individuals in Orbit Trump

[EGarrett]

I was already having a pretty good day, too

Spoiler

Just remember, you don't have the knowledge or ability to even engage in any debate to begin with, so that's all you can do.

 

[Sketch]

I'm actually a really nice guy and I'm interested in behavioral science and a few other related topics, the War Room is moderated in a really poor way where they let people insult and personally attack other posters to the point that they end up in years-long vendettas, as you can see by these guys.

It's best not to copy them or their tone.

You're not a nice guy, you're a lecherous creep that refers to himself as the boogeyman.

Of course you are interested in 'behavioral science' because you are a basket case of emotions and you think that by studying the behavior of others it exonerates you from your inability to socialize with other people.

 

[waiguoren]

I let me temper get the best of me and told a poster what I really thought of them. It broke the rules, so I got yellows. Not long left on them though.

The anger of your mother flows through you. You should never have allowed her to turn you away from your father. All is not lost. Forgive your mother and re-connect with the father.

^^^ Notice that Jack doesn't actually try to debate, he just declares that the argument was bad and is digging his escape route again.

I showed you the definition of corruption, which you clearly didn't actually know, and I outlined a list of her inconsistencies that I could would go into, and you made a few attempts to get around it with strawman arguments, then you magically disappeared.

There was no trolling, no spamming, you're just lying to try to save face. You got owned repeatedly on basic terms and if you leave me off ignore I'll go back to doing it to you.

Do you really think that Jack V Savage did not or does not know the definition of "corruption"? That's a very weak way to attack his position. You spent almost no effort explaining how Clinton's behaviors met the definition. It seems like you're more interested in some weird form of "winning" than in uncovering truth.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Just remember, you don't have the knowledge or ability to even engage in any debate to begin with, so that's all you can do.

 

[Sycho Sid]

The anger of your mother flows through you. You should never have allowed her to turn you away from your father. All is not lost. Forgive your mother and re-connect with the father.



Do you really think that Jack V Savage did not or does not know the definition of "corruption"? That's a very weak way to attack his position. You spent almost no effort explaining how Clinton's behaviors met the definition. It seems like you're more interested in some weird form of "winning" than in uncovering truth.

My father told me he would rather I be dead than use socialized medicine, while my mother has literally saved my life... so I am good, thanks though.

 

[EGarrett]

This is a good direction for this to take.

One more thing to point out, now that I think back to it. Jack used to go around insulting people and thinking he could get away with it because he had a half-clever argument that ad hominems were only a fallacy if you say "so-and-so is wrong BECAUSE he's stupid." In other words, pure semantics. I showed Jack that ad hominem is actually a term that can refer to any comment directed at a person regardless of whether it was an argument or not. Just to show that he was failing at semantics too. Which is why I did the same thing to him with corruption.

 

[EGarrett]

Right, now stand back and watch the guys who know more than you try to argue.

 

[Sketch]

Oh, and @Jack V Savage put me on ignore because I showed him the proper definition of ad hominem (he admitted I corrected him), showed him the proper definition of the term "corruption" when he tried to claim Hillary Clinton wasn't corrupt (he ran from that and started trying to reply without quoting me), then he tried to cite a study on something-like vote rigging, I looked over the paper, saw that he didn't know what he was talking about, asked him how sure he was that he understood the argument, and he ran away permanently.

He now tries to lie about it and claim I'm a troll. I just repeatedly dismantled his points. And like I said, I have a very good memory, I know what I did to each of you.

Sounding like an angry ex wife in this one.

 

[Higus]

You're not a nice guy, you're a lecherous creep that refers to himself as the boogeyman.

Of course you are interested in 'behavioral science' because you are a basket case of emotions and you think that by studying the behavior of others it exonerates you from your inability to socialize with other people.

 

[Prokofievian]

...what the fuck am I reading?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Right, now stand back and watch the guys who know more than you try to argue.

 

[waiguoren]

Corruption includes dishonesty

That's a different definition of the term "corruption", as in "depravity".

In a political context, it means "inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)." I lifted that from Merriam Webster. So to show that Clinton is corrupt, you have to show that someone tried to induce Clinton to commit wrongdoing by improper or unlawful means, then show that Clinton acquiesced to that inducement.

Jack ran away from me every time. If he really thought that he could nail me on something he would've stuck around, because I don't back down from any debate. It never worked out for him and if he tries again, you'll see it won't.

That's not what I saw in the thread you linked to. I saw you start to make a case and then the discussion really never got started because you didn't really finish making your case and Mr Jack did not continue prying.

As I recall it was in reference to her collapsing at the September 11th Memorial, where she claimed it was due to heat stroke and her own husband contradicted that.

Ok. That's not really the topic of discussion here but even if Clinton was lying about her condition that's not "corruption" in the sense we're talking about.

 

[EGarrett]

You're not a nice guy, you're a lecherous creep that refers to himself as the boogeyman.

Of course you are interested in 'behavioral science' because you are a basket case of emotions and you think that by studying the behavior of others it exonerates you from your inability to socialize with other people.

^^^ This is the type of empty and childish, vendetta-type behavior that exists in this subforum. Not a single point, he can't make one, just pure personal attacks that accomplish nothing.

 

[EGarrett]

Sounding like an angry ex wife in this one.

They were literally still talking about me on another thread a week ago after I left this forum last year, and Limbo Pete got warned for stalking me. So no. You're even struggling with your insults.

 

[LMP]

 

[Sketch]

One more thing to point out, now that I think back to it. Jack used to go around insulting people and thinking he could get away with it because he had a half-clever argument that ad hominems were only a fallacy if you say "so-and-so is wrong BECAUSE he's stupid." In other words, pure semantics. I showed Jack that ad hominem is actually a term that can refer to any comment directed at a person regardless of whether it was an argument or not. Just to show that he was failing at semantics too. Which is why I did the same thing to him with corruption.

You're the worst boogeyman ever. What is your weapon of choice? Extreme boredom you bore people to death with? You waltzed into this thread, called out people, got smacked down like a whack-a-mole game and rather than go back to hiding under a bed, you've now doubled down on your idiotic premise of teaching Jack the definition of simple words such as 'corruption'

I think your problem here is the boogeyman is a mythical creature used by adults to frighten children into good behavior. You are talking to adults here, not children, so naturally Mr.Boogeyman, you are out of your element.

 

[waiguoren]

One more thing to point out, now that I think back to it. Jack used to go around insulting people and thinking he could get away with it because he had a half-clever argument that ad hominems were only a fallacy if you say "so-and-so is wrong BECAUSE he's stupid." In other words, pure semantics. I showed Jack that ad hominem is actually a term that can refer to any comment directed at a person regardless of whether it was an argument or not. Just to show that he was failing at semantics too. Which is why I did the same thing to him with corruption.

I think the position you're attributing to Jack V Savage is the correct one. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. There is nothing logically fallacious about insulting someone. Ad hominem takes the form "your argument is disproven because [some personal characteristic of you]." For example: your argument about the Riemann hypothesis is wrong because you have never attended school.

 

[Limbo Pete]

...what the fuck am I reading?

You know how it's really fun to fuck with Wai? Well EGarrett is like 5x funner to abuse. The problem is that he vanished like some sort of mythical pwn unicorn.
Whoever said his name 3 times into a dark mirror today needs a high five.

 

[Fawlty]

One more thing to point out, now that I think back to it. Jack used to go around insulting people and thinking he could get away with it because he had a half-clever argument that ad hominems were only a fallacy if you say "so-and-so is wrong BECAUSE he's stupid." In other words, pure semantics. I showed Jack that ad hominem is actually a term that can refer to any comment directed at a person regardless of whether it was an argument or not. Just to show that he was failing at semantics too. Which is why I did the same thing to him with corruption.

Not sure why you're telling me this. Should I pelt you with popcorn? It's Orville Redenbacher if that makes a difference.

 

[EGarrett]

That's a different definition of the term "corruption", as in "depravity".

In a political context, it means "inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)." I lifted that from Merriam Webster. So to show that Clinton is corrupt, you have to show that someone tried to induce Clinton to commit wrongdoing by improper or unlawful means, then show that Clinton acquiesced to that inducement.

The way the issue of corruption was brought up was that I said to someone else "Hillary's rap sheet of corruption is a mile long" and Jack replied (hesitantly because I'd corrected him on his own attempts to use semantics and other things and he wasn't comfortable debating with me) to ask me to show that she was corrupt. Which is why I showed that definition. I introduced the term and was asked to back it u p, so I showed a standard definition where it fit.

That's not what I saw in the thread you linked to. I saw you start to make a case and then the discussion really never got started because you didn't really finish making your case and Mr Jack did not continue prying.

Jack knows full well that I'll debate anything that's of interest to me for a very long time and will answer every argument someone brings up. He realized that the definition of corruption I showed him allowed me to make a very easy case so he disappeared.

Let me note also that there's another flaw in what Jack said here...which I just noticed...

He said then "everyone is corrupt," which is not true, the definition from google is dishonesty etc by people in power, not just anyone. So it's not a term that's so vague as to be useless. That's the type of thing Jack would've run into if he hadn't run away.

Ok. That's not really the topic of discussion here but even if Clinton was lying about her condition that's not "corruption" in the sense we're talking about.

I don't know exactly which aspect of Hillary's medical records I was referencing in that thread a few years ago since Jack ran away without challenging me on it. But the issue with her medical condition you could potentially argue is not corruption since she didn't hold political office at the time. If she was lying about it though, that would of course be dishonesty.