That’s just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you’re going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election…You’re going to look at all that and say it had ‘nothing to do’ with those same protests.
Not, ‘there were other factors’, nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
Of course not. And even if you want to pretend you were actually unclear on it, it was then explained to you several times. So whether or not its on you to know it is irrelevant. You did know it, and chose to continue your argument in bad faith from there on out.
If you claim something is proof of something, be prepared to prove it when asked, or don’t say it.
So change the word “proof” in the parent comment to “strong evidence”. Is it clear to you now? Do you understand?
It’s redundant to point out what can be readily observed by all, but however ineffective you are, it’s clear you are trying to “crush” this.
I just disagree with your definition of “proof.”
You appear to actually disagree with my definition of evidence, since I’ve been open about the distinction, and you’ve ignored repeated offers to engage with my evidence, opting instead to double down on demanding proof in the face of overwhelming evidence.
One last try for posterity: why are you so sure that the protests had nothing to do with it, given how numerous, persistent, widely covered they are, and given the fact that they are happening during what may be the most impactful US presidential race in modern history?
Maybe relax a bit. We can just agree to disagree.
Your gaslighting is as clumsy as your attempts at discourse. I am writing this from my mobile phone, sat at a nice lakeside park on a lovely if overcast day, during my lunch break. You might be excited, but this isn’t even taxing my pulse. Maybe stop projecting. We started this out agreeing to disagree, I just wanted you to check your tether to reality, though it’s clear to me now that it’s been dangling uselessly for a while now.
deleted by creator
That’s just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you’re going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election…You’re going to look at all that and say it had ‘nothing to do’ with those same protests.
Not, ‘there were other factors’, nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
deleted by creator
So this whole time you’re simply being pedantic about the word “proof”?
That’s pretty pathetic.
deleted by creator
What’s actually bad faith is knowing what someone meant, but continuing to argue that a single word choice voids their sentiment.
deleted by creator
Of course not. And even if you want to pretend you were actually unclear on it, it was then explained to you several times. So whether or not its on you to know it is irrelevant. You did know it, and chose to continue your argument in bad faith from there on out.
So change the word “proof” in the parent comment to “strong evidence”. Is it clear to you now? Do you understand?
deleted by creator
Hey you’re crushing this whole internet discussion thing, provided we all join you in persistently ignoring all of the circumstances I keep mentioned.
I have no proof. I have a mountain of evidence, and I am keen to hear your erudite take on why none of it matters.
The, if you like, you can share your evidence, but I doubt you want to.
deleted by creator
It’s redundant to point out what can be readily observed by all, but however ineffective you are, it’s clear you are trying to “crush” this.
You appear to actually disagree with my definition of evidence, since I’ve been open about the distinction, and you’ve ignored repeated offers to engage with my evidence, opting instead to double down on demanding proof in the face of overwhelming evidence.
One last try for posterity: why are you so sure that the protests had nothing to do with it, given how numerous, persistent, widely covered they are, and given the fact that they are happening during what may be the most impactful US presidential race in modern history?
Your gaslighting is as clumsy as your attempts at discourse. I am writing this from my mobile phone, sat at a nice lakeside park on a lovely if overcast day, during my lunch break. You might be excited, but this isn’t even taxing my pulse. Maybe stop projecting. We started this out agreeing to disagree, I just wanted you to check your tether to reality, though it’s clear to me now that it’s been dangling uselessly for a while now.
deleted by creator
Well who could have predicted that little cranky fit? Okay, bye!