Same-Sex Marriage Unanimously Included In DNC Platform USA!

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, hai guise! This is a burden of proof issue, and neither side is in agreement on who should shoulder it!


So far, john has a +1 in evidence for his claim that he is consistent with the first part of his positions:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175894&view=unread#p3853454


So far, Woodruff ain't got shit.

[Woodruff]

I didn't even suggest that you should prove that EVERY post you've ever made supports these positions. Why do you keep devolving into these Phatscotty games?

my bad dude.
so are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions i listed? or are we all gonna have to take your word for it that i don't believe what i said that i believe?

Let me see if I have this straight. I posit that "if you support those positions, then why don't you espouse them at all?", to which you respond with "are you gonna find one of my posts that contradicts one of those positions?"...and that makes sense to you as a logical response? More diversion.

there are three possibilities:
- my posts usually support the positions i stated
- my posts say nothing about the positions i stated
- my posts usually contradict the positions i stated
which one do you think is true?

So your issue is that you absolutely refuse to show that you have, in fact, espoused these positions in these fora (for the moment presuming that you have actually done so). Basically, you're simply sitting down and saying "no, I don't want to show you how your statements are inaccurate". I wonder what the reason for that might be?

i never even claimed to have espoused them. i claimed to have held them. so even if i haven't espoused them, your argument here wouldn't mean anything.

Thanks, Phatscotty! Now, we're back to my original point, which started this whole arm of the thread! Which was...If you truly believe in these views, then why don't you espouse them at all?

since you don't believe that i hold these views, it's your job to give evidence for your assertion
are you one of the idiots who thinks that disbelieving in something can be done without a shred of evidence.

I asked you a simple question. You have taken that simple question and devolved it into a whole back-and-forth avoidance project. It's really quite fascinating. So is your answer to my question just a simple "nah nah, I'm not saying" or will there be some substance to it? You seem to be trying VERY HARD to avoid having to state that you've never espoused them in these fora, as if that will support your statement that you do in fact hold them.

[Woodruff]

Oh, hai guise! This is a burden of proof issue, and neither side is in agreement on who should shoulder it!

So far, john has a +1 in evidence for his claim that he is consistent with the first part of his positions:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175894&view=unread#p3853454

So far, Woodruff ain't got shit.

All I did was ask a simple question. All I've received in response is the run-around. Is it really that difficult to answer a simple question? I'm surprised that you support his not simply answering the question.

If he wants to make a big deal out of supporting those positions, I don't believe my question is out of line. His avoidance seems rather like his buddy Phatscotty to me.

[crispybits]

I'm (perhaps unsurprisingly for some of you) with Woodruff on this one.

He asked "why don't you espouse these views", as in why don't you actively support these views in your posts. It would be a simple matter for J9B to produce just a single post where he is actively supporting each or any of those positions if he has in fact done so.

J9B is saying "prove I haven't" which would require Woodruff to quote every single post J9B has ever made in one mammoth mega-post probably containing several hundred thousand words, and showing that in each case there is no support for any of these views.

Also to be remembered is it was Woodruff who asked the first question. To respond to a question requiring very little to prove the answer in your favour with another question which would require an unreasonable amount of evidence to your opponent to prove his answer is not a reaosnable way to shift a burden of proof.

Especially when you consider that the simple answer "because I don't care about any of these issues enough to want to talk about them, I just think those principles are probably good" would have been plenty to dismiss the question entirely

[Woodruff]

I'm (perhaps unsurprisingly for some of you) with Woodruff on this one.

He asked "why don't you espouse these views", as in why don't you actively support these views in your posts. It would be a simple matter for J9B to produce just a single post where he is actively supporting each or any of those positions if he has in fact done so.

J9B is saying "prove I haven't" which would require Woodruff to quote every single post J9B has ever made in one mammoth mega-post probably containing several hundred thousand words, and showing that in each case there is no support for any of these views.

Also to be remembered is it was Woodruff who asked the first question. To respond to a question requiring very little to prove the answer in your favour with another question which would require an unreasonable amount of evidence to your opponent to prove his answer is not a reaosnable way to shift a burden of proof.

Especially when you consider that the simple answer "because I don't care about any of these issues enough to want to talk about them, I just think those principles are probably good" would have been plenty to dismiss the question entirely

I like the cut of your jib, my good man.

(or whatever that weird phrase is...)

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm (perhaps unsurprisingly for some of you) with Woodruff on this one.

He asked "why don't you espouse these views", as in why don't you actively support these views in your posts. It would be a simple matter for J9B to produce just a single post where he is actively supporting each or any of those positions if he has in fact done so.

J9B is saying "prove I haven't" which would require Woodruff to quote every single post J9B has ever made in one mammoth mega-post probably containing several hundred thousand words, and showing that in each case there is no support for any of these views.

Also to be remembered is it was Woodruff who asked the first question. To respond to a question requiring very little to prove the answer in your favour with another question which would require an unreasonable amount of evidence to your opponent to prove his answer is not a reaosnable way to shift a burden of proof.

Especially when you consider that the simple answer "because I don't care about any of these issues enough to want to talk about them, I just think those principles are probably good" would have been plenty to dismiss the question entirely

I like the cut of your jib, my good man.

(or whatever that weird phrase is...)

I agree that crispybits has a nice sailboat.

@Woodruff: Yeah, I agree with your point. Apparently, I forgot about how this all started.

[Lootifer]

ITS NICE SAILING TECHNIQUE YOU DUNCE

[BigBallinStalin]

I totally don't jibe with that.

[Lootifer]

I totally don't jibe with that.

I gave your mum a good jibing.

[BigBallinStalin]

I totally don't jibe with that.

I gave your mum a good jibing.

I might be offended, but it depends on how you answer the following:

Were you jibbing me mum, or were you jibing me mum?

[Lootifer]

The former, do I look like a fucking pirate to you!?!?! Good lord man

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay! Okay! Eaaasy, man. Easy.

[Lootifer]

[heavycola]

I totally don't jibe with that.

I gave your mum a good jibing.

I might be offended, but it depends on how you answer the following:

Were you jibbing me mum, or were you jibing me mum?

this is just tacky.

[john9blue]

I'm (perhaps unsurprisingly for some of you) with Woodruff on this one.

He asked "why don't you espouse these views", as in why don't you actively support these views in your posts. It would be a simple matter for J9B to produce just a single post where he is actively supporting each or any of those positions if he has in fact done so.

J9B is saying "prove I haven't" which would require Woodruff to quote every single post J9B has ever made in one mammoth mega-post probably containing several hundred thousand words, and showing that in each case there is no support for any of these views.

Also to be remembered is it was Woodruff who asked the first question. To respond to a question requiring very little to prove the answer in your favour with another question which would require an unreasonable amount of evidence to your opponent to prove his answer is not a reaosnable way to shift a burden of proof.

Especially when you consider that the simple answer "because I don't care about any of these issues enough to want to talk about them, I just think those principles are probably good" would have been plenty to dismiss the question entirely

nope. what i said was that i never claimed to have espoused those views (meaning that i never claimed to have posted in support of them)

all i said was that those were the views that i held. you don't have to espouse a view to hold it. for instance, on these forums, i have never espoused my view of whether i like pirates or ninjas better. that doesn't mean that i don't hold a view on the subject.

then woody comes along and says "i don't believe you, despite the fact that i can't find a post of yours that shows you disagreeing with those views".

so if you can't find a post like that, then what reason do you have to not believe that i hold those views?

you only doubt me because you want to try and fit me into your "republican" mental category, because the notion that i actually AM a centrist terrifies you, because you constantly argue for positions to the left of mine, which means you are a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

anyway, because i'm feeling generous, i'll do a quick search of my posts just for you:

about homosexuality:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=130201&p=2858428&hilit=homosexual#p2858428
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=161880&p=3541676&hilit=homosexual#p3541676

about foreign policy:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=148789&p=3252777&hilit=foreign+policy#p3252777
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165555&p=3617293&hilit=foreign+policy#p3617293

about... corporations? (this one was hard to search for)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=162341&p=3558741&hilit=corporations#p3558741

about the death penalty:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=166403&p=3633911&hilit=death+penalty#p3633911
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=164675&p=3596769&hilit=death+penalty#p3596769
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=146162&hilit=death+penalty&start=165#p3197024

ron paul can state my views on civil liberties and the drug war better than i can

[Lootifer]

The sad truth--as I perceive it--is that the traditional welfare programs of the US have to continue in order to continue giving X to voter market Y, so that the an array of politicians can maintain their careers and future streams of income/psychological profit from their privileged positions. It's a self-reinforcing problem that is systemic and unresolvable with the current means (the US institution/rules of the game for voting), and perhaps unresolvable for the next 10-20 years--on the margin due mainly to the rising costs of Social Security (IIRC, it's to double in 20-30 years, thus consuming another 20% of the US Federal budget relative to GDP).

A budget crisis will induce a change, so things could be corrected with minimal costs, or if the politicians do a shit job as their walls of comfort fall around them, things could get worse.

A cultural pushback could occur, but... if that is effective, it likely won't produce good outcomes since there's not enough libertarians, and there's not enough "friends on the left." There would be too many well-intended people promoting policies of terrible unintended consequences. Another FDR 1933-whenever comes to mind.

Yeh hence why I said that you need a high quality political landscape and robust analysis of expected outcomes - ie be smart about it (this wont prevent unintended consequences, but it def helps).

Both the US and to a lesser extent other welfare states within the world all fail on both those points.

[Lootifer]

I totally don't jibe with that.

I gave your mum a good jibing.

I might be offended, but it depends on how you answer the following:

Were you jibbing me mum, or were you jibing me mum?

this is just tacky.

way to take the wind out of my sails dude, not cool

[Woodruff]

I'm (perhaps unsurprisingly for some of you) with Woodruff on this one.

He asked "why don't you espouse these views", as in why don't you actively support these views in your posts. It would be a simple matter for J9B to produce just a single post where he is actively supporting each or any of those positions if he has in fact done so.

J9B is saying "prove I haven't" which would require Woodruff to quote every single post J9B has ever made in one mammoth mega-post probably containing several hundred thousand words, and showing that in each case there is no support for any of these views.

Also to be remembered is it was Woodruff who asked the first question. To respond to a question requiring very little to prove the answer in your favour with another question which would require an unreasonable amount of evidence to your opponent to prove his answer is not a reaosnable way to shift a burden of proof.

Especially when you consider that the simple answer "because I don't care about any of these issues enough to want to talk about them, I just think those principles are probably good" would have been plenty to dismiss the question entirely

nope. what i said was that i never claimed to have espoused those views (meaning that i never claimed to have posted in support of them)
all i said was that those were the views that i held. you don't have to espouse a view to hold it. for instance, on these forums, i have never espoused my view of whether i like pirates or ninjas better. that doesn't mean that i don't hold a view on the subject.

Of course you don't HAVE to have espoused the view to be in support of it...but it seems awfully convenient that in all the times we've talked about these issues that you wouldn't have, you see. Awfully convenient.

then woody comes along and says "i don't believe you, despite the fact that i can't find a post of yours that shows you disagreeing with those views".

Actually, I simply asked you why you haven't discussed them if you do, in fact, hold those positions. I DIDN'T believe you, but that's actually irrelevant to my question, which I maintain is a very valid question.

so if you can't find a post like that, then what reason do you have to not believe that i hold those views?

Because of the massive amount of discussion on those issues, it seems quite convenient for you to make that claim while never having actually stated that opinion.

you only doubt me because you want to try and fit me into your "republican" mental category, because the notion that i actually AM a centrist terrifies you, because you constantly argue for positions to the left of mine, which means you are a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

Based on your wholehearted support of the troll, it's very difficult for me to believe that you're a centrist.

anyway, because i'm feeling generous, i'll do a quick search of my posts just for you:

See, that wasn't so hard! All the energy you could have saved with the added bonus of shutting me up, just because you wanted to act like a putz.

about homosexuality:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=130201&p=2858428&hilit=homosexual#p2858428

Ok, that one's ABOUT homosexuality, but I don't know that it can really be considered much of a strong statement in support of gay marriage equality. It's there, but pretty lukewarm.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=161880&p=3541676&hilit=homosexual#p3541676

This one doesn't really have much to do with gay marriage, but it does at least acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice.

about foreign policy:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=148789&p=3252777&hilit=foreign+policy#p3252777

Again, pretty lukewarm as far as "supporting non-interventionist foreign policy" goes.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165555&p=3617293&hilit=foreign+policy#p3617293

Excellent example of supporting non-interventionist foreign policy.

about... corporations? (this one was hard to search for)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=162341&p=3558741&hilit=corporations#p3558741

I suppose it can be viewed that way, but again...pretty lukewarm.

about the death penalty:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=166403&p=3633911&hilit=death+penalty#p3633911

Good - this one also mentions the War on Drugs.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=164675&p=3596769&hilit=death+penalty#p3596769

Fair enough. Although the context makes your point rather humorous.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=146162&hilit=death+penalty&start=165#p3197024

Good.

i'm open (if not fully committed) to the ideas of:
- universal healthcare DONE RIGHT
- government incentives for environmentally sound practices
- campaign finance reform
- welfare/decent minimum standards of living
- lax immigration laws

I didn't see any quotes that represent how you're open to these ideas.

ron paul can state my views on civil liberties and the drug war better than i can

Alright, you had a good quote above about the drug war, so I'm going to ignore this part. And I also recognize that finding quotes on such a general topic as "civil liberties" would probably be a real pain in the ass, so I'm ignoring that too.

See...that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Woodruff]

I totally don't jibe with that.

I gave your mum a good jibing.

I might be offended, but it depends on how you answer the following:

Were you jibbing me mum, or were you jibing me mum?

this is just tacky.

way to take the wind out of my sails dude, not cool

This one took me a moment to get.