If This The End Of The United States?

[Tiger Teeth]

(01-15-2021, 02:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: Lot's of drug dealers use it for "online shopping", some use it to hire hitmen, sex trafficking is common, basically crimes that have moved digitally now.

Oh, like organizing attacks against our Government, things like that?

[Au165]

(01-15-2021, 03:14 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Oh, like organizing attacks against our Government, things like that?

Nah, those people are too dumb they just posted it all on Parler.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2021, 02:57 PM)Dill Wrote: I pointed out that after getting the Trump threat wrong again and again,

and challenging those "labelers" who got it right,

you've just revised your forum record into a story of how you've somehow been right all along about the Trump threat,

and those unspecified labelers have now validated your story by "usurping" your argument.

A monstrously incorrect assessment and intellectually dishonest.  It would be hard to take you seriously even if half of the Trump predictions you, and others like you, spouted for the past four years came true.  I was wrong about how far things would go after the election, but I was 100% correct that our institutions were stronger than any attempt he would, or could, make to destroy them.  You cried wolf hundreds of times, don't expect any praise, or credit for prescience, when you were finally correct for a change.  But if you really need it, here's an attaboy, you were right for a change.  

Quote:When asked for examples of usurped arguments--anything to validate your claims--you offer only personal Parthian shots.

I'm content letting the matter lie now, if no examples are forthcoming.

No examples are needed as everyone else seems to understand exactly what I said.  You enjoy posing these questions as if your simply posing them is proof of something.  It is not.  If you choose to believe otherwise I could not care less.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2021, 03:11 PM)Dill Wrote: My attention to SSF's post was motivated more by a general interest in the logic of historical revision than immediate political events, though those events are what brought it out in this case.

[Dill]

(01-15-2021, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A monstrously incorrect assessment and intellectually dishonest.  It would be hard to take you seriously even if half of the Trump predictions you, and others like you, spouted for the past four years came true.  I was wrong about how far things would go after the election, but I was 100% correct that our institutions were stronger than any attempt he would, or could, make to destroy them.  You cried wolf hundreds of times, don't expect any praise, or credit for prescience, when you were finally correct for a change.  But if you really need it, here's an attaboy, you were right for a change. 

No examples are needed as everyone else seems to understand exactly what I said.  You enjoy posing these questions as if your simply posing them is proof of something.  It is not.  If you choose to believe otherwise I could not care less.

How incorrect?  Or "intellectually dishonest"?

You just granted my premises:

You were "wrong about how far things would go,"

while those you found "hard to take seriously" were right all along, "finally correct"-- five years running.

But you still don't want to grant the only conclusion to be drawn from those premises.

Instead you have to revise your own record with a still unsupported claim that those who were right-from-the-get-go have usurped your "100%" argument, thereby indirectly acknowledging you were right all along.  As if after all, there really was no reason to worry about Trump's damage to government. Why isn't that revision intellectually dishonest? 

And no. You are not 100% correct that our institutions are "stronger than any attempt he would, or could, make to destroy them."  Liberal democratic institutions are only as democratic and liberal as the people operating them, and if people operating them favor an illiberal autocrat, then those institutions fail, as they did during Trump's first impeachment. Repairing Trump damage will be on a bipartisan agenda for years to come, and the success of that project is far from certain when barely half the country can recognize/acknowledge it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2021, 04:53 PM)Dill Wrote: How incorrect?  Or "intellectually dishonest"?

You just granted my premises:

You were "wrong about how far things would go,"

while those you found "hard to take seriously" were right all along, "finally correct for a change"-- five years running.

Incorrect.  You said premises, as in plural.  I in no way did that.  I acknowledged that i was wrong about how far Trump would go after the election.  In this regard I was incorrect (BTW it's rather freeing being man enough to admit you were wrong about something, give it a shot sometime).  You were, are, and continue to be wrong that trump would destroy our institutions, as I have asserted all along.

Quote:But you still don't want to grant the only conclusion to be drawn from those premises.

Again, plural.  That, among other things, is why you fail.

Quote:Instead you have to revise your own record with a still unsupported claim that those who were right-from-the-get-go have usurped your "100%" argument, thereby indirectly acknowledging you were right all along.  As if after all, there really was no reason to worry about Trump's damage to government. Why isn't that revision intellectually dishonest? 

Except they weren't right "from the get go" as very few things predicted have actually come to pass.  Again, your failure rate is rather high, don't try and gloss over it because you were right for a change.

Quote:And no. You are not 100% correct that our institutions are "stronger than any attempt he would, or could, make to destroy them."  Liberal democratic institutions are only as democratic and liberal as the people operating them, and if people operating them favor an illiberal autocrat, then those institutions fail, as they did during Trump's first impeachment. Repairing Trump damage will be on a bipartisan agenda for years to come, and the success of that project is far from certain when barely half the country can recognize/acknowledge it.

I must have missed how our institutions were overthrown or cast down.  Please enlighten me as to how and when that occurred.  In the interim kindly refrain from wasting my time further.  My thanks in advance.

[Dill]

(01-15-2021, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  You said premises, as in plural.  I in no way did that.  I acknowledged that i was wrong about how far Trump would go after the election.  In this regard I was incorrect (BTW it's rather freeing being man enough to admit you were wrong about something, give it a shot sometime).  You were, are, and continue to be wrong that trump would destroy our institutions, as I have asserted all along.

Yes, two premises, as in plural:

1. You were wrong about "how far things would go." And

2.  those you found "hard to take seriously" were "finally" correct.

Two.   1 + 1 = 2 

And taken together these two premises do entail a conclusion.

(01-15-2021, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You were, are, and continue to be wrong that trump would destroy our institutions, as I have asserted all along.

Except they weren't right "from the get go" as very few things predicted have actually come to pass.  Again, your failure rate is rather high, don't try and gloss over it because you were right for a change.

I must have missed how our institutions were overthrown or cast down.  Please enlighten me as to how and when that occurred.  In the interim kindly refrain from wasting my time further.  My thanks in advance.

What "predictions" are you referring to? 

Warnings are not predictions. I have on numerous occasions WARNED of the danger Trump posed to democratic institutions. Who would disagree with that now? 
E.g., post # 26 (O8/17/20) on the "Challenge to Milley and Esper" thread I wrote.

I personally do not think there is a serious chance that Trump could finagle his way to a second term unelected. He cannot "trick" the majority of Americans who know who he is. A majority of military officers, from mid-level up, would likely refuse orders. But he can trick a significant plurality. So I do think it well within his power to cause one final, tremendous Constitutional/social crisis before he is levered out of there. Pretty sure the Joint Chiefs were not seriously thinking about what to do if Bush or Obama refused to step down, but they are now thinking about Trump.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Challenge-to-Milley-and-Esper-Do-Your-Duty?page=2&highlight=milley

Though I was right about the danger, there was no prediction that institutions are going to be "overthrown or cast down." But you scoffed, quipped and condescended your way through that thread as if even considering the possibility Trump might throw a monkey wrench into the peaceful transfer of power were the height of nuttiness, apparently under the presumption that our institutions were "too strong" to be damaged by Trump, though I don't recall you explicitly arguing that.

So there is no "failure rate" here at all. You've just recast my now clearly valid warnings, like the one above, as failed "predictions" and recast your inability to recognize the danger--for years--as a prediction come true.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2021, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, two premises, as in plural:

1. You were wrong about "how far things would go." And

2.  those you found "hard to take seriously" were "finally" correct.

Two.   1 + 1 = 2 

And taken together these two premises do entail a conclusion.

What "predictions" are you referring to? 

Warnings are not predictions. I have on numerous occasions WARNED of the danger Trump posed to democratic institutions. Who would disagree with that now? 
E.g., post # 26 (O8/17/20) on the "Challenge to Milley and Esper" thread I wrote.

I personally do not think there is a serious chance that Trump could finagle his way to a second term unelected. He cannot "trick" the majority of Americans who know who he is. A majority of military officers, from mid-level up, would likely refuse orders. But he can trick a significant plurality. So I do think it well within his power to cause one final, tremendous Constitutional/social crisis before he is levered out of there. Pretty sure the Joint Chiefs were not seriously thinking about what to do if Bush or Obama refused to step down, but they are now thinking about Trump.
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Challenge-to-Milley-and-Esper-Do-Your-Duty?page=2&highlight=milley

Though I was right about the danger, there was no prediction that institutions are going to be "overthrown or cast down." But you scoffed, quipped and condescended your way through that thread as if even considering the possibility Trump might throw a monkey wrench into the peaceful transfer of power were the height of nuttiness, apparently under the presumption that our institutions were "too strong" to be damaged by Trump, though I don't recall you explicitly arguing that.

So there is no "failure rate" here at all. You've just recast my now clearly valid warnings, like the one above, as failed "predictions" and recast your inability to recognize the danger--for years--as a prediction come true.

Ahh, the semantic argument, the last refuge of the faux intellectual.  It wasn't a prediction, it was a "warning".  When your "warning" doesn't bear fruit and Trump actually leaves office, was your "warning" in vain?  Kindly spare us all any further pontification and stick to your wine glass.

[*Nately120*]

All this real conversation made me forget this entire thread started with a post that declared the end of the USA nigh because Donald Trump only got 1 term.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2021, 07:32 PM)Nately120 Wrote: All this real conversation made me forget this entire thread started with a post that declared the end of the USA nigh because Donald Trump only got 1 term.

Well, I assumed everyone knew that was a given and moved on to other topics. 

[GMDino]

(01-15-2021, 03:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: Nah, those people are too dumb they just posted it all on Parler.

Then Parler turned everything over...

BREAKING:

Parler cooperating with the feds, they've already turned over info that has led to arrests.

What did I say: there is no true anonymity on the net. And the site owners and mods always, ALWAYS roll.

— Contented Independent (@ContentedIndie) January 14, 2021

[Belsnickel]

(01-15-2021, 09:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then Parler turned everything over...

BREAKING:

Parler cooperating with the feds, they've already turned over info that has led to arrests.

What did I say: there is no true anonymity on the net. And the site owners and mods always, ALWAYS roll.

— Contented Independent (@ContentedIndie) January 14, 2021

They're totally just trying to save themselves. The hackers that downloaded all the content would've turned it over, anyway, so the site runners probably knew they were boned so they decided to cooperate.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2021, 10:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They're totally just trying to save themselves. The hackers that downloaded all the content would've turned it over, anyway, so the site runners probably knew they were boned so they decided to cooperate.

To me it's funny that people went there to "not be censored" and no all that uncensored stuff gets turned over.

[NATI BENGALS]

I’ve just had an epiphany.

Brad you are right. This is the end.

Get out while you can. Tell all your woke buddies who believe this is the end too. Save yourselves and get out of here quick. Don’t waste any time. It will be a total hellscape here in just a matter of days. The window is shrinking...

[Dill]

(01-15-2021, 07:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, the semantic argument, the last refuge of the faux intellectual.  It wasn't a prediction, it was a "warning".  When your "warning" doesn't bear fruit and Trump actually leaves office, was your "warning" in vain?  Kindly spare us all any further pontification and stick to your wine glass.

 "Warning" and "prediction" are not synonyms.   
(A search of "semantic" on this site will show that this not the first time you have mislabeled an argument as such.)

A prediction claims to foretell what will happen. A warning speaks to a possibility, a danger which could be avoided by present action, like voting Trump out of office because he could permanently damage US institutions.  A danger avoided is not a "failed" prediction.

In contrast:  I predict that if I challenge you to provide an example of where I "predicted" Trump would remain in office, as you claim, you will not provide that example. You may say "no because it is obvious," or announce that you are bored and done with this topic, or increase the level of personal attack, but you will not respond to my argument from evidence with counter evidence. 

See? The statement in italics is not a "warning" at all. It simply fortells how you will behave. Warning =/= prediction.

As clearly stated in my quote above from last August, I warned that it was "well within [Trump's] power to cause one final, tremendous Constitutional/social crisis before he is levered out of there."

Now, amidst the national trauma of the assault on the Capital, as 20,000 guardsmen are deployed to the Federal City and 50 state capitals are on high alert, is it your contention that the warning you scoffed at has not "borne fruit"?

In summary: You've revised your wrong-all-along record on Trump into a claim you've really been right all along.

When the revision was exposed, your next impulse was to attribute to me "predictions" I'd never made and then to call them "fails" in a clumsy attempt to continue your "I-was-ultimately-correct" narrative.

When called on that as well, and with no possible defense by logical, factual rebuttal, you have reverted back to the old SSF, offering personal insults spoken on behalf of "us".

All that is, to borrow one of your favorite terms, "disingenuous."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-18-2021, 02:20 PM)Dill Wrote:  "Warning" and "prediction" are not synonyms.   
(A search of "semantic" on this site will show that this not the first time you have mislabeled an argument as such.)

A prediction claims to foretell what will happen. A warning speaks to a possibility, a danger which could be avoided by present action, like voting Trump out of office because he could permanently damage US institutions.  A danger avoided is not a "failed" prediction.

In contrast:  I predict that if I challenge you to provide an example of where I "predicted" Trump would remain in office, as you claim, you will not provide that example. You may say "no because it is obvious," or announce that you are bored and done with this topic, or increase the level of personal attack, but you will not respond to my argument from evidence with counter evidence. 

See? The statement in italics is not a "warning" at all. It simply fortells how you will behave.  Warning =/= prediction.

As clearly stated in my quote above from last August, I warned that it was "well within [Trump's] power to cause one final, tremendous Constitutional/social crisis before he is levered out of there."

Now, amidst the national trauma of the assault on the Capital, as 20,000 guardsmen are deployed to the Federal City and 50 state capitals are on high alert, is it your contention that the warning you scoffed at has not "borne fruit"?

In summary: You've revised your wrong-all-along record on Trump into a claim you've really been right all along.

When the revision was exposed, your next impulse was to attribute to me "predictions" I'd never made and then to call them "fails" in a clumsy attempt to continue your "I-was-ultimately-correct" narrative.

When called on that as well, and with no possible defense by logical, factual rebuttal, you have reverted back to the old SSF, offering personal insults spoken on behalf of "us".

All that is, to borrow one of your favorite terms, "disingenuous."

Here's the thing about "discussing" most things with you, and I mean this sincerely.  You very often ignore points you can't refute and drill down on those you can obfuscate about.  While I honestly enjoy engaging on an intellectual level with people such as Bmore, Bel, Hollo, AU, Vas and others (forgive if your name isn't mentioned), discussing anything with you almost always degenerates to your engaging in hard core pedantry.  In other words, it's boring, I get nothing out of it and I honestly think you engage in it just to subconsciously feel a sense of intellectual superiority (undeservedly so, btw).  So, you will please forgive me if I choose to not engage with you on that level.  Not because I can't as you will assuredly assume, but because I find it as appealing as a visit to the dentist.  If, on some topic, you choose to drop this persona I'm sure we can have a meaningful discourse then.  I see no evidence of that now, though, so forgive me the exit stage left.

[*Nately120*]

(01-18-2021, 06:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  While I honestly enjoy engaging on an intellectual level with people such as Bmore, Bel, Hollo, AU, Vas and others (forgive if your name isn't mentioned)

You sir, have just made a powerless enemy. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-18-2021, 07:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You sir, have just made a powerless enemy. 

You're a HoF member, you're uber powerful.  


Honestly though, yours was one name I thought of when I typed that.

[*Nately120*]

(01-18-2021, 07:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're a HoF member, you're uber powerful.  


Honestly though, yours was one name I thought of when I typed that.

I choose to believe this.

[Dill]

(01-18-2021, 06:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing about "discussing" most things with you, and I mean this sincerely.  You very often ignore points you can't refute and drill down on those you can obfuscate about.  While I honestly enjoy engaging on an intellectual level with people such as Bmore, Bel, Hollo, AU, Vas and others (forgive if your name isn't mentioned), discussing anything with you almost always degenerates to your engaging in hard core pedantry.  In other words, it's boring, I get nothing out of it and I honestly think you engage in it just to subconsciously feel a sense of intellectual superiority (undeservedly so, btw).  So, you will please forgive me if I choose to not engage with you on that level.  Not because I can't as you will assuredly assume, but because I find it as appealing as a visit to the dentist.  If, on some topic, you choose to drop this persona I'm sure we can have a meaningful discourse then.  I see no evidence of that now, though, so forgive me the exit stage left.

When you make claims about what I and others have said which appear untrue, I ask you for evidence, examples, quotations.

When that evidence is not forthcoming, I ask again. "Where has anyone said what you claim they said?"

That's when we've arrived at the "hardcore pedantry" you dislike, the "obfuscation," the level you "get nothing out of" and "choose not to engage."

Sounds like "meaningful discourse" is still possible, though,

if I don't pressure you to support claims with evidence, examples, quotations.