Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

191012141518

Comments

  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    This post is embarrassing to you.



    I don't think 'winning' is worth the sacrifice to your dignity that writing this sort of thing requires.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    In the absence of a quantifier, the label defaults to the definition. Conservative celebrated means all who are in the conservative group. If that isn't the case, then add the quantifier.



    You have just made it impossible for yourself to ever write "liberals", "progressives" or "conservatives" again.



    If you ever write about "liberals" without adding the quantifier, I'm going to link to this post. I want to see "certain liberals", and "a significant minority of liberals", or "a number of liberals". No more plain old "liberals think..." and "liberals believe..." from you.



    You seem to be very insistent on your definition in the face of popular, generally understand conventions when it suits you.



    I hope you have the balls to stand by your definition when it isn't. When you, sudden champion of the quantifier, find that using it weakens your argument. Let's see how much integrity you actually have.



    As for this:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I

    You claim is patently false because your sample size is anecdotal and made up of crap you found on the internet. I found some Buffy the Vampire stories too so they must be true as well.



    This is as bad.



    "Here is video evidence of your client committing the bank robbery."



    "It is anecdotal. I want a larger sample."



    So. Transcripts, an actual voice recording and real video footage are now "crap found on the internet."



    You have just made it impossible for yourself to link to anything. No video, no transcripts, no audio. Not even the holy Politico. This is all "crap found on the internet."



    It's "crap found on the internet" when it's inconvenient. Let's see if you have the dignity and integrity for it to be "crap found on the internet" when it suits you.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    This post is embarrassing to you.



    You should spend more time reasoning and less time characterizing.



    Quote:

    I don't think 'winning' is worth the sacrifice to your dignity that writing this sort of thing requires.



    People who spend their time characterizing instead of reasoning don't think much period.



    Quote:

    You have just made it impossible for yourself to ever write "liberals", "progressives" or "conservatives" again.



    Sadly wrong again. See your lack of grammar has absolutely no affect on my ability to type.



    Quote:

    If you ever write about "liberals" without adding the quantifier, I'm going to link to this post. I want to see "certain liberals", and "a significant minority of liberals", or "a number of liberals". No more plain old "liberals think..." and "liberals believe..." from you.



    Link to whatever you want. Your lack of credibility is already so proven that I could write that unicorns are dancing on my scrotum and it would still make more sense than your drivel.



    Quote:

    You seem to be very insistent on your definition in the face of popular, generally understand conventions when it suits you.



    You seem to spend a lot of time (again) characterizing posts instead of addressing them. Things are foolish, embarrassing, insistent, etc. Try reasoning for a change.



    Quote:

    I hope you have the balls to stand by your definition when it isn't. When you, sudden champion of the quantifier, find that using it weakens your argument. Let's see how much integrity you actually have.



    Reasoning doesn't require balls. It requires intellect. It isn't at all shocking that you confuse the two.



    Quote:

    As for this:

    This is as bad.



    "Here is video evidence of your client committing the bank robbery."





    "It is anecdotal. I want a larger sample."



    So. Transcripts, an actual voice recording and real video footage are now "crap found on the internet."



    You have just made it impossible for yourself to link to anything. No video, no transcripts, no audio. Not even the holy Politico. This is all "crap found on the internet."



    It's "crap found on the internet" when it's inconvenient. Let's see if you have the dignity and integrity for it to be "crap found on the internet" when it suits you.





    It is hilarious to watch you intentionally mislead about this.
    I'm sure the fact that you example is singular and thus would never require a quantifier and the fact that we were discussing non-singular examples either completely escapes you or you are distorting the point on purpose.



    Try this. Take your example above and substitute white people or black people and make the same generalizations. See if people don't call you on it.



    Just for the record, you never proved I said what you claimed. You claim you are right because a couple talking heads, a couple You Tube videos and finally cartoons prove it true. This would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    They didn't all celebrate? Well most then!
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by buceta View Post


    Trumptman wants proof that Limbaugh opposed Obama's Nobel. Well I guess Trumpt doesn't have an internet connection even though he is able to share his infinite wisdom in these forums. But hey, I have 5 minutes to kill:







    I would destroy the other of trumpts arguments also but I have better things to do.



    I wanted proof that I opposed Obama's Nobel.



    Take five minutes and learn to read.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    I wrote as clearly as I could because I knew you would attack my "reasoning" rather than address the facts I posted (many conservatives did indeed celebrate the loss of the Olympic pitch, as actual fucking recordings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the Americans for Prosperity conference attest), the definition of English nouns, my sources and even my grammar, which appears to be perfectly, perfectly sound. You then went on to attack my sources, which you usually call "an an-hominem circumstantial" whenever anyone does it to you. This is hypocrisy.



    You do this because you have lost the argument. It is clear that many conservatives celebrated the loss of the American olympic pitch. It is a fact.



    You can muddy the water with semantics, and ad hominem attacks on my "reasoning" and my sources, but it doesn't change the fact that you have lost the argument, and it is a fact that many conservatives did indeed celebrate the loss of the American olympic bid.



    perfect

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post




    It is hilarious to watch you intentionally mislead about this.
    I'm sure the fact that you example is singular and thus would never require a quantifier and the fact that we were discussing non-singular examples either completely escapes you or you are distorting the point on purpose.

    .



    You brought this issue into the discussion in an attempt to muddy the waters, but it is a fact that conservatives, or "many conservatives" if you prefer, celebrated the loss of the American olympic bid. If you admitted this, it would be beneficial for your credibility.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    I wrote as clearly as I could because I knew you would attack my "reasoning" rather than address the facts I posted (many conservatives did indeed celebrate the loss of the Olympic pitch, as actual fucking recordings of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the Americans for Prosperity conference attest), the definition of English nouns, my sources and even my grammar, which appears to be perfectly, perfectly sound. You then went on to attack my sources, which you usually call "an an-hominem circumstantial" whenever anyone does it to you. This is hypocrisy.



    You do this because you have lost the argument. It is clear that many conservatives celebrated the loss of the American olympic pitch. It is a fact.



    You can muddy the water with semantics, and ad hominem attacks on my "reasoning" and my sources, but it doesn't change the fact that you have lost the argument, and it is a fact that many conservatives did indeed celebrate the loss of the American olympic bid.



    perfect





    You brought this issue into the discussion in an attempt to muddy the waters, but it is a fact that conservatives, or "many conservatives" if you prefer, celebrated the loss of the American olympic bid. If you admitted this, it would be beneficial for your credibility.



    The reasoning or lack thereof speaks for itself perfectly. You're done.



    Check the sig. You are the arbiter of nothing.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    The reasoning or lack thereof speaks for itself perfectly. You're done.



    Check the sig. You are the arbiter of nothing.



    I have proven, with audio, video and transcript, that prominent, influential conservatives did, indeed, celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.



    You have chosen, instead of accepting this incontrovertible evidence, to make ad hominem attacks on my "reasoning" and on my sources.



    I made no reasoning. It was not my intention.



    I merely presented facts, in the form of audio and video and transcript, that prove that you are incorrect. You have lost the argument. The audio, video and text I linked to, disproved your argument.



    You brought the subject of my reasoning into the discussion in an attempt to muddy the waters. But it is a fact that conservatives, or "many conservatives" if you prefer, celebrated the loss of the American olympic bid.



    If you admitted this, it would be beneficial for your credibility.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    I have proven, with audio, video and transcript, that prominent, influential conservatives did, indeed, celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.



    You have chosen, instead of accepting this incontrovertible evidence, to make ad hominem attacks on my "reasoning" and on my sources.



    I made no reasoning. It was not my intention.



    I merely presented facts, in the form of audio and video and transcript, that prove that you are incorrect. You have lost the argument. The audio, video and text I linked to, disproved your argument.



    You brought the subject of my reasoning into the discussion in an attempt to muddy the waters. But it is a fact that conservatives, or "many conservatives" if you prefer, celebrated the loss of the American olympic bid.



    If you admitted this, it would be beneficial for your credibility.



    First understand that you in no form or fashion determine anything with regard to my credbility.



    It was proven point blank that you alleged things about me that were not true. This has damaged your credibility and ignoring and refusing to address that point through a dozen posts shows you to be a person who alleges things without any basis in reality. You add to that "proof" that includes cartoons and anecdotes and anything you assert becomes laughable.



    Second, you attempt to take matters of language and turn them into personal preferences rather than actual rules with regard to how the language works. It isn't "if I prefer" but is in fact how the language works. Also the word many is without basis due to having no proof of any reasonable sample size. You've provided proof of what, possibly a hundred people at most celebrating this out of how many conservatives in the United States? In the last election, McCain received 60 million votes. By what reasoning would anyone, anywhere call 100 people out of 60 million MANY?



    There is no basis for it. It is a statistical outlier. It is the exception not the rule and you assert it is the rule and thus you are wrong. Any attempt to claim otherwise is simply dishonest. It is akin to claiming that because one black man robbed a bank that "many" black people are thieves. It isn't just bad reasoning but also a false statement.



    Now it is time to play a little game called, watch how Mumbo moves the goal posts aka yet another logical fallacy.



    Here is what you asserted...



    Quote:

    Absolutely not.



    It is a fact that Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the blogs, and you, celebrated when Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.



    It is also a fact that when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, Glen Beck and the RNC and Rush Limbaugh, and you, objected.



    So what exactly is not true about the cartoon? It is a satirical representation of absolutely true events. You were part of these events, and you are a Republican. You are pretending that these things didn't happen.



    You provided no proof that I celebrated this in any form or fashion. To claim otherwise is a lie. You provided a link for Glen Beck, and a claimed transcript from Rush Limbaugh. Nothing was provided from Fox News, from any blogs or from the RNC.



    Withdraw your claim with regard to me. Withdraw your claim with regard to any entity for which you have not provided proof. Finally learn to use English so you can stop misrepresenting and alleging things against people. Cartoons and a couple clips from groups in no form associated with these named groups proves nothing.



    I know you can't prove anything with regard to your claim about me, so that right there alone shows you to be a dishonest person.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Second, you attempt to take matters of language and turn them into personal preferences rather than actual rules with regard to how the language works. It isn't "if I prefer" but is in fact how the language works. Also the word many is without basis due to having no proof of any reasonable sample size. You've provided proof of what, possibly a hundred people at most celebrating this out of how many conservatives in the United States? In the last election, McCain received 60 million votes. By what reasoning would anyone, anywhere call 100 people out of 60 million MANY?



    There is no basis for it. It is a statistical outlier. It is the exception not the rule and you assert it is the rule and thus you are wrong. Any attempt to claim otherwise is simply dishonest. It is akin to claiming that because one black man robbed a bank that "many" black people are thieves. It isn't just bad reasoning but also a false statement.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Second, you attempt to take matters of language and turn them into personal preferences rather than actual rules with regard to how the language works. It isn't "if I prefer" but is in fact how the language works. Also the word many is without basis due to having no proof of any reasonable sample size. You've provided proof of what, possibly a hundred people at most celebrating this out of how many conservatives in the United States? In the last election, McCain received 60 million votes. By what reasoning would anyone, anywhere call 100 people out of 60 million MANY?



    There is no basis for it. It is a statistical outlier. It is the exception not the rule and you assert it is the rule and thus you are wrong. Any attempt to claim otherwise is simply dishonest. It is akin to claiming that because one black man robbed a bank that "many" black people are thieves. It isn't just bad reasoning but also a false statement.



    Oh dear, trumptman.



    I was hoping to avoid getting caught up in matters of semantics, having proven that conservatives did, indeed, celebrate Barack Obama's losing pitch to the IOC with video, audio and transcript, contrary to your assertion against all the facts that they didn't.



    But you won't let this go. You won't "stop digging", to coin a phrase.



    So I will put this in the simplest, simplest terms I can.



    My assertion is that conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was unsuccessful.



    In order to prove this, I simply have to prove that a plurality of conservatives did, indeed, celebrate. The 's' at the end of the noun 'conservative', you see, is the clue. This 's' designates 'more than one'.



    That is all.



    This syntactical feature of the English language is older than the terms 'reasonable sample size' and 'statistical outlier'.



    In order to prove that 'conservatives' celebrated, I simply have to prove the following:



    That more than one conservative did, indeed, celebrate.



    One conservative celebrating would not be enough. That would be "a conservative celebrating."



    But two? That would be OK. That would be "conservatives" celebrating.



    So I might say "Conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected."



    And you might say in response "Did they? Prove it."



    And I might play you an audio recording of, say, Glenn Beck celebrating.



    And you might say "Well, fair enough, but that's only a single conservative. I refuse to believe that in this country of the United States of America there is another conservative celebrating. So your statement is false."



    And I might show you a transcript of Rush Limbaugh celebrating.



    And you might say "Well, that's only two. I'm an a bad mood, and I want more evidence before I'm convinced that more than two conservatives in the entire nation are celebrating."



    And I might show you a FUCKING VIDEO RECORDING of a room full of conservatives celebrating.



    And you might still be unconvinced, so might quote the RedState member lewincolor in a four page thread full of celebration on Friday, October 2nd at 11:34AM EDT saying:



    Quote:

    HOORAY !! YOU LIE-YOU LOSE-HOORAY !!



    And then I might quote the RedState member Jimcap on Wednesday, October 7th at 12:57PM EDT\t:



    Quote:

    America lost the Olympics!!! Hooray!!!



    And then I might quote the RedState member izoneguy five minutes later saying:



    Quote:

    The Messiah has failed?



    Erick?.you seem to take such glee in his failure?



    HA HA So do I??



    Great News! Thank You?..



    It is breaking on FOX now.



    So now I have shown you, very convincingly, that more than one conservative celebrated.



    Another way of putting this might be conservatives celebrated.



    So, you see, you are quite wrong.



    And sample size, and statistics, and whatnot, are all irrelevant, because I have demonstrated that more than one conservative ('conservatives', if you like) celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch was rejected.



    One conservative celebrated, and then another did, and then, before you knew it, conservatives were exchanging high fives on video.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Oh dear, trumptman.



    I was hoping to avoid getting caught up in matters of semantics, having proven that conservatives did, indeed, celebrate Barack Obama's losing pitch to the IOC with video, audio and transcript, contrary to your assertion against all the facts that they didn't.



    But you won't let this go. You won't "stop digging", to coin a phrase.



    So I will put this in the simplest, simplest terms I can.



    My assertion is that conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was unsuccessful.



    In order to prove this, I simply have to prove that a plurality of conservatives did, indeed, celebrate. The 's' at the end of the noun 'conservative', you see, is the clue. This 's' designates 'more than one'.



    That is all.



    This syntactical feature of the English language is older than the terms 'reasonable sample size' and 'statistical outlier'.



    In order to prove that 'conservatives' celebrated, I simply have to prove the following:



    That more than one conservative did, indeed, celebrate.



    One conservative celebrating would not be enough. That would be "a conservative celebrating."



    But two? That would be OK. That would be "conservatives" celebrating.



    So I might say "Conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected."



    And you might say in response "Did they? Prove it."



    And I might play you an audio recording of, say, Glenn Beck celebrating.



    And you might say "Well, fair enough, but that's only a single conservative. I refuse to believe that in this country of the United States of America there is another conservative celebrating. So your statement is false."



    And I might show you a transcript of Rush Limbaugh celebrating.



    And you might say "Well, that's only two. I'm an a bad mood, and I want more evidence before I'm convinced that more than two conservatives in the entire nation are celebrating."



    And I might show you a FUCKING VIDEO RECORDING of a room full of conservatives celebrating.



    And you might still be unconvinced, so I might quote the RedState member lewincolor on Friday, October 2nd at 11:34AM EDT saying:







    And then I might quote the RedState member izoneguy five minutes later saying:







    So now I have shown you, very convincingly, that more than one conservative celebrated.



    Another way of putting this might be conservatives celebrated.



    So, you see, you are quite wrong.



    And sample size, and statistics, and whatnot, are all irrelevant, because I have demonstrated that more than one conservative ('conservatives', if you like) celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch was rejected.



    One conservative celebrated, and then another did, and then, before you knew it, conservatives were exchanging high fives on video.



    Actually all you've proven is that you don't understand count nouns versus singular and plural nouns. Your loss and the delusions and name calling done to support that misunderstanding are yours alone as well.



    Quote:

    It is a fact that Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the blogs, and you, celebrated when Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.



    It is also a fact that when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, Glen Beck and the RNC and Rush Limbaugh, and you, objected.



    Address the bold part of your own claims or shut up.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Actually all you've proven is that you don't understand count nouns versus singular and plural nouns. Your loss and the delusions and name calling done to support that misunderstanding are yours alone as well.



    Ah, no.



    No trumptman, you have demonstrated your ignorance of the use of the suffix '-s' in the language of English.



    Here is a wikipedia link.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix



    I'll quote from it.



    Quote:

    Suffixes can carry grammatical information (inflectional suffixes), or lexical information (derivational suffixes). An inflectional suffix is sometimes called a desinence.[1]

    Some examples from English:

    Girls, where the suffix -s marks the plural.

    He makes, where suffix -s marks the third person singular present tense.

    It closed, where the suffix -ed marks the past tense.



    I've bolded the relevant part. It's the part where we learn that the suffix -s indicates the plural (in this case 'girls'.)



    If we were to substitute 'conservative' for 'girl' and add and the suffix -s, we would have 'conservatives': a plurality of conservatives.



    So in order to demonstrate that 'conservatives' celebrated, I would have to find evidence of more than one conservative celebrating. You see?



    It's very simple.



    In order to prove that 'conservatives' celebrated, I simply have to prove the following:



    That more than one conservative did, indeed, celebrate.



    One conservative celebrating would not be enough. That would be "a conservative celebrating."



    But two? That would be OK. That would be "conservatives" celebrating.



    So I might say "Conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected."



    And you might say in response "Did they? Prove it."



    And I might play you an audio recording of, say, Glenn Beck celebrating.



    And you might say "Well, fair enough, but that's only a single conservative. I refuse to believe that in this country of the United States of America there is another conservative celebrating. So your statement is false."



    And I might show you a transcript of Rush Limbaugh celebrating.



    And you might say "Well, that's only two. I'm an a bad mood, and I want more evidence before I'm convinced that more than two conservatives in the entire nation are celebrating."



    And I might show you a FUCKING VIDEO RECORDING of a room full of conservatives celebrating.



    And you might still be unconvinced, so might quote the RedState member lewincolor in a four page thread full of celebration on Friday, October 2nd at 11:34AM EDT saying:



    Quote:

    HOORAY !! YOU LIE-YOU LOSE-HOORAY !!



    And then I might quote the RedState member Jimcap on Wednesday, October 7th at 12:57PM EDT\t:



    Quote:

    America lost the Olympics!!! Hooray!!!



    And then I might quote the RedState member izoneguy five minutes later saying:



    Quote:

    The Messiah has failed?



    Erick?.you seem to take such glee in his failure?



    HA HA So do I??



    Great News! Thank You?..



    It is breaking on FOX now.



    So now I have shown you, very convincingly, that more than one conservative celebrated.



    It seems that your grasp of basic English syntax is very poor, trumptman.



    This is very humiliating for you.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Blah blah blah, clueless nonsense.



    Quote:

    It is a fact that Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the blogs, and you, celebrated when Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected.



    It is also a fact that when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, Glen Beck and the RNC and Rush Limbaugh, and you, objected.



    Address the bold part of your own claims or shut up.



    Here is what I said in the very first post.



    Why would I accept that I am wrong when you continually engage in bad reasoning. The exception never proves the rule. Produce evidence that this was an action engaged in by the majority of the group and if you can't, then stop alleging things about the group. Hold individuals for their actions and hold groups responsible for their actions and stop confusing the two. Perhaps if one stepped away from the cable news, the forums and the liberal blogs, a person could begin to properly reason again.



    You declare here you are not talking about a group, but merely a plural. Then you haven't refuted Frank777's point because he was clearly using conservatives as a count noun denoting a large group and not as a plural.



    In claiming you have refuted it by showing more than one conservative celebrated, you haven't proven anything with regard to the group.



    Admit that you've proven some statistically insignificant number of people who are conservative "celebrated" by your reasoning the items discussed. The group as a whole did not. Any claims about the group would be lies. The attempt to conflate plural and group is just moving the goal posts.



    If you honestly want people to think that when you type statements like this...



    Quote:

    Do you accept now that conservatives celebrated this loss?



    that you are talking about 2 people out of the entire United States then enjoy the extra work that entails. Most people understand that as a count noun and understand you are discussing the group as a whole unless quantifiers are used. You claim otherwise and admit so yourself.



    I hope you enjoyed spending all that time to make claims about roughly .0001 percent of all conservatives. Since no one can use such a ridiculous piece of statistical noise to ever make a generalization, then the work is for naught.



    So you proved nothing, and on top of it shot your credibility to hell by yet again, ignoring the lies within your own post with regard to me.



    You're toast.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    trumptman, stop.



    You have lost this argument. You resort to semantics out of desperation. Even on semantics, you lose the argument.



    I have proven that conservatives celebrated the loss of the American Olympic bid. The interpolation of nonsense about mass nouns (what you rather sweetly call 'count nouns') is desperate, and unbecoming. As I'll show you below, it's also dishonest.



    As for your request that I prove that you celebrated when Obama's pitch lost the bid, it turns out I can't. Although clearly I could offer you the most cast-iron evidence and you?d find some way of convincing yourself it doesn?t count, using your deliberate misapprehension of basic English grammar as a launch pad.



    You did object to the Nobel award, on the other hand.



    Quote:

    Who cares? We are talking about the same folks who gave it to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. It basically goes to the head of the Democratic party every couple years now. The real discussion should be how nasty Clinton had to be to in order to not be let into the "club."



    As most have noted, a prize awarded for nothing becomes a prize worth nothing (except for the cash of course.)



    You went on to quote critical editorials. I know that you'll deny this was 'objecting' however, because we've seen in this thread, repeatedly, you declare that black is white and that (and this is embarrassing, undignified) that conservatives did not celebrate the rejection of Obama's pitch even though they really, really, fucking did, and I have posted evidence that they did.



    Something I did find, which was curious, was this:



    Quote:

    This strikes me as ironic because the criticism is one I have leveled here dozens of times. Liberals can no longer distinguish between intentions and reality.



    Do you mean 'liberals' here as a mass noun? Or simply that more than one liberal cannot distinguish intentions and reality? Because earlier today, you had a little tantrum:



    Quote:

    The exception never proves the rule. Produce evidence that this was an action engaged in by the majority of the group and if you can't, then stop alleging things about the group. Hold individuals for their actions and hold groups responsible for their actions and stop confusing the two.



    So clearly you must mean, simply, that more than one liberal has this problem distinguishing what is real or not.



    Which means that your 'problem' with basic English syntax is, in fact, an ethical problem. You will write any damn fucking thing to win an argument.



    It is very humiliating for you.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Mumbo, I gotta believe your antagonist did, in his own way, clapping his hands, jumping up and down like a schoolgirl, celebrate Obama's "failure".

    Forget his denial, he'd never admit it.

    Unless he's just fucking with you, nah, the school girl bit is more believable.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    trumptman, stop.



    You have lost this argument. You resort to semantics out of desperation. Even on semantics, you lose the argument.



    Wow, that restatement in an authoritative tone is so much more convincing than say... an actual counterargument. Why don't you try "Because I said so..." to round out the lack or reasoning.



    Quote:

    I have proven that conservatives celebrated the loss of the American Olympic bid. The interpolation of nonsense about mass nouns (what you rather sweetly call 'count nouns') is desperate, and unbecoming. As I'll show you below, it's also dishonest.



    Yes, I'm just making up that bit about the count nouns. They clearly don't exist.



    Quote:

    As for your request that I prove that you celebrated when Obama's pitch lost the bid, it turns out I can't. Although clearly I could offer you the most cast-iron evidence and you’d find some way of convincing yourself it doesn’t count, using your deliberate misapprehension of basic English grammar as a launch pad.



    You did object to the Nobel award, on the other hand.



    Of course you can't because I didn't say it. Likewise there is no objection to the Nobel unless "who cares" is now registered as an objection. I noted the historical context and showed that it was Clinton, not Obama who was out of the norm here. Again no way to show that as an objection.



    Quote:

    You went on to quote critical editorials. I know that you'll deny this was 'objecting' however, because we've seen in this thread, repeatedly, you declare that black is white and that (and this is embarrassing, undignified) that conservatives did not celebrate the rejection of Obama's pitch even though they really, really, fucking did, and I have posted evidence that they did.



    The editorials I posted were from liberal sources. Considering the claim was that conservatives (as a group, not two of them) were the only ones who had objection, I noted several liberal sources that objected as well. That doesn't mean I object at all. It simply means the objections were not confined to conservatives.



    Quote:

    Something I did find, which was curious, was this:

    Do you mean 'liberals' here as a mass noun? Or simply that more than one liberal cannot distinguish intentions and reality? Because earlier today, you had a little tantrum:



    I mean the majority of the group. Utopian socialism is the basis of their beliefs and they dismiss reality and harm many people in their quest to achieve that utopia. I've linked to books, studies, polls, etc all in support of that contention. Likewise history shows us the genocide of folks like Mao, Stalin, etc. murdered millions in their quest to shape society.



    Quote:

    So clearly you must mean, simply, that more than one liberal has this problem distinguishing what is real or not.



    Of course I mean more than one. I mean the group. I do not use count nouns and then claim they apply to two people. That would be ridiculous nonsense.



    Quote:

    Which means that your 'problem' with basic English syntax is, in fact, an ethical problem. You will write any damn fucking thing to win an argument.



    It is very humiliating for you.



    Since you are toast, do you prefer jam or butter on you? Note the anger in the reply. It is clear you are frustrated. I mean you painted yourself into a corner with your lame plural claim. Now you want to reverse it but can't because unlike you, I am making a claim about the majority of the group and continually support my claims with links that are not cartoons pretending to be reality nor videos on YouTube. If someone speaks in an absolute and declares liberals never or conservatives always, I will of course post the exception to invalidate that absolute. Exceptions can disprove absolutes. They cannot disprove the rule though.



    I hope you enjoy being so wrong. Enjoy a future where everyone on the forum takes your claims and applies them to two people. It should make for fun discussions.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    trumptman.



    When I say that you have "lost the argument", it is because it is true.



    I have presented evidence, in the form of video, audio and transcript, that prove incontrovertibly that conservatives celebrated the loss of the American Olympic bid.



    This is a fact. Your attempts to prove that this is not a fact are at the expense of your credibility, which is already worth nothing.



    The number or the proportion of those celebrating is not relevant in any way.



    It is still a fact.



    Those conservatives were both prominent opinion-formers, on radio, TV and print, political activists and the rank-and-file members of popular right wing forums such as RedState and Free Republic (where you post, I see, which makes your denial... embarrassing.)



    This is where you lose the argument, and you should stop, because you are humiliating yourself.



    It is at this point where, if you had any dignity, you would ignore this thread, and ride out my goading you to respond, and concentrate on provoking people elsewhere. You have lost the argument, because I have provided evidence that conservatives did, indeed, celebrate Obama's failure. This evidence is incontrovertible. The number of conservatives is not relevant.



    The cartoon above is, then, a reflection of real events. It is grotesque, and unflattering, but it is a reflection of real events.



    I have put these words in italics to prevent you from claiming that I believe the cartoon is "real", as you dishonestly did in the quote below (you argue very dishonestly, and this precaution is necessary.)



    You go on to write:



    Quote:

    I am making a claim about the majority of the group and continually support my claims with links that are not cartoons pretending to be reality nor videos on YouTube. If someone speaks in an absolute and declares liberals never or conservatives always, I will of course post the exception to invalidate that absolute. Exceptions can disprove absolutes. They cannot disprove the rule though.



    and this is a lie.



    Here is the link to your 'It's the Obama Photo and Caption Thread'. In it, you appear to be quite fond of cartoons.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=88090



    Since you have been fucking pwnd, would you like some examples? The links take us to individual posts, in which we can see things which are not "cartoons pretending to be reality nor videos on YouTube" but are instead polls, psychological analyses and erudite essays.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=75



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=30



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...4&postcount=64



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...1&postcount=34



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...1&postcount=32







    You have been pwnd. This is humiliating for you. You are, in point of fact, toast.



    You should walk away from this thread, which is humiliating to you, now.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    trumptman.



    When I say that you have "lost the argument", it is because it is true.



    I prefer my truth to be objective and not Mumbo Jumbo truth, thanks for playing though.



    Quote:

    I have presented evidence, in the form of video, audio and transcript, that prove incontrovertibly that conservatives celebrated the loss of the American Olympic bid.



    I already agreed that you proved a room full of people and a couple talking heads "celebrated" by your reasoning. What does noting an exception really prove though? It proves nothing because that the very definition of exception. You proved the omission, the omission, the thing outside of the rule. By definition all you have proven is that the vast majority of conservatives did nothing wrong because all you could prove was the exception.



    Isn't it sad that you cannot see that? If all you can prove is the exception, you've already lost. You may not have lost in your little head, but you have lost by all definitions of proof.



    Quote:

    This is a fact. Your attempts to prove that this is not a fact are at the expense of your credibility, which is already worth nothing.



    The number or the proportion of those celebrating is not relevant in any way.



    That phrase right there is where you have just shredded your own credibility. You just said numbers and ratios do not matter when in fact they are all that matters. They matter in different ways for different fields but there are in fact definitions of what constitutes proof in the legal and scientific fields as examples. Again, it is very sad that the only definition and standard you admit to is your own which is why the only thing that makes you right is your own assertion claiming you are right over and over again.



    What burder of proof do you think you have met in proving an exception? The answer is none by any standard.



    Quote:

    It is still a fact.



    Actually, no it isn't because facts require data and you just (height of irony) said numbers don't matter. They do matter. Conservatives defined as a group did not celebrate. Perhaps the occasional individual celebrated but as I said at the beginning, label them as individuals and not as groups. Conflating the two as you have done is intellectually dishonest.



    Quote:

    Those conservatives were both prominent opinion-formers, on radio, TV and print, political activists and the rank-and-file members of popular right wing forums such as RedState and Free Republic (where you post, I see, which makes your denial... embarrassing.)



    How exactly does being a rpominent opinion-former translate into anything to do in reality? Did the people Rush Limbaugh want elected get elected? Did they even get the nomination? This is why folks such as yourself, who have trouble determing reality have such problems. Your leaders talk and you use it to replace reality in your mind. Thus when someone without the politically correct views talk, you do the same. However the FACT is that those of us that deal with data understand that Rush can talk for three hours a day and that doesn't move legislation. It doesn't elect people. It doesn't guarantee donations to a cause. As the saying goes, talk is cheap. Turn it off and go outside and play.



    Quote:

    This is where you lose the argument, and you should stop, because you are humiliating yourself.



    Perhaps I should start speculating what you are doing to yourself.



    Quote:

    It is at this point where, if you had any dignity, you would ignore this thread, and ride out my goading you to respond, and concentrate on provoking people elsewhere. You have lost the argument, because I have provided evidence that conservatives did, indeed, celebrate Obama's failure. This evidence is incontrovertible. The number of conservatives is not relevant.



    Blah, blah, blah, irrelevant bullshit. I...I...I...I.....you....you....you. Name calling isn't reasoning.



    Quote:

    The cartoon above is, then, a reflection of real events. It is grotesque, and unflattering, but it is a reflection of real events.



    Actually it doesn't reflect. A mirror reflects (try one sometime.)



    By definition humor does not reflect. It exaggerates, it distorts, it runs reasoning out to absurd conclusions, etc. It is the exact opposite of a mirror.



    Quote:

    I have put these words in italics to prevent you from claiming that I believe the cartoon is "real", as you dishonestly did in the quote below (you argue very dishonestly, and this precaution is necessary.)



    Also I never distorted your words, I quoted them. There is nothing I could do to your reasoning to make it be presented worse than you have done.





    Quote:

    You go on to write:



    I am making a claim about the majority of the group and continually support my claims with links that are not cartoons pretending to be reality nor videos on YouTube. If someone speaks in an absolute and declares liberals never or conservatives always, I will of course post the exception to invalidate that absolute. Exceptions can disprove absolutes. They cannot disprove the rule though.



    and this is a lie.



    Actually it isn't and you get more laughable each time you post.



    Quote:

    Here is the link to your 'It's the Obama Photo and Caption Thread'. In it, you appear to be quite fond of cartoons.



    I am fond of cartoons. It is almost like they are funny or something of that nature. Funny and reality aren't one in the same nor are funny and facts. See I create a thread and place the funny items in it away from the proofs. I don't present one as the other.



    By showing that thread and how I do not attept to use cartoons as proof and instead actually file them away recognizing them as humor instead of proof, you've just made yourself and your reasoning a laughingstock.



    This is so terribly embarassing for you. You are the kid in class eating paste and you are pointing your finger and noting I have paste as well to which I reply, "Well yeah, to glue things, not to eat."



    The irony here is delicious. Sadly you still don't get it. Oh well. No use giving this any more time. It is like having a fight where I have my hand on your forehead while you swing your arms. I'm sure you think you are trying hard but it is just sad.



    Quote:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=88090



    Since you have been fucking pwnd, would you like some examples? The links take us to individual posts, in which we can see things which are not "cartoons pretending to be reality nor videos on YouTube" but are instead polls, psychological analyses and erudite essays.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=75



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=30



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...4&postcount=64



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...1&postcount=34



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...1&postcount=32







    You have been pwnd. This is humiliating for you. You are, in point of fact, toast.



    You should walk away from this thread, which is humiliating to you, now.



    Wow, you are right. I sure have been "PWNED" by you dude. Keep up the good fight. Make sure you and all your friends believe cartoons are facts, that numbers don't matter and that people who continue to think such things are important are just embarassing.



    You sure will show me good.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    I think it's really funny that Obama winning the peace prize is such a big deal to people. I also think it's really funny that a cartoon that mirrors the truth ( as most political cartoons do ) is an even bigger deal to some.



    AHHHH!!!!!!! 2016 or maybe 2020 who knows when they'll get it?
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Well, there's 10 minutes of my life I will never get back... \
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    It is like having a fight where I have my hand on your forehead while you swing your arms.



    Ah, no. No, trumptman. It is like I am a mighty giant fire-breathing robot emitting laserbeams from my eyes, stomping you without noticing as you pee your harlequin pyjamas and weep like a six-year-old girl for your parents.



    But, actually, embarrassingly childish and self-flattering similes like these are unnecessary.



    Because this is what is happening.



    I am offering incontrovertible, attested facts to a right wing zealot who does not have the moral courage or dignity to admit them.



    That is not a simile. A simile is not necessary.



    You have lost the argument. Your further participation in this thread furthers your embarrassment.



    You write that the sources I have quoted demonstrate an exception and can therefore be disregarded. This is untrue.



    I have shown you evidence of prominent, opinion-forming right wing commentators celebrating when Obama?s pitch to the IOC was rejected.



    Here is a link to Rush Limbaugh?s keynote speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2009, billed as his first ?Address to the Nation.? http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html



    CPAC was attended by several former candidates for the Republican presidency and Limbaugh?s speech was broadcast live in its entirety on the reputable news channel Fox News. Rush Limbaugh is an important opinion former for the conservative movement. He is not ?some guy who speaks?, as you described him.



    If you attempt to deny this, it will be humiliating for you. I expect you will (you have little dignity.)



    Limbaugh is not ?an exception.? He is a public, prominent representative voice for the modern American conservative movement. His celebration, like that of Glenn Beck, whose televised programme attracts 2,000,000 viewers, cannot be ?an exception.? You can see from the thousands of posts on right wing blogs such as RedState and Free Republic (where you post) that their opinions are shared by many. His influence on legislation is irrelevant. His influence on elections is irrelevant.



    His influence on the modern conservative movement ("conservatives", if you prefer, as in "conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected") is, however, relevant.



    Conservative Americans, in other words, celebrated Barack Obama?s rejected pitch to the IOC. This is undeniable.



    They are not ?outliers?. They are not ?statistical noise.? They are prominent, public opinion-forming voices and rank and file activists. They celebrated publicly. They did it on television and on the radio. They did it on the blogs and on the forums.



    Conservative Americans celebrated Barack Obama?s rejected pitch to the IOC.



    Representative, public, opinion-forming conservatives with a constituency numbered IN MILLIONS celebrated the rejection of Barack Obama?s pitch to the IOC.



    It is a terrible shame that you should humiliate yourself by attempting to deny this incontrovertible fact. I appreciate that it might be inconvenient to you. It is an unpalatable truth that I am bald. But the unpalatability of this fact does not, and will not, and can not, change the fact that it is still true.



    Likewise, a very vocal, prominent and influential number of conservatives with a constituency numbered in many millions celebrated the rejection of Barack Obama?s pitch to the IOC.



    I am sorry for you. I am sorry that I have encountered someone without the moral courage to admit this. (I, on the other hand, admitted that I could find no evidence that you ?celebrated? when Obama?s pitch was rejected. You cannot do this. This is why I have some character and some credibility, and you have none. I am sorry for you.)



    In the eyes of any objective observer, you are arguing in the face of incontrovertible facts and attempting to use semantics and statistics to deny the obvious, undeniable, attested and public truth that conservatives, representative and opinion-forming with a constituency of millions, and rank-and-file activists celebrated when Barack Obama?s pitch to the IOC was rejected.



    You also write this, and this absolutely pathetic (and terribly embarrassing to you):



    Quote:

    Funny and reality aren't one in the same nor are funny and facts. See I create a thread and place the funny items in it away from the proofs. I don't present one as the other.



    By showing that thread and how I do not attempt to use cartoons as proof and instead actually file them away recognizing them as humor instead of proof, you've just made yourself and your reasoning a laughingstock.



    The reason that this so absolutely pathetic is because in my previous post I wrote this:



    Quote:

    The cartoon above is, then, a reflection of real events. It is grotesque, and unflattering, but it is a reflection of real events.



    I have put these words in italics to prevent you from claiming that I believe the cartoon is "real", as you dishonestly did in the quote below (you argue very dishonestly, and this precaution is necessary.)



    And you actually claimed, again, dishonestly, pathetically, that I claimed that the cartoon was somehow ?real? and ?evidence?, even though I went out of my way, and said I was going out of my way, to prevent you from doing this.



    You did not read my post. You have no scruples. You do not care. You will write any old bullshit in order to win an argument.



    At least one of these things must be true.



    You also say this:



    Quote:

    By definition humor does not reflect. It exaggerates, it distorts, it runs reasoning out to absurd conclusions, etc. It is the exact opposite of a mirror.



    And this contemptible. Your 'definition' is incorrect. Yes, humour reflects. Of course it does. It can be a distorting mirror? but a distorting mirror is still a mirror.



    Give up. Walk away from this thread. You are humiliating yourself trying to continue it.



    I have facts and evidence and attested, incontrovertible truths. You have some horseshit about statistics and exceptions and a need to deny that conservatives celebrated when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected. It isn't even about the facts, because the facts are undeniable and incontestable. It is about "winning". You cannot win this argument on facts. Your irrelevant and ad hominem attacks on my "reasoning" will not help you.



    To use your favourite provocative formula, enjoy being absurd.
Sign In or Register to comment.