|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 14 2016 06:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'd rather argue with xDaunt than with the likes of Biology Major, IPN and Zeo. At least there is something to argue about. In too many cases we see trumpers just bend reality mid argument when their previous fantasy world gets deconstructed, and ignore altogether what doesn't suit them.
That and the conspiracy theories. Lots and lots of really dumb conspiracy theories.
We love you xDaunt, stay around!!
I'm definitely not as informed as most of the posters in this thread, so I don't really care. My perspective on this matter is more or less your average joe's. On the plus side I've learned quite a bit from reading here, including the fact that regardless of how much you know, the fantasy land still exists in you and others as well. For example, clinton supporters see this coordinated and condensed scrutiny of trump 30 days before the election to be "just news" and completely dismiss the idea that the media is against him plain and simple. The wikileaks showed that to be true in several instances. There is no coverage of wikileaks relative to trump however. The fantasy land exists in all of us though, even zlefin.
|
On October 14 2016 06:35 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 06:22 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:On October 14 2016 06:06 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 06:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 06:00 Ghostcom wrote:On October 14 2016 05:54 Nyxisto wrote:On October 14 2016 05:51 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
You just defeated your own argument by showing men will fuck mud if given the chance...
Seriously, every time 'Lawyer xDaunt' talks I am more and more surprised your actually a lawyer, saying such dumb shit.
User was warned for this post My God, this isn't rocket science. What I think as a trial attorney doesn't matter. What matters is what society -- what the jury pool -- thinks. In what world is this an acceptable argument though, "he didn't rape below his dating level"...? Rape is a crime of opportunity, there's probably a bazillion cases of people with a preference for very attractive women raping all kinds of people. Hell there's heterosexual people in prison raping men every day? In many cases of rape, maybe the majority, sexual attraction isn't even the biggest factor. This is a ridiculous argument. Yes it is a somewhat ridiculous argument, however xDaunt does not claim the argument itself holds merit. He claims that it works because the average juror is uninformed. Which is where the prosecution informs them about the basics of rape... It simply does not hold up. If the prosecution is competent and if the juror trusts the prosecution... Welcome to the real world where neither of those things are guaranteed. EDIT: These last pages have been so fucking dumb - it's like y'all either lack complete respect for the other posters or suffer from severely impaired reading comprehension. In either case, it's probably time to step away from the keyboard until you've cooled down (should this have been "off"?). Ok, let me fill in some blanks for you. Xdaunt is on one of his standard “Im smarter than all of you, I’m the most objective thinker in this thread” rants. Most of the posters here have experienced this numerous times. Xdaunt talks down to other posters and has no issues with throwing the “I’m a lawyer, so I clearly all the law,” at anyone who disagrees. It wouldn’t’ be so bad if he didn’t’ start out every discussion with some vague bait that morphs into him calling everyone stupid. But the pattern is something everyone here is used to. What made you think I had any blanks that needs filling? What does this say about your own attitude? Have you considered your own posting record? Are you even the least bit self-aware? You just called everyone in the thread stupid and that was how you jumped into this thread. If you are looking for improving posting quality, you are not helping. As for being self aware, I try to be. I’m not perfect. But I also don’t jump into the Legion thread and say it is garbage, so I feel like I might be ahead of the game. I quite specifically did not call anyone dumb. I said the thread had been dumb (which I'm sure any rational person will agree on). I'm actually quite convinced the vast majority of people in this thread are pretty smart people, but the tempers run high resulting in what is either a complete lack of respect or willful impaired reading comprehension. I've observed that it usually helps to call this out, so I'm fairly certain that I am in fact helping. If you are serious about being self-aware, please go read the last 50 posts you've made in this thread and carefully consider how you are positively contributing to a good debating-environment (hint, your one-liners aren't helping).
You are feel any way you want about yours posts, including holding the belief that you are providing constructive criticism. I’m not sure people will agree, but you have the right to hold this belief.
Beyond that, I will consider improving my posting habits in the future if informed by a moderator to do so, as that is their role.
|
On October 14 2016 06:38 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:33 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 06:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I feel like regarding sexual assault and rape accusations that you either have to believe them all or believe none of them when they remain just accusations. It would be highly biased to say just Drumpf or just Bill Clinton is (not) guilty of those crimes without saying the other is also (not) guilty No.. because of a few reasons. One of them being evidence. Trump and Bill could both be horrible human beings and rapists, but that doesnt mean one is a rapist because the other is a rapist. Like I said, when they remain as just accusations, not backed up by any evidence
Hasn't one set of the accusations already been prosecuted? Not that I think Bill is innocent, but implying that all allegations have to be treated the same even after some of those allegations have been tried and/or settled is a bit of an odd claim to make.
|
On October 14 2016 06:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'd rather argue with xDaunt than with the likes of Biology Major, IPN and Zeo. At least there is something to argue about. In too many cases we see trumpers just bend reality mid argument when their previous fantasy world gets deconstructed, and ignore altogether what doesn't suit them.
That and the conspiracy theories. Lots and lots of really dumb conspiracy theories.
We love you xDaunt, stay around!! I'm definitely not as informed as most of the posters in this thread, so I don't really care. My perspective on this matter is more or less your average joe's. On the plus side I've learned quite a bit from reading here, including the fact that regardless of how much you know, the fantasy land still exists in you and others as well. For example, clinton supporters see this coordinated and condensed scrutiny of trump 30 days before the election to be "just news" and completely dismiss the idea that the media is against him plain and simple. The wikileaks showed that to be true in several instances. There is no coverage of wikileaks relative to trump however. The fantasy land exists in all of us though, even zlefin.
I live not in fantasyland, I live in imaginationland!
Also, there were some key differences there in what people claimed and what the leaks showed (setting aside that wikileaks has proven itself unreliable); the leaks showed some moderate coordination, not a strong concerted effort. There's also a dfiference between the media being aganist him because he attacks the media (plus he's unfit for presidency), and the media being against him because of some nefarious conspiracy.
|
Also, one of them is currently running for president and the other is not.
|
United States43729 Posts
On October 14 2016 06:38 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:33 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 06:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I feel like regarding sexual assault and rape accusations that you either have to believe them all or believe none of them when they remain just accusations. It would be highly biased to say just Drumpf or just Bill Clinton is (not) guilty of those crimes without saying the other is also (not) guilty No.. because of a few reasons. One of them being evidence. Trump and Bill could both be horrible human beings and rapists, but that doesnt mean one is a rapist because the other is a rapist. Like I said, when they remain as just accusations, not backed up by any evidence
With the Miss Arizona accusation Trump confessed to doing that. I don't know if that'd count as evidence, maybe xDaunt can weigh in on whether a tape of the defendant bragging about the crime counts.
|
On October 14 2016 06:38 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:33 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 06:30 plasmidghost wrote:
I feel like regarding sexual assault and rape accusations that you either have to believe them all or believe none of them when they remain just accusations. It would be highly biased to say just Drumpf or just Bill Clinton is (not) guilty of those crimes without saying the other is also (not) guilty No.. because of a few reasons. One of them being evidence. Trump and Bill could both be horrible human beings and rapists, but that doesnt mean one is a rapist because the other is a rapist. Like I said, when they remain as just accusations, not backed up by any evidence
That is correct, but they are also not pressing charges or seeking damages from Trump. Their claims a direct response to Trump's claim that he never forced himself on a woman without consent, which conflicted with his previous statement in 2005. So both sides are making claims that are not backed up by evidence. So we are left with the decision of who we believe is more trustworthy, which does not help Trumps case.
|
On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released.
He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century.
|
United States43729 Posts
On October 14 2016 06:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'd rather argue with xDaunt than with the likes of Biology Major, IPN and Zeo. At least there is something to argue about. In too many cases we see trumpers just bend reality mid argument when their previous fantasy world gets deconstructed, and ignore altogether what doesn't suit them.
That and the conspiracy theories. Lots and lots of really dumb conspiracy theories.
We love you xDaunt, stay around!! I'm definitely not as informed as most of the posters in this thread, so I don't really care. My perspective on this matter is more or less your average joe's. On the plus side I've learned quite a bit from reading here, including the fact that regardless of how much you know, the fantasy land still exists in you and others as well. For example, clinton supporters see this coordinated and condensed scrutiny of trump 30 days before the election to be "just news" and completely dismiss the idea that the media is against him plain and simple. The wikileaks showed that to be true in several instances. There is no coverage of wikileaks relative to trump however. The fantasy land exists in all of us though, even zlefin.
What does the media being against him mean to you? How would that be expressed? Because reporting on stories that are negative when the candidate is negative is just reporting the news.
I think the whole media bias thing can be disproved quite easily by just looking at how much scrutiny Clinton gets for how little wrongdoing. In terms of the wrongdoing:scrutiny ratio Clinton is getting massively shafted by the media. The Clinton Foundation has been found to be as legit as any other big charity and the Trump Foundation has been demonstrably proven to be working to benefit Trump in ways that are illegal, in addition to buying him portraits and bribing Florida Attorney Generals. And yet the two are presented as being in some way comparable.
If Trump gets 80% of the attention and yet has 95% of the scandals he's getting off lightly.
|
On October 14 2016 06:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'd rather argue with xDaunt than with the likes of Biology Major, IPN and Zeo. At least there is something to argue about. In too many cases we see trumpers just bend reality mid argument when their previous fantasy world gets deconstructed, and ignore altogether what doesn't suit them.
That and the conspiracy theories. Lots and lots of really dumb conspiracy theories.
We love you xDaunt, stay around!! I'm definitely not as informed as most of the posters in this thread, so I don't really care. My perspective on this matter is more or less your average joe's. On the plus side I've learned quite a bit from reading here, including the fact that regardless of how much you know, the fantasy land still exists in you and others as well. For example, clinton supporters see this coordinated and condensed scrutiny of trump 30 days before the election to be "just news" and completely dismiss the idea that the media is against him plain and simple. The wikileaks showed that to be true in several instances. There is no coverage of wikileaks relative to trump however. The fantasy land exists in all of us though, even zlefin.
The media has been until now, incredibly biased towards Trump (things have changed, but then again, it's not every day a nominee brags about getting away with sexual assaults). They have ganged up on Clinton over scandals that are NOTHING compared to what can be reproached to Trump and created the illusion that she was the dishonest one there, which is simply grotesque when you consider the amount of lies Trump utters and his history.
You admit not being well informed. That's fine, but maybe you should be, in general, a bit less assertive then.
|
Trump would have to be an even bigger idiot than we think if his campaign tries to push the whole Scalia was murdered thing, sure it'll antagonize the supporters but there's really not much in terms of substance
|
On October 14 2016 06:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released. He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century.
Yeah but he is a supreme court justice, they should have done an autopsy to make sure. "natural causes" for a 79 year old medically speaking is very suspect. There must have been a probable cause of death, not sure if they released his medical records but I don't have the time to take a look.
|
how many supreme court justices have been murdered/ assassinated or have deaths that smell of foul play?
scalia was old and had plenty of health problems. his death wasn't anything crazy.
|
On October 14 2016 06:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released. He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century. Yeah but he is a supreme court justice, they should have done an autopsy to make sure. "natural causes" for a 79 year old medically speaking is very suspect. There must have been a probable cause of death, not sure if they released his medical records but I don't have the time to take a look.
Natural causes for an obese and diabetic 79 year old man are suspect? On what planet?
|
On October 14 2016 06:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released. He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century. Yeah but he is a supreme court justice, they should have done an autopsy to make sure. "natural causes" for a 79 year old medically speaking is very suspect. There must have been a probable cause of death, not sure if they released his medical records but I don't have the time to take a look.
Natural causes for a 79 year old is NOT suspect from a medical point of view - especially not when the 79 year old in question is Scalia. He wasn't exactly a paragon of health.
EDIT: His medical records were never released, but it was disclosed that he suffered from hypertension, COPD, degenerative joint disease, sleep apnoea, and was a smoker. He was pretty much a ticking time bomb.
|
On October 14 2016 06:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released. He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century. Yeah but he is a supreme court justice, they should have done an autopsy to make sure. "natural causes" for a 79 year old medically speaking is very suspect. There must have been a probable cause of death, not sure if they released his medical records but I don't have the time to take a look.
It isn't suspect at all, that is the average life span of a person in the US. And they can't just do it without cause, they need the families approval. Same with the medical records. He is still a person, he doesn't give up rights to privacy when he dies just because he served on the Supreme Court.
|
On October 14 2016 06:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released. He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century. Yeah but he is a supreme court justice, they should have done an autopsy to make sure. "natural causes" for a 79 year old medically speaking is very suspect. There must have been a probable cause of death, not sure if they released his medical records but I don't have the time to take a look.
See that's what i was telling you. If you have 0 fact, don't make stuff up. You avoid looking like another lunatic and we keep our sanity.
Scalia died, that's it. If there are GOOD REASONS to believe he may have been killed, talk about it. And no, the fact that he died at a fairly good time for democrats is not a good reason.
I don't know how to explain something that simple better. Just don't make up or believe conspiracy theories until you have solid facts. Period.
|
On October 14 2016 06:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released. He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century. Yeah but he is a supreme court justice, they should have done an autopsy to make sure. "natural causes" for a 79 year old medically speaking is very suspect. There must have been a probable cause of death, not sure if they released his medical records but I don't have the time to take a look.
How is natural causes for a 79 year old suspect? I agree with the Chris Rock bit that after a certain point everything is natural causes, even getting hit by a bus. If you were younger you would have gotten out of the way. 79 is really old, that's a hell of a run.
This is just the latest pathetic conspiracy theory in a long line of pathetic conspiracy theories from less than brilliant people in defense of an indefensible candidate. I think I'll just chalk it up to that.
|
On October 14 2016 06:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released. He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century. Yeah but he is a supreme court justice, they should have done an autopsy to make sure. "natural causes" for a 79 year old medically speaking is very suspect. There must have been a probable cause of death, not sure if they released his medical records but I don't have the time to take a look.
iirc, he had a history of heart disease.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/scalia-suffered-heart-disease-diabetes-died-article-1.2541593
|
United States43729 Posts
On October 14 2016 06:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:49 biology]major wrote:On October 14 2016 06:46 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 14 2016 06:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 14 2016 06:33 BlueBird. wrote:On October 14 2016 06:14 biology]major wrote:
Does this scalia conspiracy hold any merit? Why wasn't there an autopsy done? He is a high profile figure, who passed away unexpectedly. He was a 79 year old in a country where the average life expectancy is 78.7? To be fair once you hit 70 your life expectancy is a fair bit past 79 (quick google says 85). All those pesky men and minorities die off before then. That said there's no real reason to suspect anything happened, his doctor would have to testify and his family would need to let his records get released. He was also morbidly obese. Morbidly obese 79 year old man dies isn't exactly the shock of the century. Yeah but he is a supreme court justice, they should have done an autopsy to make sure. "natural causes" for a 79 year old medically speaking is very suspect. There must have been a probable cause of death, not sure if they released his medical records but I don't have the time to take a look. See that's what i was telling you. If you have 0 fact, don't make stuff up. You avoid looking like another lunatic and we keep our sanity. Scalia died, that's it. If there are GOOD REASONS to believe he may have been killed, talk about it. And no, the fact that he died at a fairly good time for democrats is not a good reason. I don't know how to explain something that simple better. Just don't make up or believe conspiracy theories until you have solid facts. Period.
I read that he had proof that Obama was born in Kenya and that's why he was killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
