More Hate Mongering From Trudeau

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You clearly don't understand the conventions of normal debate. 

Clearly I do though and much better than you.

Quote

You don't get to refer to blueanon talking points as if they're common knowledge, you need to provide links if you think they're actual facts.

But you do get to refer to things the very same way without needing to substantiate them? You're dreaming.

Quote

Discuss facts instead of making snotty, misguided accusations eyeball, and google 'ad hominem'.

So learn about etiquette then. That would be a blessing for all of us. 

Follow your own advice.  I'm not making a misguided accusation I'm accusing you of hypocrisy as evidenced by your own verbatim words. Nothing in between the lines, no talking points from CNN or blueanaon. Just you, unplugged.  

Quote

I provide links to verified facts constantly eyeball, several per day, but I don't recall ever seeing a link to anything factual in nature from you.

What about the link I provided that underscores the unmitigated hypocrisy you've put up for examination?

Quote

You're a blueanon guy. You accept 'the word' from CNN and CTV and you expect people to just believe it from you in the same way. Not happening.

No, I'm simply not accepting 'your word'. I expect people to see the evidence of why it shouldn't be accepted and perhaps ask themselves if you're someone they can support.  

Quote

And still, no one has provided a link to back up MH's accusations. Why is that?

Maybe it was the common knowledge that penetrating your denial would require the length of time it will take to erode Mt Everest back down to sea level.

Quote

 

Since when is it ok to slander people without ever showing any proof of your accusations?

That's disgusting.

 

Yeah well you seem to be setting the standard.

Quote

This is about an ad hominem argument against people from the freedom convoy, which required a link, but you didn't provide one, you just threw down another ad hominem argument against me instead.

I wasn't addressing the freedom convoy, I'm addressing your refusal to supply cites while demanding them. That's not an ad hominem, that's a fact.

Quote

Learn the language. Learn the etiquette.

But I have Padawan.

Quote

 

Stop making snotty insults. Grow up. 

 

Ad hominem

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Clearly I do though and much better than you.

The Burden of Proof is on the positive claim. This stands to reason.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=This makes the attempt to,This stands to reason.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're a blueanon guy.

And clearly you haven't been following events or you'd know it's B-anon, Q-anon's evil twin because we're you know, real.

Instead of Baaaaa it's really Beeeee.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Burden of Proof is on the positive claim. This stands to reason.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=This makes the attempt to,This stands to reason.

Of course you understand that in this instance, the burden of proof is on you, right? 

At the heart of this little tete a tete is my claim that you need to show some kind of proof of all the "nazi flags and racist symbolism" that you keep popping off about. 

Eyeball was actually coming to your defence by saying that I needed to show proof that "CNN supported the riots", because according to him, some people still don't know. 

Anyhow, you're admitting that the burden of proof is on the positive claim, or in this case, proof of your comments about the symbols, so it's put up or shut up time. 

For the tenth time, @eyeball & Michael Hardner, show the proof that you claim to have. 

[WestCanMan]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And clearly you haven't been following events or you'd know it's B-anon, Q-anon's evil twin because we're you know, real.

 

Last I heard you get all your stuff from blueanon, but you can call it what you want. 

Quote

Instead of Baaaaa it's really Beeeee.

I guess I can't really argue with one of the sheeple about how they pronounce baaa, or in your case beee, so I'll give you that one.

Bleat to your heart's content, eyeball. 

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Clearly I do though and much better than you.

Then maybe show it for once? Just once, cite a page with some facts on it instead of just doing.... whatever you want to call this.

Quote

But you do get to refer to things the very same way without needing to substantiate them? You're dreaming.

Do you honestly need to see plinks proving that CNN supported the riots? Are you really going there? 

If you post the words "I don't believe that CNN was supporting the riots" then I'll post some links just for you, ok? I'll even post links to show you that the current VP was wildly supportive of the riots. But you need to say those words, because I'm not just fetching links for you, I'll be doing it to prove a point about your intelligence. 

Quote

Follow your own advice.  I'm not making a misguided accusation I'm accusing you of hypocrisy as evidenced by your own verbatim words. Nothing in between the lines, no talking points from CNN or blueanaon. Just you, unplugged.  

When you think you're making a point, just maybe think twice? 

When things are well understood by the whole rest of the planet you don't need to post links. People don't post links to prove that the moon isn't made of cheese to anyone but you. 

I can say "Michael Jackson was a very popular pp singer in the '80s" without posting a link because only 1 person on earth would require a link - that's you.

I can say "many people believe that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time" without posting links because only 1 person on earth would require a link - that's you.

Quote

What about the link I provided that underscores the unmitigated hypocrisy you've put up for examination?

I can say "Michael Jackson was a very popular pp singer in the '80s" without posting a link because only 1 person on earth would require a link - that's you.

I can say "many people believe that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time" without posting links because only 1 person on earth would require a link - that's you.

Quote

What about the link I provided that underscores the unmitigated hypocrisy you've put up for examination?

That's not actually what it did. It proved that you still don't understand the rules of polite discourse. People don't post links to prove that the moon isn't made of cheese to anyone but you. 

Quote

No, I'm simply not accepting 'your word'. I expect people to see the evidence of why it shouldn't be accepted and perhaps ask themselves if you're someone they can support.  

By not accepting "my word" you're actually doubting that CNN supported the riots. That's fine buddy, but most people will think that you're extremely stupid for holding that opinion.

Still, I need you to say that "you do not believe that CNN was supporting the riots" because it provides an extra level of proof. 

Quote

Maybe it was the common knowledge that penetrating your denial would require the length of time it will take to erode Mt Everest back down to sea level.

Wow, you clearly took some time thinking about that, and all it did was look childish.

Quote

I wasn't addressing the freedom convoy, I'm addressing your refusal to supply cites while demanding them. That's not an ad hominem, that's a fact.

Wrong. You're asking me to provide links to prove something that everyone else already knows, while at the same time refusing to just show the evidence to back up a very substantial accusation that you've made, which most people here know to be false. 

I always supply cites when they're needed, but in this case they're not needed. You're just dodging. I'll only provide the links after you admit that you are actually completely unaware that CNN supported the riots. 

There's a big difference between "getting the links just because you asked for them" and "getting the links to prove how completely oblivious of current events you are".

"Learn the language. Learn the etiquette. Stop making snotty insults. Grow up." - That part still stands

[WestCanMan]

@eyeball - Most of the world remembers things like this, which you claim to be unaware of? 

 

"Multiple locations where things are burning. Mostly peaceful."

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you honestly need to see plinks proving that CNN supported the riots? Are you really going there?

When you insist on going there so strongly and determinedly you're damn right I do.  When you claim to be %100 infallible and accurate as often as you do and so consistently use the word "riots" and "support" as many times as you have then you need to produce evidence of someone at CNN actually saying "We at CNN support and encourage our viewers to go out and riot".  If your evidence is not a virtual word for word record of that then fuck off.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When you insist on going there so strongly and determinedly you're damn right I do.  When you claim to be %100 infallible and accurate as often as you do and so consistently use the word "riots" and "support" as many times as you have then you need to produce evidence of someone at CNN actually saying "We at CNN support and encourage our viewers to go out and riot".  If your evidence is not a virtual word for word record of that then fuck off.

 

 

"Multiple locations where things are burning.... Mostly peaceful."

FYI the idiot putting the words on the chyron works for CNN. This isn't just the words of one idiot. Producers at CNN are approving, if not setting the narrative for, these segments. They are officers of the company. This is CNN.

You lose again eyeball. 

Now it's time for you to provide evidence of all the nazi and racist symbols present at the FREEDOM CONVOY. Your dodgy weaselling has run its course.

Put up or shut up.

[eyeball]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

Put up or shut up.

Part of burden of proof is that you put it directly in front of your audience and not make them wade thru a bunch of ads and unrelated hooey.  Cite the time/location on the video plus a quote of the actual words you want me to focus on as your evidence otherwise go piss up a rope.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Part of burden of proof is that you 

Provided absolute proof that what I said was 100% accurate. Thanks. Here it is again, in case you missed it:

 

Care to comment? Cat got your tongue again eyeball? 

Let's be honest, it was never up for debate anyways. You were just dodging because you and MH were called out for not providing a link to substantiate your idiotic accusation that Nazi and racist flags were being flown at the protests.

For the twentieth time, one of you two needs to provide a link to substantiate your idiotic accusation that Nazi and racist flags were being flown at the protests. Otherwise you're just liars. Put up or shut up. 

 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Provided absolute proof that what I said was 100% accurate. Thanks. Here it is again, in case you missed it:

Care to comment?

Only to say that you didn't tell me at what point to look for the words "We at CNN support and encourage our viewers to go out and riot".  You can't do that because they're not there are they?

And I know I don't have to look thru anything else you link to because they won't be there either.  The only place they exist is in your slanderous libelous bullshit.

[eyeball]

There's obviously a good reason why they use the word burden in the phrase burden of proof. 

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Only to say that you didn't tell me at what point to look for the words "We at CNN support and encourage our viewers to go out and riot".  You can't do that because they're not there are they?

And I know I don't have to look thru anything else you link to because they won't be there either.  The only place they exist is in your slanderous libelous bullshit.

Waaaaah. The video was 100% incontrovertible evidence of what I accused them of. Now it's time for you to provide the evidence for the serious accusation that you guys are backing. 

It's put up or shut up time eyeball, and you're still just blabbering. 

Evidence boy, evidence!

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's obviously a good reason why they use the word burden in the phrase burden of proof. 

Manure can be a burden, but your bullshit isn't what's required here. 

It's time for you to provide the evidence for the serious accusation that you and MH are backing. 

It's put up or shut up time, and you're still just blabbering. 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Waaaaah. The video was 100% incontrovertible evidence of what I accused them of.

Actually using the words  "We at CNN support and encourage our viewers to go out and riot"?

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Manure can be a burden, but your bullshit isn't what's required here. 

It's time for you to provide the evidence for the serious accusation that you and MH are backing. 

It's put up or shut up time, and you're still just blabbering. 

Serious accusation you say?  You're literally saying CNN incites rioting.  That's not just serious, its criminal.  No free speech law in the land could protect a broadcaster with an audience of millions from doing what you're accusing them of. 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Serious accusation you say?  You're literally saying CNN incites rioting.  That's not just serious, its criminal.  No free speech law in the land could protect a broadcaster with an audience of millions from doing what you're accusing them of. 

I said that they supported rioting. That's an absolute. I'll take my star now, thanks.

Now it's time for you to provide the evidence for the serious accusation that you and MH are backing. 

It's put up or shut up time, and you're still just blabbering. 

[WestCanMan]

Tick tock. 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I said that they supported rioting. That's an absolute.

If it was you wouldn't hesitate to show us CNN using the words support and riot unambiguously in the same sentence.

If you we're in possession of %100 incontrovertible evidence of CNN absolutely inciting rioting I'd say send it to the justice department but they're probably compromised so maybe Desantis, Josh Hawley, Marjorie Taylor Green, Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani.

Green and Powell would probably start mailing you their underwear in gratitude, may be even Giuliani if you're lucky.

But, you're just a lying bullshitter and if that wasn't bad enough it's also something you really really suck at doing.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If it was you wouldn't hesitate to show us CNN using the words support and riot unambiguously in the same sentence.

If you we're in possession of %100 incontrovertible evidence of CNN absolutely inciting rioting I'd say send it to the justice department but they're probably compromised so maybe Desantis, Josh Hawley, Marjorie Taylor Green, Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani.

Green and Powell would probably start mailing you their underwear in gratitude, may be even Giuliani if you're lucky.

But, you're just a lying bullshitter and if that wasn't bad enough it's also something you really really suck at doing.

Stop squirming and post some evidence of nazi/racist flags at the rally now. You're 30 posts overdue. Put up or shut up time, remember? 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Stop squirming and post some evidence of nazi/racist flags at the rally now. You're 30 posts overdue. Put up or shut up time, remember? 

I think you must have intended this for someone else. If it was me and I was articulating something more substantial than an opinion I would have put something up right then and there. I wouldn't have made anyone drag it out of me because it would be direct, to the point, factual, word for word and unambiguous, especially if it was something I was accusing someone of.

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think you must have intended this for someone else. If it was me and I was articulating something more substantial than an opinion I would have put something up right then and there. I wouldn't have made anyone drag it out of me because it would be direct, to the point, factual, word for word and unambiguous, especially if it was something I was accusing someone of.

Stop squirming and post some evidence of nazi/racist flags at the rally now. You popped off in support of MH and challenged me, and I laid that to rest, so put up or shut up.  

[WestCanMan]

@eyeball no one forced MH to lie. Neither he nor I never asked you to defend his lies. But you stuck your nose in this and now you're on the hook to finish where he ran off. 

Post some evidence of what you're backing eyeball. Put up or shut up. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Stop squirming and post some evidence of nazi/racist flags at the rally now. You popped off in support of MH and challenged me, and I laid that to rest, so put up or shut up.  

No, I went straight to challenging you - this is the second time I've pointed this out. You laid out a strawman.