misconceptions

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > misconceptions > Page 4

Page 4 of 8

12-02-2022 03:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21736)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...under what circumstances I would disagree with a court ruling? OK what? And there is a trap waiting for all of us every day, it's called being wrong about things and making errors in judgement. I'm wrong a lot. I admit that. You are too. Try admitting it once in a while. Void argument fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-02-2022 03:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:I'm wrong a lot. I admit that. Nope. You never admit any time that you are in error. or morally on the wrong side of an issue. On this site, you have been mistaken and wrong both, countless times, and never once have you admitted such. tmiddles wrote:You are too. Try admitting it once in a while. You have never shown any error on my part. You have repeatedly doubled down on stupid in the areas of math, science, logic and economics. Your only hope has ever been for me to just have a fit of madness and blurt out that you are right. Otherwise, you have never taken an honest position. You are evil. You support violence by those with whom you agree politically being perpetrated on those with whom you disagree politically ... all because you allow others to do your thinking for you and to establish your political views. You fully endorse the removal of all defensive protection of those with whom you disagree in the face of the mob violence you support by those with whom you agree. Never have you admitted to being in the wrong by holding this position. You labor incessantly to treat the laws of physics, specifically the laws of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann, as archaic religious dogmas whose time has come to be discarded. You do so in order for your WACKY religious dogma of Global Warming to be preached without its egregious violations of physics being readily apparent. Never have you admitted to your blatant science denial. You lie regularly. You assign bogus positions to others in order to denigrate and to discredit ... over positions that they do not have, that you know they do not have because it was you who assigned the bogus position in the first place. Instead of admitting when you are wrong, you simply alter your opponent's position and then pivot to attacking the bogus position you have assigned, in the hopes of diverting attention away from the fact that you were totally in error just moments prior. You have never apologized, not even once, for any of the bogus position you have assigned to me, and you have assigned some doozies. I am honest all the time. You should try being honest some of the time. Attached image:
12-02-2022 06:00
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ... (that's a cop being beaten with a hockey stick on Jan 6)...But he deserved it ...? Any cop that is breaking the law is no longer a cop.... So the cop being beaten with a hockey stick broke what law? Is there video of that? Also you never answered where is Antifa and BLM? Are they in the video above? You said: Into the Night wrote:....Trump supporters were trying to stop Antifa from breaking windows with the tool they brought specifically for the purpose. You will see where security LET Antifa into the Capitol building. You will see Trump supporters defending the police, not attacking them. ...The so-called 'break-in' was by Antifa and BLM. The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... link I'm assuming you have some video or other evidence that lead you to believe something like that? You claim ANTIFA broke the windows. Chad Jones was charged with breaking the very windows where Ashli Babbit was shot breaching the doors. https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-siege/kentucky-man-used-flagpole-to-smash-speakers-lobby-window-just-before-ashli-babbitt-was-shot-and-killed-fbi/ https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/jones-chad-barrett So according to you Chad Jones must be ANTIFA or BLM? He's a registered Republican for many years (unusual for ANTIFA): https://www.kystandard.com/content/area-man-arrested-charges-linked-capitol-riot So I'm very curious how you developed this belief. "Trump supporters were trying to stop Antifa from breaking windows" ? Edited on 12-02-2022 06:01
12-02-2022 06:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:Also you never answered where is Antifa and BLM? Are they in the video above? In all likelihood, that's them beating the cops and being violent ... all planned to make it look like they are "Trump supporters." Do you have any evidence to suggest that is not the case?
12-02-2022 08:49
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Anfifa] beating the cops... So "likelihhod" as in you are weighing evidence and probabity. Please do share you reasoning It's your claim not mine.

12-02-2022 09:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:So "likelihhod" as in you are weighing evidence and probabity. Please do share you reasoning Do you have any evidence that it is not the case? Please do share.
12-02-2022 10:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21736)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ... (that's a cop being beaten with a hockey stick on Jan 6)...But he deserved it ...? Any cop that is breaking the law is no longer a cop.... So the cop being beaten with a hockey stick broke what law? Is there video of that? RQAA tmiddles wrote: Also you never answered where is Antifa and BLM? Are they in the video above? RQAA tmiddles wrote: You said: Into the Night wrote:....Trump supporters were trying to stop Antifa from breaking windows with the tool they brought specifically for the purpose. You will see where security LET Antifa into the Capitol building. You will see Trump supporters defending the police, not attacking them. ...The so-called 'break-in' was by Antifa and BLM. The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... link I'm assuming you have some video or other evidence that lead you to believe something like that? RQAA tmiddles wrote: You claim ANTIFA broke the windows. Chad Jones was charged with breaking the very windows where Ashli Babbit was shot breaching the doors. Ashli wasn't breaching the doors. tmiddles wrote: So according to you Chad Jones must be ANTIFA or BLM? No. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: He's a registered Republican for many years (unusual for ANTIFA): So? tmiddles wrote: So I'm very curious how you developed this belief. "Trump supporters were trying to stop Antifa from breaking windows" ? Contextomy fallacy. Special pleading fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-02-2022 22:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So "likelihhod" as in you are weighing evidence and probabity. Please do share you reasoning Do you have any evidence that it is not the case? Please do share. So your rational thought process is: 1- IBD has something he wants to believe 2- He says it's true, with or without evidence 3- The burden is on everyone else to prove him wrong That will provide any position you want
13-02-2022 00:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21736)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So "likelihhod" as in you are weighing evidence and probabity. Please do share you reasoning Do you have any evidence that it is not the case? Please do share. So your rational thought process is: 1- IBD has something he wants to believe 2- He says it's true, with or without evidence 3- The burden is on everyone else to prove him wrong That will provide any position you want He asked YOU for evidence, dumbass. Pay attention. You have so far not given any. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-02-2022 00:01
13-02-2022 01:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So "likelihhod" as in you are weighing evidence and probabity. Please do share you reasoning Do you have any evidence that it is not the case? Please do share. So your rational thought process is: 1- IBD has something he wants to believe 2- He says it's true, with or without evidence 3- The burden is on everyone else to prove him wrong That will provide any position you want The burden of proof is the complaining party's burden... A criminal is presumed innocent, until the prosecution presents a compelling case otherwise. You get injured at work, or in a business, and sue for damages. It's your burden to prove the employer, or business was the cause of your injuries, and not your own stupidity. Why do you think you are so special, that everyone most prove, or convince you of anything? It's up to you to believe, or not to believe other people. You can deny, dismiss, deflect (democrat), even when the facts, and the truth are presented to you. Foolish trying to convince you, if you aren't interested. That's why the burden is on you, to present your case of why something is wrong, and why you can't accept it. Life is so much easier, when you can get other people to do your work for you. And for free too...
13-02-2022 02:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So "likelihhod" as in you are weighing evidence and probabity. Please do share you reasoning Do you have any evidence that it is not the case? Please do share. [ EVASION deleted ] We both know that EVASION is your way of trying to hide your shame. I'll take it that you don't have any evidence whatsoever that the violence we see in the video is being perpetrated by anyone other than the overtly violent groups that routinely perpetrate violence that you support. Anyone that has any experience with you knows that you are completely dishonest and that you never post anything that depicts the truth. In all likelihood, the video snippet that you posted is knowingly of BLM and ANTIFA violence, and you are posting it with the dishonest intention of presenting the false illusion of Trump-supporter violence. That is definitely how I take it. You posted the snippet therefore it has to be deceitful. When we look at it more closely, we see that the snippet is totally devoid of all handles on discernibility. Yet you are presenting it as a complete narrative we are simply supposed to accept on your word. That's not going to happen. Ergo, since you posted the video snippet, you bare the burden of showing that it is not BLM or ANTIFA. If you think it's unfair that I don't just simply trust the narrative that you are putting forth, well, you have only yourself to blame for that. Attached image:
13-02-2022 04:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: He asked YOU for evidence, ... HarveyH55 wrote: The burden of proof is the complaining party's burden... A criminal is presumed innocent, until the prosecution presents a compelling case otherwise... IBdaMann wrote: ....you don't have any evidence Yes I have not presented evidence. ITN and IBD have claimed BLM and ANTIFA were perpetrators on Jan 6. Why ? I cant tell you why because I didnt say it Into the Night wrote:.... The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them beating the cops and being violent ... all planned to make it look like they are "Trump supporters." So why ? Edited on 13-02-2022 05:12
13-02-2022 05:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:ITN and IBD have claimed BLM and ANTIFA were perpetrators on Jan 6. Why ? I cant tell you why because I didnt say it It was most certainly you who implicated BLM and ANTIFA. It all began with your little hidden-object puzzle (presented to Into the Night) whereby you showed this animated image ... ... and then you asked him if he could find ANTIFA and BLM in that picture. Your exact quote was "... where is Antifa and BLM? " with respect to the video above. Nobody else somehow posted that animation and asked others to find ANTIFA and BLM in it. Upon seeing your puzzle, I gave you an answer and you apparently got pissed that I revealed the answer "In all likelihood, that's them beating the cops" ... presumably because you thought you really had Into the Night stumped. I think you had him stumped as well, but if you hadn't wanted me to say anything, you should have sent me a PM or something. .
13-02-2022 08:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: It was most certainly you who implicated BLM and ANTIFA. ? 12-01-2021 : Into the Night wrote:....Trump supporters were trying to stop Antifa from breaking windows with the tool they brought specifically for the purpose. You will see where security LET Antifa into the Capitol building. You will see Trump supporters defending the police, not attacking them. ...The so-called 'break-in' was by Antifa and BLM. The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... link You stopped making sense some time ago IBD. The question, as per this topic is how you determine fact. ITN of course does not, it's all RQAA. You refused to answer. You believe something, along with ITN here, that ANTIFA and BLM were involved with Jan 6. I don't know why. You refuse to say. Also ITN has added to the confusion by simultaneously saying only ANTIFA and BLM hit cops, AND that the cops deserved it, presumably because they had committed violence against Trumpers. I think GFM even called those arrested political prisoners? But wait, are they ANTIFA and BLM political prisoners? ??? But again, your weird argument is unknown to me because you are silent on it.
13-02-2022 09:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:You stopped making sense some time ago IBD. You are befuddled and you are reaching. I quoted you. It was your video snippet. What did I have to do with any of that? tmiddles wrote:The question, as per this topic is how you determine fact. Nope. The questions at the moment are: 1) Why are you pressing so hard for We the People to surrender our free, independent thinking over to the government, specifically to the judicial branch? [The presumed answer is that you are a Marxist whose religious deity is the Almighty Omnipotent Big Government] 2) Why did you challenge Into the Night to find BLM and ANTIFA in your video snippet? [The presumed answer is that you didn't think he is keen enough to discern violence that is right in front of him] 3) Why are you misusing the term "fact"? [The presumed answer is that you are deliberately trying to confuse and disrupt the discussion, as usual] tmiddles wrote: ITN of course does not, it's all RQAA. You refused to answer. ... OR ... you are assigning bogus positions to others. Naaah, it can't be that. It's not like you've ever done that before ... well, at least not every day for a month ... wait ... change that to six months. tmiddles wrote: You believe something, along with ITN here, that ANTIFA and BLM were involved with Jan 6. I'll give you a chance to be honest here. Let's see if you seize it. Did I express a belief or did I express a likelihood? I know, I know ... offering you a chance to be honest is like offering you a chance to have your teeth extracted without anesthesia. I get it. tmiddles wrote:Also ITN has added to the confusion by ... Stop ... I'm not even entertaining this. All roads lead to Rome. All confusion leads to you. tmiddles wrote: I think GFM even called those arrested political prisoners? gfm7175 has a keen sense for these things. Now that you mention it, "political prisoners" is exactly the correct term for the peaceful protesters that were arrested on January 6th. @gfm7175 - kudos, you hit that nail on the head. Of course, Ashli Babbit was a murder victim and not a prisoner. tmiddles wrote: But wait, are they ANTIFA and BLM political prisoners? ??? I don't think any of the violent actors were arrested. I believe only the peaceful were arrested on the grounds of being Trump supporters. If you'll notice in your video snippet, the violent people weren't being arrested. Unarmed Ashli Babbit was shot, of course, while posing no threat to anyone. Guys slashing with hockey sticks ... I never saw any of those get arrested. Do you have any evidence of any hockey-stick slashers being arrested? Do you have any evidence that BLM and ANTIFA were not there being violent? You remain silent on this ... as your way of confirming that you don't have any such evidence, which makes me wonder why you claim all of this. Weird.

13-02-2022 10:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21736)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: It was most certainly you who implicated BLM and ANTIFA. ? 12-01-2021 : Into the Night wrote:....Trump supporters were trying to stop Antifa from breaking windows with the tool they brought specifically for the purpose. You will see where security LET Antifa into the Capitol building. You will see Trump supporters defending the police, not attacking them. ...The so-called 'break-in' was by Antifa and BLM. The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... link You stopped making sense some time ago IBD. No, you are describing yourself again. You have never really made sense. tmiddles wrote: The question, as per this topic is how you determine fact. Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means. It does not mean 'proof'. tmiddles wrote: ITN of course does not, it's all RQAA. You refused to answer. I have already answered your question. RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over mindlessly. tmiddles wrote: You believe something, along with ITN here, that ANTIFA and BLM were involved with Jan 6. I don't know why. You refuse to say. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Also ITN has added to the confusion by simultaneously saying only ANTIFA and BLM hit cops, AND that the cops deserved it, presumably because they had committed violence against Trumpers. No. Word stuffing. You do not get to speak for me. tmiddles wrote: I think GFM even called those arrested political prisoners? But wait, are they ANTIFA and BLM political prisoners? ??? No. Contextomy fallacy. They are not prisoners. tmiddles wrote: But again, your weird argument is unknown to me because you are silent on it. No, he isn't. RQAA. Stop asking the same questions over and over mindlessly. They have already been answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-02-2022 11:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...1) Why are you pressing so hard for We the People to surrender our free, independent thinking over... I'm am asking you precisely what your independent thinking is. You and ITN have said: Into the Night wrote:.... The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Anfifa] beating the cops... I'm asking you why. How did you arrive at that? Of course we have the usual duck from ITN: Into the Night wrote: I have already answered your question. And so far you are silent on the subject. IBD: Why do you think there is a "likelihood" that ANTIFA and BLM were beating cops on Jan 6?
13-02-2022 11:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: I think Demonkkkrats should give a good looksey over the Bill of Rights with regard to the J6 political prisoners... GFM: You've identified January 6th "Political Prisoners". Would that be all of the 769 people who have been charged so far? source As this topic is regarding how one arrives at their own notion of the truth I'm also very interested in how you arrived at your conclusion. How you've independently considered it.
13-02-2022 15:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote: I'm am asking you precisely what your independent thinking is. Stupid question. The term is self explanatory. Your use of the personal pronoun "your" in this case indicates an attempt to redefine "independent thinking" as something distinct depending on who is in posession. "Free thinking" is not a relative term. tmiddles wrote: You and ITN have said: Aaah, you and your "you said" taken out of context and altered by omission and/or complete butchering. tmiddles wrote: I'm asking you why. How did you arrive at that? You can answer your own question by answering my questions, which you are EVADING. I won't repeat them. If you won't answer my questions it means you aren't particularly interested in having your question answered. tmiddles wrote: Of course we have the usual duck from ITN: That would be a Mallard, if I'm not mistaken.
13-02-2022 16:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ..."you said" taken out of context and .... It's a simple question. Why did you say: IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Anfifa] beating the cops...
13-02-2022 17:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21736)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...1) Why are you pressing so hard for We the People to surrender our free, independent thinking over... I'm am asking you precisely what your independent thinking is. You and ITN have said: Into the Night wrote:.... The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Anfifa] beating the cops... I'm asking you why. How did you arrive at that? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Of course we have the usual duck from ITN: Inversion fallacy. Stop asking the same question over and over mindlessly. It's been answered. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I have already answered your question. And so far you are silent on the subject. Lie. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: IBD: Why do you think there is a "likelihood" that ANTIFA and BLM were beating cops on Jan 6? RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-02-2022 17:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21736)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I think Demonkkkrats should give a good looksey over the Bill of Rights with regard to the J6 political prisoners... GFM: You've identified January 6th "Political Prisoners". Would that be all of the 769 people who have been charged so far? Being charged is not a conviction, dumbass. So far, all those convicted and serving time are political prisoners. They broke no law of any significance, yet they are being treated as The Enemy. tmiddles wrote: As this topic is regarding how one arrives at their own notion of the truth I'm also very interested in how you arrived at your conclusion. How you've independently considered it. RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over. It's already been answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-02-2022 17:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21736)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ..."you said" taken out of context and .... It's a simple question. Why did you say: IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Anfifa] beating the cops... RQAA. You are being mindless. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-02-2022 19:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:It's a simple question. Yes, so why won't you answer? Do you have any evidence those particular hockey stick slashers that you showed were ever arrested? Do you have any evidence showing that the violent people you showed were not BLM or ANTIFA? You haven't provided any indication that you really want your questions answered by answering my questions. We all have to accept the possibility that you are aware that those perpetrating the violence you depicted are BLM and ANTIFA and that that is how you got a copy of that video snippet in the first place and that you posted it just as a routine measure in your disinformation campaign. Again, it's a possibility we can't ignore. After all, you posted it. That reveals a lot.
14-02-2022 10:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:....Trump supporters were trying to stop Antifa from breaking windows with the tool they brought specifically for the purpose. You will see where security LET Antifa into the Capitol building. You will see Trump supporters defending the police, not attacking them. ...The so-called 'break-in' was by Antifa and BLM. The attacks on cops was by Antifa and BLM. .... link Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:... January 6th ...769 people who have been charged... ...all those convicted and serving time are political prisoners. They broke no law of any significance, yet they are being treated as The Enemy. How are both of your statements compatible ITN? You've said that break in and attacks were committed by ANTIFA and BLM and yet you say none of the 769 people charged committed any crimes. Could it be you believe that ALL the crimes were committed by ANTIFA and BLM yet NONE of the 769 people charged are ANTIFA and BLM? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Why did you say: IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Antifa] beating the cops... Yes, so why won't you answer? I don't know why you say things IBD. This thread is as follows: Misconceptions. Keepit identified that some ideas were entirely made up with nothing to support them in the persons own mind (figments of imagination). I.E.: keepit wrote:..the election wasn't stolen - there are many people that believe it was but this is also a filament of someone's imagination. I ask you how you have come to your conclusions and you give one: IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Antifa] beating the cops... I ask you why you've come to that conclusion and you ask me to answer that question. Which actually makes no sense at all as I don't know your mind. I think you just have no reason to believe that at all. You are simply repeating what you've heard from those you are loyal to. It's a TRUMP level of coherence. So that's my guess as to why you said it. But only you know why you said something (well maybe you do). Edited on 14-02-2022 10:37
14-02-2022 17:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:How are both of your statements compatible ITN? I see we have more questions from you and no answers. Marxists use the "I'll ask the questions here!" as a means of controlling the discussion and the narrative. My recommendation to Into the Night is that he not even give you an RQAA until you stop being a stone and start engaging like a normal person, of course that's entirely up to him. tmiddles wrote: You've said that break in and attacks were committed by ANTIFA and BLM and yet you say none of the 769 people charged committed any crimes. This is the standard "Gotcha!"-type question that is used by the dishonest press and is not suitable for a mature discussion. You know that this question is not intended as a serious question for Into the Night but as a rhetorical question posed to whomever you believe is reading your posts. You are forever in preaching mode and you therefore won't answer any questions, especially those that you cannot answer without revealing your petty agenda. tmiddles wrote: Could it be you believe that ALL the crimes were committed by ANTIFA and BLM yet NONE of the 769 people charged are ANTIFA and BLM? At this point it seems clear that you yourself are absolutely certain that ALL the crimes were committed by ANTIFA and BLM and that NONE of the 769 people charged are ANTIFA and BLM ... and you want to control the discussion towards concluding the opposite. I think you have a reason for being certain of this so I'm going to go with what you know and assume that ALL the crimes were committed by ANTIFA and BLM and that NONE of the 769 people charged are ANTIFA and BLM. Thank you for providing a cut-n-paste-ready line that contains all of your key information. tmiddles wrote:I don't know why you say things IBD. This is, in no way, an answer to any of my too easy, simple and straightforward questions. Why do you EVADE? tmiddles wrote:This thread is as follows: This thread has arrived at the point whereby you are to provide the evidence you have that none of the hockey stick-slashers you presented were BLM or ANTIFA ... or state in a complete sentence that you have no such evidence, *and* for you to provide the evidence you have that hockey stick-slashers you presented were among the 769 people arrested. It might very well be the case that nobody else on this site has noticed that you are EVADING your responsibility at this point in the discussion, but I will continue to point it out because this thread has arrived at that point in the discussion. tmiddles wrote:I ask you how you have come to your conclusions and you give one: IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Antifa] beating the cops... I ask you why you've come to that conclusion and you ask me to answer that question. Nope. I suppose that will check the box for your daily bogus position assignment to IBDaMann. I quite clearly asked you to provide the evidence you have that none of the hockey stick-slashers you presented were BLM or ANTIFA ... or state in a complete sentence that you have no such evidence, *and* for you to provide the evidence you have that hockey stick-slashers you presented were among the 769 people arrested. Guess what you have not provided. tmiddles wrote: You are simply repeating what you've heard from those you are loyal to. That is exactly what you are doing. You are obediently regurgitating what you have been ordered to believe by your slavemasters who are doing your thinking for you. I'll think for myself, thank you very much. tmiddles wrote:I think you just have no reason to believe that at all. I presented you with an opportunity to be honest, and you promptly ditched that in favor of remaining dishonest. I asked you to state whether I expressed a belief or a likelihood ... and now that you believe that sufficient time has passed you are right back to pressing the narrative that this is all somehow about my belief and not about your lack of evidence for your presented narrative. What evidence do you have that none of the hockey stick-slashers you presented were BLM or ANTIFA ... or state in a complete sentence that you have no such evidence, *and* what evidence do you have that hockey stick-slashers you presented were among the 769 people arrested.
14-02-2022 17:42
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I think Demonkkkrats should give a good looksey over the Bill of Rights with regard to the J6 political prisoners... GFM: You've identified January 6th "Political Prisoners". Would that be all of the 769 people who have been charged so far? source As this topic is regarding how one arrives at their own notion of the truth I'm also very interested in how you arrived at your conclusion. How you've independently considered it. A charge is not a conviction. Where is their due process? Where is their speedy trial?
14-02-2022 23:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: What evidence do you have that none of the hockey stick-slashers you presented were BLM or ANTIFA ... You said they were. Why? As far as I know there is no reason to believe a single one of the over 700 people charged were supporters of either BLM or ANTIFA in any way. Having no evidence that something is true, and no reason to believe that it's true, and it being highly unlikely, is the category I put your claim in. But please do illuminate me as to why you said it? Do you still believe it? IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Antifa] beating the cops... gfm7175 wrote:...Where is their due process? Where is their speedy trial? Are your referring to ANTIFA and BLM supporters as being denied a speedy trial for their involvement in Jan 6? Or just TRUMP supporters? Also who do you think is being treated unfairly? EXAMPLE: Ashli Babbit was shot climbing through a brocken window that this man helped break:Chad Barrett Jones, 42, of Mount Washington, registered as a Republican in Bullitt County. Those same records on file with the Kentucky Secretary of State's Office indicate Jones has voted regularly in nearly every primary and general election as far back as 2008 in Bullitt County. https://www.kystandard.com/content/area-man-arrested-charges-linked-capitol-riot Affadvit against him: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.226115/gov.uscourts.dcd.226115.1.1.pdf This shows images of him clearly bashing in the windows on video. Here is the status of his case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/jones-chad-barrett Case Status: Arrested 1/16/21. Initial appearance held 1/28/21. Indicted 3/12/21. Arraigned 3/22/21 where he pleaded not guilty to counts 1-9. Status conference rescheduled; date and time TBD. So what's the problem with this one? Or is there an issue? And do you think he's ANTIFA or BLM?
15-02-2022 00:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:As far as I know there is no reason to believe a single one of the over 700 people charged were supporters of either BLM or ANTIFA in any way. You are lying. You said "As far as I know..." As far as you know, BLM and ANTIFA are totally violent subversive groups. As far as you know there is ample reason to believe that BLM and ANTIFA were there, doing what they do best, i.e. being violent, and making it look like they are Trump supporters. As far as your claim that none of the violent hockey-stick slashers are either BLM or ANTIFA, having no evidence that this is true, and no reason to believe that it's true, and it being highly unlikely as far as you know, is the category I put your claim in. But please do illuminate why you are claiming it. Please present your evidence that none of the violent hockey stick slashers were either BLM or ANTIFA. tmiddles wrote:Ashli Babbit was shot climbing through a brocken window Nope. The video speaks for itself. So this is where we stand: You are on tap to present your evidence that none of the hockey stick slashers were BLM or ANTIFA. You are on tap to provide your evidence that those hockey stick slashers were among those arrested. You can take a break. I'll ask the questions here.
15-02-2022 02:34
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...you know there is ample reason to believe that BLM and ANTIFA were there, .... "Ample" mean more than enough, sufficient. NOTHING AT ALL does not qualify Is there any reason at all you can come up with? IBdaMann wrote:...As far as your claim ... quote me when you say I said something. As for my not thinking it likely BLM or ANTIFA supporters were a part of Jan 6th's mayhem I'm happy to address that: 1- A lot of people wanted to believe this and would jump on any news substantiating it 2- Over 700 people have now been arrested and we know their names, voter registration, social media, ect. So far no one has come forward to claim a single person fit the description. So that would be highly unlikely to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt. This is how rational thought and science works. Is someone puts forward a theory like: The Moon Is Made of Cheese Without even visiting the moon we can dismiss it as BS. Why? Because the person who advanced it had no reason to think so in the first place, and no plausible theory can even be imagined as to how it could be true. Just as important: Other theories are plausible: Like the Moon is made of material we find in the Earth's crust also. We know why a lot of the people who attacked the capital on the 6th were there. They were QAnon, Trump, and the basket of deplorables we are familiar with. But still you are being so shy about why you believe they were ANTIFA. Why do you? Or is it just a figment of you imagination you run with for no reason, ample or otherwise. Edited on 15-02-2022 02:43

15-02-2022 04:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:As for my not thinking it likely BLM or ANTIFA This has become tiring. Get back to me when you have evidence. tmiddles wrote:2- Over 700 people have now been arrested Now you simply need to show that those hockey stick slashers were included in those arrested. tmiddles wrote:We know why a lot of the people who attacked the capital on the 6th were there. They were QAnon, Trump, and the basket of deplorables we are familiar with. Let me know when you have evidence. I'm not buying anything that you are selling. tmiddles wrote:But still you are being so shy about why you believe they were ANTIFA. I was very clear. You saw the violence. In all likelihood, you know that it was BLM or ANTIFA and are lying through your teeth right now.
15-02-2022 04:19
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	tmiddles wrote: quote me when you say I said something. Says the same guy who said this.... tmiddles wrote: I would beg everyone to make their posts no longer than needed. This is independent of your agenda and a lot of people do it. Quoting half a page just to say two words is a forum killer. Too funny. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 15-02-2022 04:21
15-02-2022 04:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Let me know when you have evidence. I just gave you the evidence I see that it's unlikely to the point of being absurd. You have yet to say why it is that you've made this claim. Do I control and dictate the claims you make? Of course not. IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, you know that it was BLM or ANTIFA And why do you say that? Do you have evidence or "ample reason" to conclude the the Moon is not made of cheese? Or that Venus is extremely hot on it's surface? I do GasGuzzler wrote:...the same guy who said.... tmiddles wrote:...make their posts no longer than needed. ... Too funny. Nice and concise GG! Thank you Question for you GG: Do you agree with ITN/IBD that Jan 6 capital attacks on cops were by ANTIFA/BLM? Edited on 15-02-2022 04:48
15-02-2022 04:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote:I just gave you the evidence That's not going to work on me. You did not give me any evidence. tmiddles wrote:Question for you GG: Do you agree with ITN/IBD that Jan 6 capital attacks on cops were by ANTIFA/BLM? @GasGuzzler, are you in the least bit curious as to why tmiddles is suddenly so desperate for us to not realize that his two favorite local teams, i.e. BLM and ANTIFA, propagated their usual violence in order to really screw with peaceful protests at the Capitol? I have to admit that my curiosity is now piqued as well. Might you be curious as to why tmiddles posted a video snippet of violence and just casually implied that they were Trump supporters ... and then when asked to confirm/show evidence that they weren't his hometown heroes, he suddenly went apoplectic? You might have noticed that he immediately went into full EVASION mode and hasn't yet disengaged the engines.
15-02-2022 05:41
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	tmiddles wrote: Question for you GG: Do you agree with ITN/IBD that Jan 6 capital attacks on cops were by ANTIFA/BLM? I don't know that anyone (outside of the the deep state and the mobsters) really knows. As a parent of 2 young adult boys, I had to unwrangle an argument or two during their childhood days. Many times I told them, "Always do the right thing and always tell the truth. When the waters get murky and it's unclear who did what, people will look to your past behavior. If you're a known liar, no one will trust what you say. If you run around smacking people, you will be accused of smacking, whether you are guilty or not. Live by the sword and die by the sword." So I look to the past behavior of BLM and ANTIFA. Given the vice president's declared support for said groups, (you know, with the bail funding and all) my opinion is that BLM and Antifa are likely behind the violence of Jan 6th, and there has been a cover up from inside the gov at the highest levels. Why should I think any differently? I have no way to prove it either way, but I do know who has a long history of violence. I also know who has a long history of peaceful protests. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 15-02-2022 05:53
15-02-2022 05:52
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	IBdaMann wrote: @GasGuzzler, are you in the least bit curious as to why tmiddles is suddenly so desperate for us to not realize that his two favorite local teams, i.e. BLM and ANTIFA, propagated their usual violence in order to really screw with peaceful protests at the Capitol? No, I'm not curious in the slightest. He proved himself a dishonest fuk from day one. That's all I need to know. His theories, evidence, proofs, videos, opinions, whatever...all dismissed because he was lying on day 1. I don't care. I do enjoy watching you put him in a corner though. Good evening entertainment! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 15-02-2022 05:55
15-02-2022 13:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: That's not going to work on me. IBD I've explained my independent thinking as to why I found this statement you made to be absurd: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Also you never answered where is Antifa and BLM? Are they in the video above? In all likelihood, that's them beating the cops and being violent ... all planned to make it look like they are "Trump supporters." Do you have any evidence to suggest that is not the case? You have yet to share your independent thinking as to why you've made such a claim. GasGuzzler wrote:I don't know that anyone...knows [who the attackers where on Jan6]....there has been a cover up from inside the gov at the highest levels. Why should I think any differently?... But we have 769 people charged so far and we can see them on video (source) So I wonder how there can be a cover up that puts a Trump supporter on video (often their own video)? If someone with ties to ANTIFA and BLM support were involved are you saying the FBI is deliberately not prosecuting them? Couldn't someone else expose that they were on video committing crimes? How are you so sure there has been a cover up? My experience is the competence of the Government is quite limited. GasGuzzler wrote:...people will look to your past behavior. If you're a known liar, no one will trust what you say. If you run around smacking people, you will be accused of smacking, ...my opinion is that BLM and Antifa are likely behind the violence of Jan 6th...I do know who has a long history of violence. I also know who has a long history of peaceful protests. So because ANTIFA has been violent in the past (certainly true) then it's likely they committed violent crimes for which they would benefit (framing Trump supporters). I totally follow that line of thinking. I can see how people wondered that initially. GasGuzzler wrote: Why should I think any differently? I have no way to prove it either way, Are you saying nothing can every be proven? Courts assert that things are proven all the time. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Well now we have a lot of thoroughly analyzed evidence. TONS of video and criminal prosecutions. So we can know this about as well as we can know most things. However you are actually deciding you're pretty sure a theory that defies the evidence is true. This last part I think is the heart of this topic. Why we come to the conclusions we come to. The recipe for BS that is so popular: 1- The theory is something the person wants to believe 2- They include a villian so powerful it's able to hide or manufacture evidence 3- When they find that the evidence does not support their theory, they simply blame the villian Here is how I see your error: 1- You hate ANTIFA/BLM and so blaming them instead of your friends is appealing 2- You have added in (without evidence) the theory that the government is orchestrating a cover up (and capable of doing so) 3- You find that of 769 prosecutions no one has been tied to ANTIFA/BLM and that of thousands of hours of video no one has been identified who is and you simply point to #2. The reason "Why should I think any differently?" is the odds that your theory is true are insane while the contrary theory, that TRUMP supporters beat on cops, is both plausible and supported by the evidence. Edited on 15-02-2022 14:06
15-02-2022 17:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14484)	tmiddles wrote: IBD I've explained my independent thinking as to why I found this statement you made to be absurd: I see that. You still haven't provided any evidence that would cause me to be more inclined to believe your deceit. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Do you have any evidence to suggest that is not the case? You have yet to share your independent thinking as to why you've made such a claim. This is where you should have provided your evidence rather than deflect to some bogus requirement you have generated and levied onto me. 1) Who posted the video and 2) who is the one so very desperate that the posters on this board believe your narrative that is simply not very believable. As a courtesy to you, I will give you that answer: You. You posted the video in an attempt to promulgate a phony narrative and it is you who needs everybody to believe your phony narrative. You are asking people who have paid attention to current events to believe: 1. ... that Trump supporters are violent 2. ... that BLM and ANTIFA are not violent 3. ... that you are honest Good luck finding someone who actually believes one of those, much less all three. ... but we can start with your evidence that the hockey-stick slashers are NOT BLM or ANTIFA and that those hockey stick slashers were arrested (and are now in prison). Your EVASION confirms what I highly suspect, which is that you are fully aware that BLM or ANTIFA were there being violent under the guise of being Trump supporters ... and that you are intentionally presenting a false narrative. Once again, your EVASION confirms all this. In the future, if you ask for any of my "reasoning" I'm simply going to point you to your EVASION and I suggest everyone else do exactly the same. Oh, please ask me why I think you are engaging in EVASION. I am so glad you asked. 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law-abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered] tmiddles wrote:If someone with ties to ANTIFA and BLM support were involved are you saying the FBI is deliberately not prosecuting them? This is exactly what you are saying. You seem totally aware that none of the hockey stick slashers you presented were arrested ... almost like it was a completely planned effort between the FBI and BLM/ANTIFA. Thank you for pointing this out to me and for supporting it so amply. I would not have suspected otherwise. .
15-02-2022 17:47
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	@tmiddles, Don't have time to disect and get sucked into all your BS, so a few quick things. 1. Hillary spying on Trump via inernet feed. Bigger than Watergate. No charges, no one behind bars. Covered up. 2. Hunter and Joe using their political power for business deals in Ukraine. No charges, no one behind bars. Covered up. 3. Harris supporting rioting, destruction of property, and injury to multitudes of police officers. Then she doubled down and supported the bail fund for these thugs so they can get out and destroy more. Yet Trump riled up the crowd? WTF. 4. Capitol "rioters" sitting in jail for months on misdemeanor charges, while smash and grabbers become commonplace. Deep state at work trying to make certain Trump is destroyed and never coming back. The current administration clearly has no regard for the law and they will destroy anyone impeding their path to total power. I am simply looking at the track record of the people in power, and there is no doubt they are not above pulling a stunt like implanting paid thugs into a peaceful protest.
15-02-2022 19:40
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Oh, please ask me why I think you are engaging in EVASION. I am so glad you asked. I'm still waiting for him to answer this question: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing?

Page 4 of 8

Join the debate misconceptions: