Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Joom]

Reading between the lines doesn't involve putting something into quotes

Do I also need to explain what paraphrasing is to you? I'm quoting what you didn't actually say, but what you actually meant.

 

[Lacius]

Reading between the lines doesn't involve putting something into quotes, and framing someone for them.



That is not reading between the lines. That is clearly an exposure of your practicing mental gymnatics. Read what you wrote.



I do, but you have long forgone accountability of doing that. I'm not here to practice what you preach, let alone something that you can't measure up to yourself.



It's begging the question when you pose those as the only possible outcomes.

I've met my burden of proof. You have not. If you cannot put up, then respectfully, you can shut up.

With regard to being an idiot or disingenuous, those are the only two options.

 

[tabzer]

Do I also need to explain what paraphrasing is to you?

Lol. We all need to know what you mean by paraphrasing, because you are doing it wrong.

I'm quoting what you didn't actually say, but what you actually meant.

Mind reader @Joom strikes again!

I've met my burden of proof.

No you haven't.

With regard to being an idiot or disingenuous, those are the only two options.

Put up or shut up?

 

[Lacius]

Lol. We all need to know what you mean by paraphrasing, because you are doing it wrong.



Mind reader @Joom strikes again!


No you haven't.

Put up or shut up?

When did I not?

You argued that, per burden of proof standards, Amanda had the burden of proof. In reality, she did not make the positive claim: You did. Therefore, you are either being dishonest, or you were ignorant about how burden of proof works. There is no other option.

If you're going to argue there's another option, congratulations. You have the burden of proof again.

 

[Joom]

We all need to know what you mean by paraphrasing, because you are doing it wrong.

You're still trying to argue in "gotchas", but failing even more miserably than before. "We" know what paraphrasing is, so I don't need to explain it to anyone else but you, apparently.

@UltraSUPRA, choose carefully where you put your likes, because you're siding with a pedophile here. You really want us to develop a worse opinion of you? You're already a white nationalist. The rung below that is pedophile.

 

[tabzer]

If you're going to argue there's another option, congratulations. You have the burden of proof again.

Holy crap. Even when I tell you what the other option is, you ignore it and carry on. I don't need to adopt you and take care of you, but this is what you are turning "burden of proof" into.

 

[Joom]

Holy crap. Even when I tell you what the other option is, you ignore it and carry on. I don't need to adopt you and take care of you, but this is what you are turning "burden of proof" into.

No, he's literally just asking for proof that you can't provide.

 

[tabzer]

I need for you to be a pedophile, because if you aren't, then that must mean I am

Jeez dude. This paraphrasing is liberating.

 

[Lacius]

Holy crap. Even when I tell you what the other option is, you ignore it and carry on. I don't need to adopt you and take care of you, but this is what you are turning "burden of proof" into.

You didn't provide another option. Put up or shut up. I'll add this one to the list of things you can't or won't do.

 

[tabzer]

You didn't provide another option. Put up or shut up. I'll add this one to the list of things you can't or won't do.

I am honoring the customs and the language that this immediate community adheres by.

That is another option which you didn't account for. Your "list" has no meaningful command or authoritative consistency.

 

[Lacius]

That is another option which you didn't account for. Your "list" has no meaningful or authoritative consistency.

You said that, per the standards of burden of proof I was articulating, Amanda had the burden of proof. That was incorrect, and it was either because you were ignorant or disingenuous.

Your "honoring customs" post was irrelevant and did nothing to provide another option.

So, as I said, I'll add this one to the list of things you objectively and demonstrably will not provide evidence for.

 

[tabzer]

You said that, per the standards of burden of proof I was articulating, Amanda had the burden of proof. That was incorrect, and it was either because you were ignorant or disingenuous.

Amanda has the burden of proof to do what? Prove I was a lying?

Your "honoring customs" post was irrelevant and did nothing to provide another option.

That would be quite the conundrum, because you saying that would imply that everyone here is either disingenuous or idiots (or both?).

 

[Joom]

Jeez dude. This paraphrasing is liberating.

Lol, aren't we mad. You can change whatever is in a [QUOTE] tag all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you're being disingenuous about defending pedophilia. Sorry I paraphrased correctly, and it angered you, so you tried to do the same but incorrectly. The difference here is that you are misquoting, the thing you blamed me for. Learn what paraphrasing is if you're going to involve yourself in debate.

 

[tabzer]

Lol, aren't we mad. You can change whatever is in a

tag all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you're being disingenuous about defending pedophilia. Sorry I paraphrased correctly, and it angered you, so you tried to do the same but incorrectly. The difference here is that you are misquoting, the thing you blamed me for. Learn what paraphrasing is if you're going to involve yourself in debate.

Someone is falling apart. If you can't take it, then don't dish it.

 

[Lacius]

Amanda has the burden of proof to do what? Prove I was a liar?

You made a claim that Amanda said something she didn't. You had the burden of proof to show she said what you claimed she said. To call you a liar is to call you out on your inability to put up. You have the positive claim. You have the burden of proof. To say she does is to be ignorant or dishonest.

That would be quite the conundrum, because you saying that would imply that everyone here is either disingenuous or idiots (or both?).

I don't see how.

 

[Joom]

Someone is falling apart. If you can't take it, then don't dish it.

I fixed it. Sorry the coding of the site autocompletes BB code. However, if you've been a forum user as long as I have, you know how to sequence break BB code. Bet you can't do it, as shown by your fail quote.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

@UltraSUPRA, choose carefully where you put your likes, because you're siding with a pedophile here. You really want us to develop a worse opinion of you? You're already a white nationalist. The rung below that is pedophile.

Funny how you're calling me a white nationalist when your side supports race-based affirmative action, letting black people enter more prestigious colleges with lower grades compared to whites because, according to other Libtards, blacks have some sort of disadvantage when it comes to intelligence.
Also, Biden has a track record of racism against blacks, pushing the Crime Bill (that Harris enforced) and saying some very controversial things. Poor kids can be just as smart and talented as white kids, if you vote for Trump you ain't black, Obama was the first mainstream African American who is articulate, bright, and clean, you can't go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts without a slight Indian accent, Biden doesn't want his kids growing up in a racial jungle...hell, I'm pretty sure he said the N-word.
But you already know that. Your goal wasn't to get Biden in, it was to get Orange Man out because Orange Man Bad. Once he's in, all you have to do is keep a close eye on him and screech at him when he does something bad. You said it yourself a few pages back.
How did I respond?

 

[tabzer]

You made a claim that Amanda said something she didn't.

She did. She even was nice enough to come back and verify it.

I don't see how.

That's because you are either being disingenuous or an idiot.

 

[Lacius]

Funny how you're calling me a white nationalist when your side supports race-based affirmative action, letting black people enter more prestigious colleges with lower grades compared to whites because, according to other Libtards, blacks have some sort of disadvantage when it comes to intelligence.
Also, Biden has a track record of racism against blacks, pushing the Crime Bill (that Harris enforced) and saying some very controversial things. Poor kids can be just as smart and talented as white kids, if you vote for Trump you ain't black, Obama was the first mainstream African American who is articulate, bright, and clean, you can't go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts without a slight Indian accent, Biden doesn't want his kids growing up in a racial jungle...hell, I'm pretty sure he said the N-word.
But you already know that. You're goal wasn't to get Biden in, it was to get Orange Man out because Orange Man Bad. Once he's in, all you have to do is keep a close eye on him and screech at him when he does something bad. You said it yourself a few pages back.
How did I respond?
View attachment 233974

Fact check: Race-based affirmative action exists because of socioeconomic challenges certain races face because of slavery and/or mistreatment of races in the past. Without it, well-off white families tend to stay well-off, while families of lower socioeconomic statuses continue to not be well-off.

 

[tabzer]

However, if you've been a forum user as long as I have, you know how to sequence break BB code. Bet you can't do it, as shown by your fail quote.

Yeah, I have trouble with it. I just noticed it was out of character for you.