Nice rebuttal that essentially equates to "No U" but given your past insults and post I guess I was a fool for expecting better of you.
You literally have 0 proof of that though....seriously can you show any evidence that he knew she was 24 whatsoever?
If you want to thank me, don't defend shitty people doing shitty things. Its absolutely ridiculous that you're trying to stick your neck out for some dude that does sleazy acts for no reason whatsoever.
I'm returning what I get from you.
Another point I am making when I say that Joomin doesn't know what Giuliani is thinking.
I'm not defending people doing shitty things. The reason Giuliani was brought up because he was because @AmandaRose thought it's perfectly okay for Biden to be a pedophile if Giuliani is one too. Then the conversation got sidetracked into the question,"Is Giuliani really a pedophile?". I think it's a possibility, but Joomin knows for sure. And like @Lacius, because I don't agree with him %100, I must be "on the other side". So delusional. But you are like that too. Hence what I am returning to you.
So whether or not Biden can be a pedophile hinges on other people being pedophiles. Thanks for verifying.
Once again that is not what I said and you know it. I'm done here goodnight.
The person making the positive claim needs to put up or shut up. If you say Trump can still win because of widespread voter fraud, put up or shut up. If you say I lied about inconsequentially editing a post, put up or shut up. If you say I equated lying to pedophilia, put up or shut up. If you say AmandaRose said it was okay for Biden go be a pedophile, put up or shut up.
Ahhh, what the cornered rat mimics to escape the trap. Like I said, you've been arguing in gotchas, but you weren't smart enough to not slip up and allow your own bias to catch yourself in a gotcha.
Please tell me a.) The name of the logical fallacy, and b.) Where the logical fallacy is. The term "logical fallacy" doesn't mean "something I disagree with." It's a specific and objective thing. Please show me you aren't talking out of your ass. Thank you.
What are you talking about? Care to refute something? Convenient for you ignore an actual argument, and then to butt in when you have nothing substantial to offer.
I pointed out a loaded question, But before I pointed out your false equivalencies. It doesn't seem to be matter if I do what you say or do not. There is nothing to hold you accountable for your actions, as we have demonstrated.
And we're now onto the denial phase. You've been trying to argue with everyone in a contradictory manor in the form of "gotchas" as a means to catch them in a state of hypocrisy and by redefining the meaning of words and statements. Only problem is that you defended pedophilia through your own hubris, and are now in a "gotcha" position. You're either an idiot who has no grasp on the context of the words you say, or you're just being straight up disingenuous and are now displaying that.
"I don't agree but I agree". Choose your battles wisely, my friend, because there's always someone out there who is better than you at what you're trying to do.
It was not a loaded question. You are either being disingenuous or you are being ignorant with regard to how burden of proof works. That's a fact.
There you go again, misquoting people. No shame.
That isn't a misquote. It's called reading between the lines. It's possible to ascertain the meaning behind something when that something alludes to a different meaning.
You can deny it, but that doesn't mean you're not wrong. I suggest you learn how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim.
@
Vetusomaru:
@
Vetusomaru:
