Walmart Raided by Dole Customers During "Glitch."

[Coito ergo sum]

@Coit... Typical. Walking away from your own words. Either you can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. It's simple.

One, I left yesterday to go to a meeting. I only just got back here now.

Two, you still have not presented evidence of your claim. I have been quite clear on this, I will give you the courtesy of an answer if and only if you give me the courtesy of an answer. You did not. You claim to have provided a "reason" for your belief -- what you provided was a hypothesis -- you say that you figure poor people commit more crimes cuz they's poor and need more stuff. That's nice question begging, and interesting hypothesis, but it is not evidence. If you have any evidence, then present it. If you do not, then I want you to have the common courtesy to come right out and say so. "I do not have any evidence for my claim that being poor makes one more prone to crime" or "I do not have any evidence that poverty causes crime." Or, words to that effect, which accurately reflect the assertion you're making. If those two iterations don't accurately reflect your intent, then don't come at me with your usual attacks and slurs, just state it clearly the way you intend.

What is your malfunction? It's eminently clear that I was not making a factual assertion. How many fucking times do I have to state that? Own your fucking words, and provide the evidence for your positive assertion.

I made no factual assertion. I responded to your assertion that they did this because they were poor. My initial question was what must it be like to be the kind of person who would do this sort of thing. You then responded, something to the effect of "because they're poor?" To which I responded that I did not think there was evidence that being poor meant people were apt to commit theft and other crimes. To which you then demanded my evidence. I won't do that until you present evidence for the assertion that because they're poor they'd commit these crimes. If you withdraw that assertion, or if you are now saying that you never made that assertion and don't make that assertion, then fine, the discussion is over. However, if you do withdraw the assertion or claim you never made that assertion, then I'm not going to waste my time addressing my response to what appeared to be your assertion. Got it?

Now, the strange part here is that you NOW claim that you never made an assertion. Yet, you did try to defend it. In a post or two, you actually gave your "reasoning" -- you said that because poor people are poor they need stuff so they would be apt to steal (words to that effect). You then tried to present that as your "evidence" and then you proceeded to ask for my evidence regarding being poor not causing crime.

So, now, you try to recast this thing into some idea that you never made the assertion you tried to defend in the first place. Well, that doesn't fly, Rev. Own your own words Rev.

So, do you think that being poor causes crime? Yes or no?

If no, then we agree and we're done.
If yes, present your evidence.

Which is it?

Three, yes, either YOU can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. You haven't so far, so before I take my turn, I want you to be clear and unequivocal on this -- state that "you can't" produce evidence for your positive claim.

Are you on drugs?

Again with your insults and hatred of the disabled. If I were "on drugs" then I would be suffering from a disability, as addiction is a recognized disability. Therefore, using that as an insult is insulting to people with substance abuse addictions. But, this is how you operate. Next you'll be calling me "mental" again and suggesting that I have medical problems that you find funny. This, of course, is the worst crime people can commit, if you "Read between the lines" in their posts and decide they are saying something against a person with a disability. It's your double standard, though. It's actually worse than that, because not only do you claim the right to say whatever insulting stuff you like, but you then claim that others who haven't even made insulting comments "really mean" what you've invented in your mind.

Until then, Revolutionist, I'm not giving you the time of day. You can try to twist this into me "walking away" and such, but it plainly isn't. I've been very clear about this, so do as you will. If you aren't going to meet my condition, then I'm done with it. Fair enough?

I've met your condition about 48 fucking times already. I've also clearly stated why your condition is idiotic, given I was never claiming to be making a factual statement. For the nth fucking time, I was positing a possible answer to your question. Can you get this into your thick skull?

You are without doubt the most dishonest debater I have ever come across on the net.

You haven't. You've weaseled, waffled and obfuscated, and insulted and demeaned, and slandered.

I haven't been dishonest ever in a debate, and you can't point to a single dishonest post. You, however, are lying through your teeth here, since you're now claiming never to have made a proposition that you claimed to defend by giving your "Reason."

[Clinton Huxley]

Some poor people spent more than was on their card? The American economy has been running that way for years.....stuffing extra aircraft carriers and drones into their basket and hoping the Chinese wouldn't notice....

And, many of us find that to be suspect and unacceptable as well, and have said so in other threads regarding the national debt. In those cases, we have heard that running up deficits is good, from a Keynesian economic perspective because that is how you fix a floundering economy and that the debt really is not that high because as a percentage of stimulated GDP it's really not too bad.

I thought you were more worried about hedgehog ladders and counsellors for depressed alligators than military spending....

[Coito ergo sum]

Some poor people spent more than was on their card? The American economy has been running that way for years.....stuffing extra aircraft carriers and drones into their basket and hoping the Chinese wouldn't notice....

And, many of us find that to be suspect and unacceptable as well, and have said so in other threads regarding the national debt. In those cases, we have heard that running up deficits is good, from a Keynesian economic perspective because that is how you fix a floundering economy and that the debt really is not that high because as a percentage of stimulated GDP it's really not too bad.

If debt is used for investment, then it can (and usually is) a good thing. But wasting bazillions of dollars on foreign military misadventures is not good investment.

Except bombing North Korea, right.

[laklak]

Sire! The peasants are revolting!

Of course they're revolting, they stink on ice.

[Clinton Huxley]

I think we need a demilitarised zone between rEv and CES

[Coito ergo sum]

He doesn't entertain reasoning. Only cold hard facts. The same cold hard facts that he claims to know, yet won't present.

Here you go again.

No. I do entertain reasoning. I just know the difference between "evidence" and "reasoning" and there clearly is a difference.

You asked me for "evidence."

I said that you should present evidence of your claim first before I provided evidence for my response.

You provided what you think is "reasoning" for your claim.

I pointed out that you did not provide "evidence" and that until you did I would not provide evidence for my response.

So we are still where we were yesterday. You're twisting and weaseling, and you won't either provide evidence, or just come right out and say you don't have any. I think that's the real thing here. You don't have any evidence to back up your supposition, and you don't want to say so. Isn't that right?

[pErvinalia]

@Coit... Typical. Walking away from your own words. Either you can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. It's simple.

One, I left yesterday to go to a meeting. I only just got back here now.

Two, you still have not presented evidence of your claim. I have been quite clear on this, I will give you the courtesy of an answer if and only if you give me the courtesy of an answer. You did not. You claim to have provided a "reason" for your belief -- what you provided was a hypothesis -- you say that you figure poor people commit more crimes cuz they's poor and need more stuff. That's nice question begging, and interesting hypothesis, but it is not evidence. If you have any evidence, then present it. If you do not, then I want you to have the common courtesy to come right out and say so. "I do not have any evidence for my claim that being poor makes one more prone to crime" or "I do not have any evidence that poverty causes crime." Or, words to that effect, which accurately reflect the assertion you're making. If those two iterations don't accurately reflect your intent, then don't come at me with your usual attacks and slurs, just state it clearly the way you intend.

What is your malfunction? It's eminently clear that I was not making a factual assertion. How many fucking times do I have to state that? Own your fucking words, and provide the evidence for your positive assertion.

I made no factual assertion. I responded to your assertion that they did this because they were poor. My initial question was what must it be like to be the kind of person who would do this sort of thing. You then responded, something to the effect of "because they're poor?" To which I responded that I did not think there was evidence that being poor meant people were apt to commit theft and other crimes.

You are such a fucking liar. How stupid do you think we are? Do you take us for being too stupid to read your fucking idiotic words? Here's what YOU wrote:
"Contrary to some folks' opinions, poor people are not more prone to commit crimes, including theft crimes, than anyone else.

Poverty doesn't cause crime."

So I ask again, what the fuck is your malfunction? Why is it you are so incapable of owning what you say? Why is it you are so incapable of admitting that you are sometimes wrong? Why do we have to go through these fucking ridiculous games to get you to just stop being so disingenuous and dishonest?

To which you then demanded my evidence. I won't do that until you present evidence for the assertion that because they're poor they'd commit these crimes. If you withdraw that assertion, or if you are now saying that you never made that assertion and don't make that assertion, then fine, the discussion is over. However, if you do withdraw the assertion or claim you never made that assertion, then I'm not going to waste my time addressing my response to what appeared to be your assertion. Got it?

You are a dishonest debater of the highest order. Are you going to sit there with a straight face and try and tell me and the others who aren't listening any more that I haven't already explained to you MULTIPLE times that what I made WAS NOT A FUCKING ASSERTION? How do you square this shit in your head? How do you keep repeating the same idiotic claim over and over again, despite me having directly addressed it and shown why it is unequivocally false, without giving yourself an uppercut for gross stupidity?

Now, the strange part here is that you NOW claim that you never made an assertion. Yet, you did try to defend it. In a post or two, you actually gave your "reasoning" -- you said that because poor people are poor they need stuff so they would be apt to steal (words to that effect). You then tried to present that as your "evidence" and then you proceeded to ask for my evidence regarding being poor not causing crime.

You are a fucking liar. I never did anything of the sort, and I've explained this to you multiple fucking times. I really don't understand what the fuck is going wrong in your head.

So, now, you try to recast this thing into some idea that you never made the assertion you tried to defend in the first place. Well, that doesn't fly, Rev. Own your own words Rev.

It's simple, man. I simply did not make an assertion, and I have never claimed that I did. I have never claimed to present physical evidence, I have only ever claimed to present "reasoning". Stop fucking lying. YOU, on the other had, DID make a positive claim. I'm not recasting anything. YOU made a claim, and YOU refuse to back it up. Instead of dealing with that, you are trying to turn this back on me in an idiotic attempt to wriggle out of your own words. It's fucking pathetic and fucking embarrassing. I feel immensely embarrassed and sorry for you. I really hope you get help for whatever the fuck is wrong at your end of the world.

So, do you think that being poor causes crime? Yes or no?

I DON"T FUCKING KNOW! HOW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, CAN YOU GET THIS INTO YOUR THICK HEAD?

If no, then we agree and we're done.
If yes, present your evidence.

Which is it?

Am I talking to a brick wall? How much more clear can I make it? I can't actually make it any more clear. And the fact that you are still fucking lying and wriggling says that it would make no difference whatsoever if I stated it in a hundred different ways one hundred more times. You simply will not accept that you fucked up an interpretation, and you will argue that white is black until the heat death of the universe. You are a fucking parody. Hence why you get treated like one by everyone.

Three, yes, either YOU can produce evidence for your positive claim or you can't. You haven't so far, so before I take my turn, I want you to be clear and unequivocal on this -- state that "you can't" produce evidence for your positive claim.

Are you on drugs?

Again with your insults and hatred of the disabled. If I were "on drugs" then I would be suffering from a disability, as addiction is a recognized disability. Therefore, using that as an insult is insulting to people with substance abuse addictions. But, this is how you operate. Next you'll be calling me "mental" again and suggesting that I have medical problems that you find funny. This, of course, is the worst crime people can commit, if you "Read between the lines" in their posts and decide they are saying something against a person with a disability. It's your double standard, though. It's actually worse than that, because not only do you claim the right to say whatever insulting stuff you like, but you then claim that others who haven't even made insulting comments "really mean" what you've invented in your mind.

No, I'm just simply wondering if there is a reason for your singular inability to parse simple English. Drugs sprung to mind as a reason. It's got nothing to do with addiction or disability. I've been on drugs before and shit gets addled. I'm figuring something must be off at your end of the world for you to be so fucking useless at parsing simple English. If it's not drugs, what the fuck is it man?

Until then, Revolutionist, I'm not giving you the time of day. You can try to twist this into me "walking away" and such, but it plainly isn't. I've been very clear about this, so do as you will. If you aren't going to meet my condition, then I'm done with it. Fair enough?

I've met your condition about 48 fucking times already. I've also clearly stated why your condition is idiotic, given I was never claiming to be making a factual statement. For the nth fucking time, I was positing a possible answer to your question. Can you get this into your thick skull?

You are without doubt the most dishonest debater I have ever come across on the net.

You haven't. You've weaseled, waffled and obfuscated, and insulted and demeaned, and slandered.

You're a fucking liar. I wish there was a rule in the forum rules to stop you being such a dishonest debater. It's fucking infuriating.

I haven't been dishonest ever in a debate, and you can't point to a single dishonest post. You, however, are lying through your teeth here, since you're now claiming never to have made a proposition that you claimed to defend by giving your "Reason."

Your inability to understand that positing a possible answer with a question mark following it is NOT A FUCKING ASSERTION, is not a case of me lying. You are either a liar of the highest order or an idiot of impressive scale. You take your choice as to which one you think fits best.

Now where's my fucking suspension so I don't have to deal with your monumental idiocy for the next few days?

[pErvinalia]

Some poor people spent more than was on their card? The American economy has been running that way for years.....stuffing extra aircraft carriers and drones into their basket and hoping the Chinese wouldn't notice....

And, many of us find that to be suspect and unacceptable as well, and have said so in other threads regarding the national debt. In those cases, we have heard that running up deficits is good, from a Keynesian economic perspective because that is how you fix a floundering economy and that the debt really is not that high because as a percentage of stimulated GDP it's really not too bad.

If debt is used for investment, then it can (and usually is) a good thing. But wasting bazillions of dollars on foreign military misadventures is not good investment.

Except bombing North Korea, right.

You are in severe need of a humour (among other things) bypass.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

What is your malfunction? It's eminently clear that I was not making a factual assertion. How many fucking times do I have to state that? Own your fucking words, and provide the evidence for your positive assertion.

You are such a fucking liar. How stupid do you think we are? Do you take us for being too stupid to read your fucking idiotic words?

[/quote]

Your intelligence level is not something that it would be "playing nice" to comment on. The same goes for your lack of truthfulness, so I will not engage with you here.

Here's what YOU wrote:
"Contrary to some folks' opinions, poor people are not more prone to commit crimes, including theft crimes, than anyone else.

Poverty doesn't cause crime."

So I ask again, what the fuck is your malfunction? Why is it you are so incapable of owning what you say? Why is it you are so incapable of admitting that you are sometimes wrong? Why do we have to go through these fucking ridiculous games to get you to just stop being so disingenuous and dishonest?

[/quote][/quote]

I am willing to own up to everything I say. And, as you know, I made those comments in RESPONSE to your apparent position that poverty did cause crime, and poor people were more apt to cause crime. Mine is the negative position, there - they were denials of your assertion. And, yes, you made an assertion, because you tried to defend it by giving what you said were your reasons for believing it. If you didn't make the assertion, then what is it you were defending?

However, I gave you the preconditions. I want your evidence first, or I want you to be unequivocal that you don't have any evidence.

My comments were in response to your assertion, as I read it, that you thought the poor were more apt to commit crimes. I said they weren't. That's what this whole exchange is.

1. If you are withdrawing the assertion, then we agree and we're done.
2. If you don't believe that poor people are more apt to commit crimes, then we agree and we're done.
3. If you DO, in fact, adhere to the position you tried to defend by giving your "Reasons" (remember those posts, where you actually gave your reason to support the position you now try to claim you never took?) -- then give me your evidence, or if you don't have any, then just say so.

I've been very clear here, and you are trying as hard as you can to yell at the top of your lungs, metaphorically speaking, to pretend that somehow I'm doing something wrong to you, or lying to you. I quite simply have not. You're trying hard to reverse this exchange. You made the apparent statement that they did this because they were poor. I denied that and asked for your evidence. You want to skip the part where you give your evidence (or admit you don't have any), and you want to go right on to the part where my assertion that your assertion was wrong needs to be positively proven first. No no. I've enough experience with you to know that once I provide my evidence, you will move on and you will not in any way either present evidence or admit you don't have any. So, I'm not going to expand more on it until you do. Capice? Savvy?

I would appreciate it if you would stop it with the personal attacks, as well. Thank you very much.

[cronus]

This is a heated debate. Where are the mods? I'm worried there is going to be a offensive comment if this keeps going.

[Clinton Huxley]

No pressure but the person who has the last word is the winner.....

[Coito ergo sum]

This is a heated debate. Where are the mods? I'm worried there is going to be a offensive comment if this keeps going.

Only one person is heated, and it isn't me.

Where are the mods, indeed. One person is engaged in shrill, profane insults, other personal attacks, and general non-nice playing. That's not me. I would love for someone to point out something I've said on this thread that is anything but well-within the ambit of the rules. I haven't even engaged in innuendo.

Let's be clear here. Rev is heated, and Rev is making offensive comments. That's it.

[Coito ergo sum]

No pressure but the person who has the last word is the winner.....

We actually haven't gotten started.

We're still at the level the stage of Rev backing up his argument with evidence. It's now even more difficult, because he tried to support his assertion with what he claimed to be "reason," but now he denies ever making the assertion he tried to defend.

It gets confusing.

[pErvinalia]

One, I left yesterday to go to a meeting. I only just got back here now.

Two, you still have not presented evidence of your claim. I have been quite clear on this, I will give you the courtesy of an answer if and only if you give me the courtesy of an answer. You did not. You claim to have provided a "reason" for your belief -- what you provided was a hypothesis -- you say that you figure poor people commit more crimes cuz they's poor and need more stuff. That's nice question begging, and interesting hypothesis, but it is not evidence. If you have any evidence, then present it. If you do not, then I want you to have the common courtesy to come right out and say so. "I do not have any evidence for my claim that being poor makes one more prone to crime" or "I do not have any evidence that poverty causes crime." Or, words to that effect, which accurately reflect the assertion you're making. If those two iterations don't accurately reflect your intent, then don't come at me with your usual attacks and slurs, just state it clearly the way you intend.

What is your malfunction? It's eminently clear that I was not making a factual assertion. How many fucking times do I have to state that? Own your fucking words, and provide the evidence for your positive assertion.

You are such a fucking liar. How stupid do you think we are? Do you take us for being too stupid to read your fucking idiotic words?

Your intelligence level is not something that it would be "playing nice" to comment on. The same goes for your lack of truthfulness, so I will not engage with you here.

Here's what YOU wrote:
"Contrary to some folks' opinions, poor people are not more prone to commit crimes, including theft crimes, than anyone else.

Poverty doesn't cause crime."

So I ask again, what the fuck is your malfunction? Why is it you are so incapable of owning what you say? Why is it you are so incapable of admitting that you are sometimes wrong? Why do we have to go through these fucking ridiculous games to get you to just stop being so disingenuous and dishonest?

I am willing to own up to everything I say. And, as you know, I made those comments in RESPONSE to your apparent position that poverty did cause crime, and poor people were more apt to cause crime. Mine is the negative position, there - they were denials of your assertion. And, yes, you made an assertion, because you tried to defend it by giving what you said were your reasons for believing it. If you didn't make the assertion, then what is it you were defending?

What the titty christ is wrong with you?!? You made a POSITIVE ASSERTION. It doesn't matter what it was in response to. IT WAS A POSITIVE ASSERTION.

And I never tried to "defend" anything. I simply gave you my reasoning for my speculation. Why is it you can't understand this? It's either gross dishonesty, or something else. Here's MY FIRST response to you after you asked me for evidence, way back on page 1:

"And I didn't make an "assertion". I posed it as a question - i.e. a possibility. Once again, you can't seem to parse English properly. My reasoning for positing such a thing would be that they are likely to be far more in need of things than a person with more money. But you have made an assertion to the contrary. Therefore, you must have some evidence to back this up?"

And here we are 5 or so pages later and you still deny that I have answered your idiotic claims, and you continue to make the same idiotic claims. I have simply never claimed what I said was an assertion, and I have never claimed that I have evidence for it. I have repeatedly said to you that it is not an assertion and that I don't know whether poor people commit more crime or not. Yet you continue to refuse to accept this. How can you seriously defend the charge that you are a dishonest debater of the highest order? You are simply lying your ass off in this thread. You are totally incapable of owning your own words and countenancing the possibility that you got something wrong. This happens in thread after thread after infuriating thread with you. When the fuck are you going to grow up and learn?

However, I gave you the preconditions. I want your evidence first, or I want you to be unequivocal that you don't have any evidence.

I don't have any evidence as I didn't make an assertion requiring evidence. How fucking hard is this for you to understand?

My comments were in response to your assertion, as I read it, that you thought the poor were more apt to commit crimes. I said they weren't. That's what this whole exchange is.

1. If you are withdrawing the assertion, then we agree and we're done.

No we're not. YOU MADE A BASELESS ASSERTION. Where's your evidence for this assertion?

2. If you don't believe that poor people are more apt to commit crimes, then we agree and we're done.

For the five thousandth time, I don't know whether the poor are more apt to commit crimes. I can think of reasons why they might be, but I don't know if this reflects reality. How hard is this for you to understand? Should I write it in crayon and draw pictures for you?

3. If you DO, in fact, adhere to the position you tried to defend by giving your "Reasons" (remember those posts, where you actually gave your reason to support the position you now try to claim you never took?) -- then give me your evidence, or if you don't have any, then just say so.

:headbang: How many fucking times am I going to have to address this nonsense?!??

I've been very clear here, and you are trying as hard as you can to yell at the top of your lungs, metaphorically speaking, to pretend that somehow I'm doing something wrong to you, or lying to you. I quite simply have not. You're trying hard to reverse this exchange. You made the apparent statement that they did this because they were poor. I denied that and asked for your evidence. You want to skip the part where you give your evidence (or admit you don't have any), and you want to go right on to the part where my assertion that your assertion was wrong needs to be positively proven first. No no. I've enough experience with you to know that once I provide my evidence, you will move on and you will not in any way either present evidence or admit you don't have any. So, I'm not going to expand more on it until you do. Capice? Savvy?

You seriously need to get an education. You apparently have no concept of what a positive claim is. You made one. No amount of Coito filibustering can change that fact.

I would appreciate it if you would stop it with the personal attacks, as well. Thank you very much.

When you stop being a dishonest debater of the highest order, and offensive to boot, then I will stop personally attacking you.

[pErvinalia]

No pressure but the person who has the last word is the winner.....

We actually haven't gotten started.

We're still at the level the stage of Rev backing up his argument with evidence. It's now even more difficult, because he tried to support his assertion with what he claimed to be "reason," but now he denies ever making the assertion he tried to defend.

For the love of god, avail yourself of an education, or at least a dictionary. I DID NOT make an assertion. What the fuck is wrong with you? Stop being so fucking dishonest.