How to handle confrontational liberals.

"Red Hen owner thru a tantrum" BD #400
Click to expand...
Not according to corroborating reports I've read of it.
Those reports indicate there was a meeting among the attendant staff, and it was a group decision to invite Sanders to leave.

However, I clearly think Sanders was the class act, out of the bunch. It may have been her finest hour. Ironic she wasn't on camera.
 
Cypress said:
Bannon sounds like he needs a hug and a cookie. Must have been terrifying for him.

I have been called a commie, a terrorist sympathizer, a traitor, I have been falsely accused of treason...I have been slandered and libeled, I have had death wished on me, I have been told I need a bullet in the head, I have been told I need to be put in Gitmo, I have been called a Saddam Huessein sympathizer, I have been called a Bolshevik....by message board conservatives, routinely over the last two decades. I am sure other liberals have had similar experiences with conservative posters.

The incivility started long ago, and while liberals cannot claim innocence, it was rightwingers leading the charge for a breakdown in acceptable social etiquette.
Click to expand...

Why do you pay attention to Legion?
 
If I owned a business and you harassed one of my customers, I would ask you to leave. If you refused (keeping in mind that night clubs often have bouncers that will physically "escort" your harassing ass out the door), is it my right to remove you? What action should I take? Should I call the police or should I just grab you by the back of the neck and guide your arrogant ass out the door?
 
domer76 said:
Thanks, but I sure don't take it as a compliment from this stalker.

Now, I see he regularly uses my posts as a marquee banner in his posts.
Said he wanted to piss in my water supply.

Now, THAT's some major league stalking, even for this forum!
Click to expand...

Never mind, go get the missus to smoke your sausage in your IPv6 enabled BBQ.
 
Legion said:
I don't think you understand. Let me see if I can help you by using an example you seem to prefer.

If Sailor says he owns a business without providing evidence to back it up, that does not prove that it doesn't exist. It simply means that he didn't prove that it does. It's a neutral outcome.

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Since Sailor made the claim, the neutrality is gone.

Yours is the same type of argument my HOA tried to use when they claimed they had sent several letters related to a supposed violation of the covenants they indicated existed at my house. Because they sent the letters through snail mail, there was no proof of them being sent nor of my receipt of them. When they fined me and I took them to court, the judge told them that the letters didn't exist without the proof.
 
Legion said:
Do I need to? Either you accept one or you don't. You've already said there's no authority that you find acceptable as an determination of whether or not the terms you use are racial epithets, haven't you?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your answer that you can't. You answered it whether you realize it or not while playing your troll games.

Stupid motherfucker.
 
CFM said:
Since Sailor made the claim, the neutrality is gone.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. Certainly the burden of proof rests with the claimant. By "neutrality" I do not refer to the parties involved, but to the outcome. If a claim is made but not proven by the claimant, the logical deduction is not that the claim is false, but that it is not proven. Hence there is not a positive (proved/true) or negative (disproved false/falsehood) conclusion, but a deductively neutral outcome - neither proved or disproved. There is no conclusive evidence either way. The grounds for doubt have not been removed by any evidence.

Is that a better explanation?
 
Legion said:
You misunderstand. Certainly the burden of proof rests with the claimant. By "neutrality" I do not refer to the parties involved, but to the outcome. If a claim is made but not proven by the claimant, the logical deduction is not that the claim is false, but that it is not proven. Hence there is not a positive (proved/true) or negative (disproved false/falsehood) conclusion, but a deductively neutral outcome - neither proved or disproved. There is no conclusive evidence either way. The grounds for doubt have not been removed by any evidence.

Is that a better explanation?
Click to expand...

In the example I gave, according to the judge, the outcome was in my favor since no proof of the letters meant they didn't exist.

Understand now?
 
CFM said:
In the example I gave, according to the judge, the outcome was in my favor since no proof of the letters meant they didn't exist.

Understand now?
Click to expand...

I have no way of ascertaining whether or not this alleged judgment was ever rendered as described without evidence. That does not mean I am calling you a liar. It means I must logically doubt your statement based on a lack of evidence to prove it.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Talk about triggered! Another classic

yBLJL45.jpg


Say, when are you going to scold Lesion for wishing cancer on Phantasmal, and for bringing up and insulting her husband? You know, like you do all the time when it's a lefty saying bad shit?
Click to expand...

You should ask her when she is going to scold you for insulting a poster's deceased father for flying his flag...hypocrite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top