Random Politics

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Proved? Hahah, you ain't proved shit. Certainly not in anyway that could be presented in a court of law, that being your standard of evidence.

So you're now pretending to be a lawyer too? For a start, the comment you had made would be defamatory in real life. A defamatory is a statement of fact that the UTTERER CANNOT/HAS FAILED TO PROVE TO BE TRUE WHICH IS OTHERWISE LIKELY TO LOWER THE OPINION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE STATEMENT IN THE MINDS OF REASONABLE PERSONS. I've even bolded and typed it out in caps to help your dumb shit self to understand it.

In a court of law, it's for YOU to prove that you statement about me is true. Let me remind you of what you said:

I.E. cyc has no basis for his arguments, he just enjoys raging, and the easiest way to do this is to focus on why others' arguments are not acceptable, as opposed to providing arguments or thoughts of his own.

The first two clauses of this sentence (at a minimum) contain statements of fact which is defamatory of me unless proven to be true. One of these you have not put up any basis to support and the first of which I have proven to be untrue by showing that my arguments have a basis (this isn't the same thing as you agreeing with me). In spite of all this you are still denying that you've been caught redhanded. You've tried to play me at a game that you know nothing about and you've been humiliated.

Go overdose on some drugs.

[cyc]

By the way, LOLspeed, because you claimed that I have "no basis for [my] arguments" without confining it, you better be able to prove I have no basis for my arguments anywhere on NZG at a minimum. You posted on NZG and made a claim about my arguments having no basis without further elaboration, so it's only fair that you be put to the proof in relation to the full force of your claim since it's you who's wanting to play things to the standard of the law.

Oh and let's not forget what the word "basis" relevantly means:

anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.


a basic fact, amount, standard, etc., used in making computations, reaching conclusions, or the like: The nurse is paid on an hourly basis. He was chosen on the basis of his college grades.

Luckily for you, we are only playing a little game at your invitation and I basically don't make a point of really hurting bums like you by, you know, suing you.

[Lightspeed]

I'm not pretending to be a lawyer, however you will often point to how what people have provided to support their perspective wouldn't hold up as evidence in a court of law. This is not my standard, but it is certainly seems to be yours. If you hold people to this standard, surely you hold yourself to it as well?

If you're making absolute claims of proving me a liar, then by your standard you can demonstrate this unequivocally.

But really, I'm just having fun, because my experience tells me you are unable to engage in any kind of argument where the focus isn't on why the other person is wrong, stupid, pathetic, a liar, who is deserving of shame and humiliation.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

But really, I'm just having fun, because my experience tells me you are unable to engage in any kind of argument where the focus isn't on why the other person is wrong, stupid, pathetic, a liar, who is deserving of shame and humiliation.

You like being humiliated? Oh gosh, that's tragic.

[Lightspeed]

You find humiliation tragic? No wonder you struggle so intensely to be seen as right.

[cyc]

BTW, Lightspeed do keep digging. The standard of the law in proving something is almost certainly a HIGHER standard of proof than your standard, whatever imbecilic notion of proof that you happen to believe in. Since I've shown to that high standard that your statements are defamatory (bearing in mind that defamation is really the intentionally making of an untrue statement of fact designed to lower the reputation of the subject of the statement in the minds of reasonable persons), I've also shown that you're a liar.

I can't say I set out to humiliate you -- one merely took up your challenge and achieved the other incidental outcome. Want a tissue?

[cyc]

I'll be charitable and do things as GT suggested but with a twist. I will refrain from pointing the fallacies in your posts if you would just demonstrate some progress towards making intelligent arguments and, more importantly, developing a level of intellectual honesty and integrity that befits a 5 year old. I am not asking for much, really.

[Lightspeed]

No, please, point away. Sometimes you're actually right and I learn something. The rest of the time it's a good laugh for everyone.

Perhaps what you could try is to have arguments that aren't rife with devaluing language. Surely your arguments can stand on their own, without it?

Nice trick there btw, you can't point to any lies that you've proved I've told, but because you've somehow demonstrated I have defamed you on the internet then I'm clearly a liar too, so you don't have to show how you've proved my lies.

CCS might not like me banging on about your devaluing language, but at least I can point to that clearly and specifically. You can't say that about your vague terms like intellectually dishonest. And you haven't shown me telling a lie.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Nice trick there btw, you can't point to any lies that you've proved I've told, but because you've somehow demonstrated I have defamed you on the internet then I'm clearly a liar too, so you don't have to show how you've proved my lies.

You can't just keep asserting something and pretend that it's true, shitface.

Of course I've proven you to have lied. You claimed that my arguments on here have no basis and I've proven you wrong. ADDITIONALLY, I've proven that those arguments are defamatory and defamation means the intentional stating of something that is untrue with the intent to lower the reputation of the subject of the utterance in the eyes of reasonable persons.

Unless you were acting in an automaton state, you must have intentionally wrote the claim that my arguments have no basis and this was palpably untrue in view of what's available on here. There's no other reasonable inference open to be drawn as to your motive for so writing -- you wanted to create a dishonest impression of the situation. Let's see how that fits with the definition of a lie: Here are the relevant definitions of "lie":

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


You've been caught redhanded. And your dishonest claims about me are not only dishonest, they are also defamatory. Don't try and drag other people in -- no one else can save you. You're a liar -- not that this is surprising in light of your general dishonesty.

[Lightspeed]

You're saying my opinion of you is a lie?

[cyc]

I'll play nicely for you, LOLspeed. Since you've conceded that your statement is defamatory, can you justify how the intentional making of an untrue statement of fact that has the tendency to -- using your favourite term in a different context -- devalue the subject of your statement by lowering other reasonable persons' opinion of him, be anything other than the telling of a lie?

Since the word "liar" means someone who has told a lie, how can you not be a liar? Don't dodge it or post any more one-liners about how I haven't proved anything.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You're saying my opinion of you is a lie?

"cyc has no basis for his arguments" is a statement of fact. An statement of opinion in law (remember, this was the game you wanted to play) requires you to make a claim and then defend it by pointing to SPECIFIC examples of the conduct or words of the subject before you get to defend it on the basis that you're merely expressing an opinion.

You also can't load more bare statements of fact to justify more so called opinions. You lose, again.

[Lightspeed]

My opinion was truthfully my opinion.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

You lose, again.

I guess here's the key difference between us. You're trying to win. I'm having a laugh.

Not that this changes the fact that you have no basis for your arguments (oh, noes, gon get sued!)

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

My opinion was truthfully my opinion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH caught redhanded again. That doesn't work according to that standard you declared that you wanted me to engage you upon. Don't try and change the rules -- just saying that you honestly believe in something doesn't get you off defamation. In any event, you've conceded that the "no basis" claim is untrue. In light of that and in light of how many times I've pointed you to the relevant arguments in this thread by myself as having a basis and given you the oppirtunity to argue otherwise or to man up and apologise, your insistence on continuing with your "no basis" claim can only be reasonably interpreted as you wanting to create a misleading picture.

Thus, you sought to perpetuate a lie and you are a liar.

In addition, here's a summary of the slides you've tried to engage in. You started off with the "no basis" claim; when confronted with evidence that the claim was wrong, you demanded proof that would stand up to the high standards of evidence that I normally expect and demand; when I provided the arguments to show that your claims were defamatory (which necessitates a high standard of proof) and also necessarily dishonest, you then claimed that you were just expressing an honest opinion.

So not only are you a liar, you're also the one doing most of the devaluing. Oh and you're intellectually dishonest, i.e. you constantly shift the goalposts and refuse to concede when you're caught in your own inconsistencies. CASE. CLOSED.

Lightspeed, you're like the dunce kid who finished last in his class trying to tell the teacher that he wasn't trying. This facade isn't working.

[Lightspeed]

I think all you're doing is proving what you're good at: finding fault in others.

But fuck, when it comes to presenting a perspective of your own... well, you're pretty piss-poor at it, evidenced by your need to devalue both the person presenting their perspective and anything they use to back up their perspective.

I mean, look at your assertions about the CGT... you expect people just to accept them as true and don't offer anything to back up your view. Other than your dazzling arguments... which have no basis.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think all you're doing is proving what you're good at: finding fault in others.

But fuck, when it comes to presenting a perspective of your own... well, you're pretty piss-poor at it, evidenced by your need to devalue both the person presenting their perspective and anything they use to back up their perspective.

I mean, look at your assertions about the CGT... you expect people just to accept them as true and don't offer anything to back up your view. Other than your dazzling arguments... which have no basis.

Lightspeed, do you notice that you're just doing exactly what you are accusing me of? Oh and here's LOLspeed's latest trick: ASSERT, ASSERT, AND ASSERT AD NAUSEUM TILL YOU GIVE UP.

In short, please stop lying, being intellectually dishonest, and devaluing others. And read more psychobabble tonight -- I need my LOLs.

[Lightspeed]

Actually, I did notice that. But you'll notice it's not all I do. I actually contribute as well. And provide perspectives and the basis of those perspectives, instead of just having a go at those who have a view I disagree with.

[cyc]

Lightspeed still can't understand the meaning of the word "basis".

[Lightspeed]

Well, we don't all live in a world where semantics is king. But, I can understand that someone who is desperate to be right, to stave off much feared humiliation, would live in such a world.

[SickBo@Work]

Originally Posted by cyc

Luckily for you, we are only playing a little game at your invitation and I basically don't make a point of really hurting bums like you by, you know, suing you.

Back on subject...

"Mr Key received 57 per cent support for preferred prime minister, while Mr Goff received 8 per cent."

I'm certainly no Goff fan, but I'm surprised at the sheer lack of support he has from his own base, especially given the dearth of other suitable candidates.

[Golden Teapot]

In a telephone poll I'd be entirely prepared to claim that I want goff as the next PM. The higher he can poll the better imo.

[IoriDyson]

these polls are a smoke screen, 57% of whom? the media will say this, then sheep voters will act on it. dangerous really... national are a fucking disgrace.

[CCS]

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by IoriDyson

57% of whom? the media will say this

NOTE: The data does not take into account the effects of non-voting and therefore cannot be used to predict the outcome of an election.
Undecided voters, non-voters and those who refused to answer are excluded from the data on party support. The results are therefore only indicative of trends in party support, and it would be misleading to report otherwise.

[IoriDyson]

CCS , just kidding

[CCS]

So uhhh... these polls... that you say are a smoke screen... what are they a smoke screen for?

[StN]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

In a telephone poll I'd be entirely prepared to claim that I want goff as the next PM. The higher he can poll the better imo.

Who is to say that isn't already happening, and the low poll rating is artifically high anyway?

[Vrtigo]

thats amusing and all, saying that it doesnt influence peoples decisions, but common sense would dictate that it probably does regardless.

[sidbo]

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/brea...k-up-site.html

I wish our politics was half as funny.

[A Corpse]

Standard response to staunchly anti-gay (always republican) politician being outed: "It was research!".

[cyc]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10748552

36% of people responding to a poll thinks that NZF/Winston Peters' return to parliament would be a good thing for NZ. FFS

[spigalau]

Originally Posted by cyc

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10748552

36% of people responding to a poll thinks that NZF/Winston Peters' return to parliament would be a good thing for NZ. FFS

74% of people left on floor laughing faces off.

[StN]

Originally Posted by spigalau

74% of people left on floor laughing faces off.

110% of people are better at maths than you...

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by StN

110% of people are better at maths than you...

6 of them are computer programmers.

[fixed_truth]

The Limping Middle Class

[crocos]

That infographic says we need another non-nuclear world war.

[A Corpse]

The next time there's anything approaching a world war, someone will take the opportunity to take a poke at Israel, and then they'll respond with nukes, and we'll be playing Fallout for real.

[_Incubus_]

Good news for the Aussie labour party...it turns out they can arrange a root in a whorehouse!

[Ab]

Originally Posted by _Incubus_

Good news for the Aussie labour party...it turns out they can arrange a root in a whorehouse!