3475: Kyle Rittenhouse and Princess Diana Spencer

[rodimusprime]

Originally Posted by sketchowl

I believe it will embolden further rioting and anti-white For violence I wouldn't be surprised if the terrorist attack on the parade in WI that followed this jury finding turns out to be an anti-white extremist, may just be a timing coincidence but I wouldn't be surprised.

It's funny when you choose to speculate with little to no information and when you demand "facts." LOL!

[Apia resurrected]

All the anti-white talk makes me very suspicious.
Than I see it’s the same person who argued with me about the benefits of Ivermectin and about clinical studies ( clinical studies are my pumpkin spice Rod!) and I’m even more suspicious.

[sketchowl]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

It's funny when you choose to speculate with little to no information and when you demand "facts." LOL!

Rod, I think it was obvious as written that I had made it apparent that I was speculating in that point (as you concede here) and made no attempt to pass this as fact. I think you are too smart to not understand the difference between stating misinformation as fact (the issue that I raised) and clearly stating a speculation. I also think you too intelligent to not be able to understand my argued position.

Since I believe you to be too smart to not understand the difference and to mis-characterize my core argument, I have to conclude that you are being intellectually disingenuous to try to shut down good faith discourse, again.

P.S. It's still a bit early but it does appear my speculation in question is actually correct. This doesn't have any impact on my above position to you but I feel it should be noted as a follow up.

Originally Posted by Apia resurrected

All the anti-white talk makes me very suspicious.
Than I see it’s the same person who argued with me about the benefits of Ivermectin and about clinical studies ( clinical studies are my pumpkin spice Rod!) and I’m even more suspicious.

Suspicious of what? I don't understand what you mean, can you please clarify.

[rodimusprime]

Originally Posted by sketchowl

Rod, I think it was obvious as written that I had made it apparent that I was speculating in that point (as you concede here) and made no attempt to pass this as fact. I think you are too smart to not understand the difference between stating misinformation as fact (the issue that I raised) and clearly stating a speculation. I also think you too intelligent to not be able to understand my argued position.

Since I believe you to be too smart to not understand the difference and to mis-characterize my core argument, I have to conclude that you are being intellectually disingenuous to try to shut down good faith discourse, again.

P.S. It's still a bit early but it does appear my speculation in question is actually correct. This doesn't have any impact on my above position to you but I feel it should be noted as a follow up.

Nice try but some of the stuff you claim is "misinformation" is just Keith and Chemda speculating about Kyle Rittenhouse and his motivations. And many of the "facts" you presented didn't have any thing to verify them. Like saying people were saying they were going to kill Kyle Rittenhouse and calling him the n-word. You just said it like it's a fact everyone knows. Weird.

[sketchowl]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

Nice try but some of the stuff you claim is "misinformation" is just Keith and Chemda speculating about Kyle Rittenhouse and his motivations. And many of the "facts" you presented didn't have any thing to verify them. Like saying people were saying they were going to kill Kyle Rittenhouse and calling him the n-word. You just said it like it's a fact everyone knows. Weird.

Nope, my issue was when they were stating misinformation as fact. Speculating is no problem. That was the entire point of my objection (which I thought you were intentionally mis-characterizing, was I wrong?).

See youtube video sections below for verification of the testimony of note that I summerized previously, that you state "didn't have any thing (sic) to verify them":
https://youtu.be/PjBP3kaefYQ?t=227
https://youtu.be/PjBP3kaefYQ?t=80

P.S. I'm sure there was some speculation at some point in the episode but from the start has in no way been the source of my objection, which I'm sure you understand as per it clearly being directed to the statement of misinformation as fact (which linguistically functions to specify a certain section of the subject matter; as saying in "this episode" in a forum specific to an episode specifies I'm not speaking about a different podcast on a different day). Come on, Rod you're being a silly now.

[rodimusprime]

Originally Posted by sketchowl

Nope, my issue was when they were stating misinformation as fact. Speculating is no problem. That was the entire point of my objection (which I thought you were intentionally mis-characterizing, was I wrong?).

See youtube video sections below for verification of the testimony of note that I summerized previously, that you state "didn't have any thing (sic) to verify them":
https://youtu.be/PjBP3kaefYQ?t=227
https://youtu.be/PjBP3kaefYQ?t=80

P.S. I'm sure there was some speculation at some point in the episode but from the start has in no way been the source of my objection, which I'm sure you understand as per it clearly being directed to the statement of misinformation as fact (which linguistically functions to specify a certain section of the subject matter; as saying in "this episode" in a forum specific to an episode specifies I'm not speaking about a different podcast on a different day). Come on, Rod you're being a silly now.

Once again you're accepting her saying that as "truth" the same way you accept Kyle saying he's a fan of BLM as "truth." I don't believe this witness or Kyle Rittenhouse. Now what?

[sketchowl]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

Once again you're accepting her saying that as "truth" the same way you accept Kyle saying he's a fan of BLM as "truth." I don't believe this witness or Kyle Rittenhouse. Now what?

wow...well I guess you don't believe the video either where he is saying similar things throughout the night but maybe not the exact quote that these people are testifying to.

So I guess we are at a point where we either need to dive into the metaphysics of truth (which I don't think will suit you given your propensities on display in recent threads) or just disconnect and let you return to your echo chambers and (since Sparrow brought up Socrates before I'll reference his understudy) your allegorical cave to watch the performance put on for you by your media that you refuse to even take a beat and question only slightly. And with that I must adjourn from a back and forth with you at this point as you clearly have no interest in truth, logic or personal growth (despite your ingrained default position to align with a historic line of thought most appreciative {to a massive fault} with reason [your absurdity knows no bounds, sir]). I have clearly overestimated you in the past. This is my mistake, it won't happen again.

[rodimusprime]

Originally Posted by sketchowl

wow...well I guess you don't believe the video either where he is saying similar things throughout the night but maybe not the exact quote that these people are testifying to.

So I guess we are at a point where we either need to dive into the metaphysics of truth (which I don't think will suit you given your propensities on display in recent threads) or just disconnect and let you return to your echo chambers and (since Sparrow brought up Socrates before I'll reference his understudy's understudy) your allegorical cave to watch the performance put on for you by your media that you refuse to even take a beat and question only slightly. And with that I must adjourn from a back and forth with you at this point as you clearly have no interest in truth, logic or personal growth (despite your ingrained default position to align with a historic line of thought most appreciative {to a massive fault} with reason [your absurdity knows no bounds, sir]). I have clearly overestimated you in the past. This is my mistake, it won't happen again.

I think you should get into the metaphysics of truth. You like to type a lot and I would like you to be happy.

[sketchowl]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

I think you should get into the metaphysics of truth. You like to type a lot and I would like you to be happy.

Long replies do seem to be daunting for you, I'll keep short when I reply to you in the future. I do have a BA in philosophy and have read the major texts on the metaphysics of truth, so we agree on something, yay. You may enjoy Hegel.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by sketchowl

you clearly have no interest in truth, logic or personal growth.

you think you’re giving us an opportunity to grow? ooooooooh thaaaaaank you. golly moses, i didn’t know you were doing us all a favor. would you like your apology in the form of being blown while you scold us for not learning our lessons, you pedantic fuck?

seriously, this guy. *fart noise*