The Derek Chauvin Trial

@vikorr,

The reason why you cannot provide any examples of me confusing opinion for fact is because you are falsely accusing me.

You are also lying about me when you say that I do not return the favor when asked. I am happy to back up every single assertion and/or accusation that I have ever made, and you cannot provide any examples of me ever failing to do so when someone asks.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I used to continually provide examples when you requested. I found two things over time:
- you could not see/understand them; and
- you rarely returned the favour when I asked examples of you (of course when not asked, you were happy to provide what you thought were examples)
I don't care for one sided arrangements - they reek of hypocritical ethics (I want, but I won't give), and don't care behaviours of avoidance. The other part, that you can't see/understand, is not anything you can apparently do anything about.

Others too I notice, found exactly the same.

I don't play your examples game anymore. I do the same as you - only provide the ones I want, not the ones you request. Even those are lessening as I realise how little of nuance you are capable of seeing / understanding.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I used to continually provide examples when you requested.

Wrong. You've never backed up your claims, and you cannot provide any examples of you ever backing up your claims.

vikorr wrote:

I found two things over time:
- you could not see/understand them;

If that were true then you could provide examples of me failing to understand when you back up your claims.

However you cannot provide examples of me ever failing to understand anything.

vikorr wrote:

and
- you rarely returned the favour when I asked examples of you

That's because you were not asking me to back up my claims.

You demanded that, instead of you backing up your claims, I start proving myself innocent of your accusations.

vikorr wrote:

I don't care for one sided arrangements - they reek of hypocritical ethics (I want, but I won't give), and don't care behaviours of avoidance.

There is nothing one sided about asking people to back up their own claims. That is standard debate procedure.

vikorr wrote:

The other part, that you can't see/understand, is not anything you can apparently do anything about.

That's BS to obfuscate your failure to back up any of your claims.

vikorr wrote:

Others too I notice, found exactly the same.

If such people exist, then they can't back up their claims either.

But given your track record of nearly continuous falsehoods, I think that it's more likely that you fabricated the existence of these supposed people.

Appeals to the crowd are logical fallacies in any case. It's typical of people who can't back up their claims to resort to logical fallacies.

vikorr wrote:

I don't play your examples game anymore.

What you are referring to as a "game" is the accepted standard that the burden of proof lies with the accuser and it is up to people to back up their own claims.

You've never played that "game". You've never backed up any of your claims even once.

All you have to offer is pathetic excuses for your failure to ever back up anything that you say.

vikorr wrote:

I do the same as you - only provide the ones I want, not the ones you request.

Wrong again. I have always backed up my facts when cites were requested.

You have never backed up any of your claims.

vikorr wrote:

Even those are lessening as I realise how little of nuance you are capable of seeing / understanding.

More excuses for your inability to back up anything that you say.

0 Replies

This is what oral thinks is true:
"If that were true then you could provide examples of me failing to understand when you back up your claims.
However you cannot provide examples of me ever failing to understand anything."

The above is an example of what no one else in the civilized or uncivilized world thinks has even a whiff of truth or to be taken seriously.

Plus I'm always right because all I ever add is truth, justice and the American way and the rest of you are not properly equipped (that means dumb) to understand the pearls of wisdom I drop at your unwashed feet.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

As I previously mentioned, I don't think he understands inferance or nuance. For example, on page 73 I provided around 30 links to his posts (ie. examples which he now claims I never provide), highlighting two things (when it comes to conflict between black & white people):
- he never used any subjective words that favoured the black people (they were all against the black persons)
- his subjective word use continually favoured of the white persons
- and this ran throughout all his posts where black persons were in conflict with white persons

...I think he doesn't consider them examples because he doesn't comprehend the very, very obvious inferance - that he clearly favours white people when they are in conflict with black people. His constant protestations on this forum, calling people liar etc, and the situations he does it in - only make sense (as far as I can see) if you conclude he doesn't actually comprehend inferance or nuance.

If that were considered true (not able to comprehend inferance/nuance) - then, from his perspective, such claims (others are liars etc) would be true...(and rephrased) this perspective is true to him because he simply doesn't comprehend how they aren't (liars etc)

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I don't disagree with you, obviously something is amiss or perhaps he does this intentionally just to frustrate people. Whatever the reason, it's tiresome but more than tiresome he is insulting and very mean to people . He calls other members liars, or stupid and then claims he does it because other people engage in childish name calling........it's actually bizarre.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

I'd have to agree. Though to be fair, he does get called a lot of names by some posters. Some of them are obviously just conclusions of the behaviour he displays, but others aren't necessary.

Sorry, another thought - it would also explain why, when people say Floyd wasn't resisting, oralloy pipes in with 'he was actively resisting' - because oralloy doesn't comprehend the inferred time period people are referring to (the period after he stopped resisting, being the same period in which Floyd was killed).

The bizarre thing is, when this is pointed out to him, he doesn't back down and say 'I didn't mean he was resisting during that time period'...but I guess, this too could come down to inability to understand nuance, resulting in something like 'It's obvious the time period I was talking about, as I specifically said which time period...so I don't have to say what is obvious - that he wasn't resisting during the time period in which he was killed'

If you don't understand inferance or nuance, you don't necessarily see why you need to correct how your own words are perceived.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Or perhaps it was the same time period.

He may not have been actively resisting when they were pressing him to the ground, but he was actively resisting the instant before they started pressing him to the ground.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

The above is an example of what no one else in the civilized or uncivilized world thinks has even a whiff of truth or to be taken seriously.

You do not speak for everyone.

Intelligent people will note the absence of any provided examples in vikorr's posts, and instead note the huge volume of excuses for his failure to back up any of his claims.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

As I previously mentioned, I don't think he understands inferance or nuance.

"What you think" is not a matter of any significance.

vikorr wrote:

For example, on page 73 I provided around 30 links to his posts (ie. examples which he now claims I never provide),

Posts where I don't say anything even remotely like what you claim do not count as examples of me doing as you claim.

vikorr wrote:

highlighting two things (when it comes to conflict between black & white people):
- he never used any subjective words that favoured the black people (they were all against the black persons)
- his subjective word use continually favoured of the white persons
- and this ran throughout all his posts where black persons were in conflict with white persons

You were lying about my posts then, and you are lying about my posts now.

vikorr wrote:

...I think he doesn't consider them examples because he doesn't comprehend the very, very obvious inferance - that he clearly favours white people when they are in conflict with black people.

They do not count as examples because my posts do not say what you claim they say.

vikorr wrote:

His constant protestations on this forum, calling people liar etc, and the situations he does it in - only make sense (as far as I can see) if you conclude he doesn't actually comprehend inferance or nuance.

"What makes sense to you" is not a matter of any significance.

vikorr wrote:

If that were considered true (not able to comprehend inferance/nuance)

You've never said a single thing about me that has been truthful.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I don't disagree with you, obviously something is amiss or perhaps he does this intentionally just to frustrate people.

What is amiss is you keep wandering into conversations that you are not smart enough to comprehend, and then attacking people because you can't understand what they are saying.

glitterbag wrote:

Whatever the reason, it's tiresome but more than tiresome he is insulting and very mean to people . He calls other members liars, or stupid and then claims he does it because other people engage in childish name calling........it's actually bizarre.

When you wander into conversations that you are not able to comprehend and attack people because you can't understand what they are saying, your lack of intelligence becomes a relevant subject.

When vikorr slanders people with nonstop lies about them, you should expect those people to protest against vikorr's slander.

I'm sure if vikorr started lying about you as viciously as he keeps lying about me, you would protest just as vigorously as I do.

1 Reply

And yet again his replies show exactly this - with him claiming his quoted subjective word use doesn't say what they as a whole obviously disply/imply (and what can obviously be inferred from them)...leading to him not understanding why they are examples.

The problem is oralloy - I have nothing against you (which is why I defend you from time to time) - just some of your ideas and some of your behaviours. You don't comprehend this, because you don't comprehend what is being talked about. Not everyone is wired the same, and I find no issue with this. The thing is, no matter how we are wired, we are still responsible for our own actions and words. This is the difficulty you run into. You choose to articulate certain ideas, that are phrased in clearly racist ways. People will call you on it. You often can't tell your opinion from fact - people will call you on it. etc

1 Reply

@vikorr,

My comprehension is infinite compared to your own. You are just lying about me.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

glitterbag wrote:
I don't disagree with you, obviously something is amiss or perhaps he does this intentionally just to frustrate people.

oralloy wrote:
What is amiss is you keep wandering into conversations that you are not smart enough to comprehend, and then attacking people because you can't understand what they are saying.

glitterbag wrote:
Whatever the reason, it's tiresome but more than tiresome he is insulting and very mean to people . He calls other members liars, or stupid and then claims he does it because other people engage in childish name calling........it's actually bizarre.

oralloy wrote:
When you wander into conversations that you are not able to comprehend and attack people because you can't understand what they are saying, your lack of intelligence becomes a relevant subject.

oralloy wrote:
When vikorr slanders people with nonstop lies about them, you should expect those people to protest against vikorr's slander.

oralloy wrote:
I'm sure if vikorr started lying about you as viciously as he keeps lying about me, you would protest just as vigorously as I do.

Let's take this last one first. I have been reading dialogue between you and Vikorr for some time and I would never classify his comments as "vicious". He has been reasonable and, in part, empathetic to you. So let's put this one on the fire, i.e. let it go.

Next one (bottom up), I have seen no evidence of Vikorr slandering you with anything, including 'nonstop lies'.

Third and last to glitterbug:
oralloy wrote:
What is amiss is you keep wandering into conversations that you are not smart enough to comprehend, and then attacking people because you can't understand what they are saying.

First of all, that is extremely insulting and a non-starter and has no basis in fact. You are basically saying that everyone here is too stupid to understand/comprehend. {Shaking my head here} And when they don't, they go on the "attack". I say "everyone" instead of "anyone" or "someone" because this is your theme.

Sorry to say, because I kinda like you, but I think YOU are the one not comprehending or seeing clearly. The 9 1/2 min where George Floyd was not resisting was not apparent to YOU. Everyone else saw it... it was all over the internet and TV. But you CHOSE to not see it, or just to see if differently.

And just because some disagree with us, in adult circumstances, we don't tell people who see things differently that they are 'not smart enough to comprehend" and things of that sort.

I hold out no hope of you really understanding what I'm saying, but be sure, this is no attack on you, personally, Oralloy. This is just wondering how you come to your conclusions.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

My comprehension is infinite compared to your own. You are just lying about me.

Just because you don't agree (blue is a better colour than green, for example), doesn't mean he's lying. It's just a disagreement on issues (blue vs green) and lying doesn't even come into it.

I'd love to meet you IRL and see who you are.

1 Reply

@Mame,

That is incorrect. "Falsely accusing people of racism and lying about their intelligence" isn't even remotely like "having differing opinions about preferred colors."

0 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

Let's take this last one first. I have been reading dialogue between you and Vikorr for some time and I would never classify his comments as "vicious". He has been reasonable and, in part, empathetic to you.

You are wrong. He has repeatedly lied about my intelligence, repeatedly falsely accused me of racism, and repeatedly lied about what I have posted in order to justify his repeated lies about me.

Mame wrote:

So let's put this one on the fire, i.e. let it go.

No. I will never stop defending myself against vicious slander.

Mame wrote:

Next one (bottom up), I have seen no evidence of Vikorr slandering you with anything, including 'nonstop lies'.

Then you are blind. He has been lying about me for page after page after page here.

Mame wrote:

First of all, that is extremely insulting and a non-starter and has no basis in fact.

It is no more insulting than her own name-calling.

And since she is so disruptive with her name-calling, it's actually the least rude alternative. Another option would be to be as rude to her as she is to others. I've done that before, but I think this is a better option.

Of course, my opinion of the best way to deal with people like her does evolve, so maybe I will try something different as some point.

I'm always open to suggestions for how to deal with people like her.

Mame wrote:

and has no basis in fact.

You are wrong. It is entirely factual.

Mame wrote:

You are basically saying that everyone here is too stupid to understand/comprehend. {Shaking my head here} And when they don't, they go on the "attack". I say "everyone" instead of "anyone" or "someone" because this is your theme.

No. I was directing that at glitterbag.

There are other posters on a2k who are pretty stupid, but they are not active in this thread. I will not name them in this thread since they are not active here.

Mame wrote:

Sorry to say, because I kinda like you, but I think YOU are the one not comprehending or seeing clearly.

Can you back that up with any examples of my comprehension failing?

Mame wrote:

The 9 1/2 min where George Floyd was not resisting was not apparent to YOU.

Sure it is. But it is also apparent that his active resistance continued up to the very instant that they started pressing him to the ground. They had no reason to believe that it would not resume the instant that they stopped pressing him to the ground.

Mame wrote:

Everyone else saw it... it was all over the internet and TV.

You don't speak for everyone. And even if you did, appeals to the crowd are logical fallacies.

Mame wrote:

But you CHOSE to not see it, or just to see if differently.

I prefer reality.

Mame wrote:

And just because some disagree with us, in adult circumstances, we don't tell people who see things differently that they are 'not smart enough to comprehend" and things of that sort.

Some of you are much worse. Some of you erupt into vicious lies and personal attacks.

Vikorr has just expended dozens of pages here lying about my intelligence.

You personally are not as bad as the others. But your denials of the blatant attacks against me aren't very nice.

Mame wrote:

I hold out no hope of you really understanding what I'm saying,

Rest assured that I am more than capable of understanding everything that you are capable of writing.

Mame wrote:

but be sure, this is no attack on you, personally, Oralloy.

You are actively denying the existence of vicious attacks against me. That's certainly not very nice.

Mame wrote:

This is just wondering how you come to your conclusions.

What I do is observe and determine what the facts are. Then I make logical conclusions based on those facts.

0 Replies

As I mentioned - he can't comprehend how inferance works, so he can't comprehend how others are not lying. It's why you can't convince him otherwise. I do believe he thinks he's telling the absolute truth here. Putting myself in the place of someone who can't grasp how inferance works (and so sees things in black & white) I could quite possibly see myself coming to the same conclusions as him.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

I understand perfectly how inference works. I do it all the time. And being infinitely smarter than you are, I'm actually good at it.

You are very much lying. Everything that you say about me is a falsehood.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

oralloy wrote:

Everything that you say about me is a falsehood.

vikorr wrote:

I do believe he thinks he's telling the absolute truth here.

0 Replies

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know