- 19 Jan 2019 19:02
#14981352
Thank you for providing another example of how you use the meta-debate to ignore demands for evidence.
Yes, you do indirect and direct name calling.
And if you think my baises are somehow relevant, explain how.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Sivad wrote:That's pretty rich coming from you. You're the guy who routinely dismisses arguments outright on the basis of religious belief or financial interest, you've done it many times. You debate about the debate more than anyone, you just don't like being on the receiving end of it.
I always meet the burden of proof, I don't make a case unless I know I got one. The reason we have to go to the meta level on every single issue is because you take it there.
I ignored your request for me to spend an hour going through old threads just to prove what we all already know. I'm just not that interested to bother with that.
Thank you for providing another example of how you use the meta-debate to ignore demands for evidence.
I don't do indirect name calling, I address the reasons for the obtuse denial and the blatant dishonesty. And yeah, shills can be correct but that doesn't mean their conflicts and biases are irrelevant. There's a reason why conflicts and biases are required to be disclosed and sometimes warrant total recusal. There's a reason why transparency is vital to all public discourse.
Yes, you do indirect and direct name calling.
And if you think my baises are somehow relevant, explain how.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...