Did Trump Encourage the Assassination of Hillary Clinton?

Post Reply New Topic

So, in your mind, what I've actually said and in what context matters less than what you think I said? That explains so much about some of the things you say...



You know that lying about someone on a forum where every utterance is preserved for posterity isn't very productive, right? As in, that's provably false, and will inevitably backfire on you when I post the links to contradict it when you try.

For all posterity you're simply an ad hominem kind of guy. Which isn't a surprise considering you think your avatar is the place to flaunt lethal weapons.

In my mind what you say matters less to me than what I think you say? What does that even mean?


Oh no! It's on my permanent record.

It's perfectly clear, you literally just said that "What you were responding to does not determine how others respond to you", meaning that you don't care about context or actual meaning, only what you think was said. You characterized a statement of mine as something it wasn't, and then defended yourself by saying it didn't matter that you took me out of context and distorted my clearly intended meaning, which you have a habit of doing.



Yes, you'll be branded a liar and your statements given even less weight than they are now. Honestly, it would make things easier for me, as I could just link to your history of dishonestly rather than having to engage with you in the future.

I'm just honest, and that includes using a real picture of me partaking in my favorite hobby as an avatar, nothing sinister about that.

Not true. Context is relevant, but it doesn't stop the progression of the discussion. And of course I care about meaning. You just don't like it when someone extrapolates on your assertions. I have not changed your words; they speak for themselves.



I challenged your assertion that thoughtless speech does not require malice or stupidity. While it may not require malice, in this case I think it does; Trump says Clinton is "evil." Thoughtless speech, I think, is stupid. Especially when one is running for office.


I really think that if you are suggesting I am dishonest that you should go over this thread again. I think you are just making a fuss because you don't know how to proceed in this argument. This seems to be a pattern with you. You get in too deep and rather than think through the arguments you start threatening and insulting the person you are talking to.

And stop taking things so damn personally.

There's a difference between extrapolation and putting words in my mouth; I told a guy that he was wrong about there only being two possible explanations for something, and you twisted it into "the best defense I could come up with" when I wasn't even talking about Trump, and you were well aware of the grounds I was actually defending his statement on. Dance around it all you want, you either misinterpreted what I said or deliberately created a strawman, and no amount of semantics is going to change that.



The only point I made is that saying something thoughtless does not require that the speaker be malicious or stupid, as the other poster asserted; are you actually going to rebut that, or just keep muddying the waters with your unrelated opinions?



I'm suggesting that based on much more than just this thread, your whole M.O. here is pretty much to misinterpret what someone says and then insist that you know better than they do what they actually meant, while ducking and dodging any attempts to square the conflicting statements you make while trying to cling to your interpretations in the face of explanation.



Project much? I've stuck to my argument this entire thread, that Trump did not say what you think he did, while you've jumped wildly about looking for something, anything, to hang your unsupported opinions on and misreading and misrepresenting my posts, as is your nature. I'll cop to being insulting, since I have little patience for people who respond to arguments I didn't make and otherwise don't know what they're talking about, but I'd like to know who I'm supposed to have threatened.



Stop telling lies about me and start actually responding to what I write, and I'll stop calling you out on it.

Well, I guess I'll try again: I am arguing that thoughtless speech does not only require stupidity, but is an example of it. Not just for presidential candidates, but for anybody. When one speaks it is only partly about expressing oneself; there is also an element of being aware of the effect of one's words. When someone speaks thoughtlessly and threatens another person, the speaker is acting stupidly. As for malice, it is not necessary for thoughtless speech.

Does that help?

It's kind of funny and ironic that to make their point about you being ad hominem, they resorted to an ad hominem attack which bears no significance on the actual thread topic and poll.

Actually, it's the whole point... gun crime. Murder may be the hobby of some people, but it still destabilizes countries and is supposed to be unlawful (unless, of course, Americans wholeheartedly want to become a country like Russia).

Yes, that's better, though you're still wrong; have you never seen a smart person have something come out wrong because they're thinking aloud or pre-occupied or exhausted? (Remember, Trump famously doesn't sleep) I've done it enough myself and seen much smarter people than I do it as well, it hardly even seems debatable. Also, for the umpteenth time, Trump did not threaten Hillary.

I don't think that word, murder, means what you think it does. I did help put an old junker car out of it's misery with that H&K G36 in my avatar, but that was more of a mercy killing than a homicide. Ironically enough, if I did take up recreational killing, I'd be much more likely to use poison or explosives than firearms, much better odds of getting away with it that way.

So because you and people you know are smart and have spoken thoughtlessly, thoughtless speech cannot be stupid? In other words, I should take your word for it. But frankly I have no evidence that you are particularly bright, so why should I?

Do you need me to type s l o w l y or something? This is embarrassing, I spelled it right out for you:



And here you are rebutting an argument that I didn't make, and then saying you don't think I'm very bright...
Frankly, at this point, I'd be more concerned if you did.

Maybe put down the wine next time before posting, and actually read what I said that you're responding to?

Well, the one thing he did surely did succeed in is to get all of you throw ad hominem attacks like cheesecakes...

And sure, let's assume we can know absolutely nothing of someone's true intentions... especially if something isn't obvious that is the case unless EEG and possibly MRI are used for correlation. So, we go with words, with what they actually say, and if it's ambiguous then people interpret them however, since ambiguity forces that... so you really can't say anything for certain yourself.

Dox: "saying something thoughtless does not require that the speaker be stupid"
Androbot: "saying something thoughtless does require that the speaker be acting stupidly, because thoughtless speech is intrinsically stupid."

Honestly this is a ridiculous discussion. I don't know why you irritate me so much.

And Trump is not stupid. His behaviour this week has been impressive. He is responding to his critics and he begins to look more presidential all the time. He seems to be taking more time when he speaks and is showing contrition.