Trump is safe following shooting at Florida golf course; suspect detained

[Pogo]

Here's what's I am saying.

If I go on social media and post I heard from Bill, who heard from Bob that Ebionite ate a dog.

Does that make it true/fact?

If Ebionite repeats it yes in my experience.

 

[Ebionite]

How about the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the claim is true?

So what? Facts belong to the public, they are not subject to the rules of evidence.

Read what I wrote properly next time.

Stop pretending that I misrepresented your #168.

Here it is again:

Wow. Literally "People saying it makes it true".

and what I literally wrote was:

Hearsay is a fact, meaning that it is a fact that people were talking about a claim, not that the claim was necessarily true.

But please continue to misrepresent what I said, since you don't have any facts that work for you.

 

[We Never Know]

If Ebionite repeats it yes in my experience.

Do you mean if Ebionite verifies it?

If Ebionite verifies then it is no longer he said she said rumors.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So what? Facts belong to the public, they are not subject to the rules of evidence.

Again, the fact that you make statements like this outright is hilarious. You're basically admitting that you think evidence is irrelevant. It's unbelievable.

Stop pretending that I misrepresented your #168.

You did, though. Very obviously and clearly intentionally.

Here it is again:

and what I literally wrote was:

I already explained this. I'm not going over it again just so you can keep distracting from what an incredibly embarrassing thread this has been for you.

But please continue to misrepresent what I said, since you don't have any facts that work for you.

Facts belong to the public, son. That means I can make up whatever I want and you should believe it. Right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you mean if Ebionite verifies it?

If Ebionite verifies then it is no longer he said she said rumors.

But if Ebionite verifies he eats dogs, that just means that it is a fact that Ebionite has verified that Ebionite eats dogs, not necessarily verification that Ebionite does, in fact, eat dogs.

Sorry, broke my brain a little by trying to use Ebionite's own logic.

 

[We Never Know]

But if Ebionite verifies he eats dogs, that just means that it is a fact that Ebionite has verified that Ebionite eats dogs, not necessarily verification that Ebionite does, in fact, eat dogs.

Sorry, broke my brain a little by trying to use Ebionite's own logic.

You cracked my brain trying to make sense out of that lol

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You cracked my brain trying to make sense out of that lol

Which is true, because you said so. By which I mean it is true that you said so, but it is not necessarily true that what you said is true if true but you said it so it must be true that you said it so therefore to say it is true is true.

It's like turning my brain into a pretzel.

 

[Ebionite]

If I go on social media and post I heard from Bill, who heard from Bob that Ebionite ate a dog.

Does that make it true/fact?

The presumption of innocence applies, so people are not presumed to be liars.
In your example I would deny that I ate a dog, but AFAIK the Haitians in the story did not deny that they ate the cat.

The facts for your example would be that there was some hearsay that I ate a dog and that I denied it.
Whether or not in truth I ate the dog should become apparent by looking at the context of your example. Of course it's only a hypothetical example so the context is really just the issues of immigration and how that relates to the politics of Trump vs Harris.

 

[Pogo]

Do you mean if Ebionite verifies it?

If Ebionite verifies then it is no longer he said she said rumors.

No, verification is not relevant.
See more recent post about facts, public and evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The presumption of innocence applies, so people are not presumed to be liars.

We don't have to assume they're liars in order to not assume what they're claiming is true.

In your example I would deny that I ate a dog, but AFAIK the Haitians in the story did not deny that they ate the cat.

This is some incredibly weak logic.

The other day, I saw a Portuguese man floating. Since no Portuguese people have denied this, is it unreasonable to assume I am wrong?

The facts for your example would be that there was some hearsay that I ate a dog and that I denied it.

And the facts in this case is that there is some hearsay about it, but absolutely zero evidence of it.

Believable or no?

Whether or not in truth I ate the dog should become apparent by looking at the context of your example.

Or, y'know, by examining the facts.

Of course it's only a hypothetical example so the context is really just the issues of immigration and how that relates to the politics of Trump vs Harris.

And in what way do you think Trump spreading misinformation about immigrants affects the issue of immigration? What affect do you believe that will have?

 

[We Never Know]

No, verification is not relevant.
See more recent post about facts, public and evidence.

In the post you replied to verification is very relevant being Ebionite is the only one who can verify the story.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, verification is not relevant.

That is correct. Remember, everyone. A great person once told me: "facts belong to the public, and are not subject to the rules of evidence."

 

[Secret Chief]

@Ebionite

Do you believe that Haitian people are eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, YES or NO?

 

[Soandso]

Sure. Haitians are known to eat cats.

It was said to be debunked because it wasn't a first-hand report. Anything to make Trump look bad.

I know and work with Haitian people and have tried their food. It's good; very flavorful. No cats or dogs involved

 

[Ponder This]

Looks like somebody may have been trying to shoot Donald Trump again. But missed. (Makes me wonder the miss was deliberate, looking to move Trump towards some sort of martyrhood to give him a boost in the election.)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/15/politics/donald-trump-safe-shots/index.html

This hatred for Trump is irrational.
And it could not be more evident then when people begin to fantasize that shooters are deliberately missing Trump in order to make him look better.

 

[LuisDantas]

This hatred for Trump is irrational.
And it could not be more evident then when people begin to fantasize that shooters are deliberately missing Trump in order to make him look better.

You don't know much about Trump, apparently.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You don't know much about Trump, apparently.

That seems to be a fundamental factor in Trump support.

 

[Alien826]

This hatred for Trump is irrational.
And it could not be more evident then when people begin to fantasize that shooters are deliberately missing Trump in order to make him look better.

That idea is silly. Particularly, in the first shooting, when you consider the difficulty of shooting at Trump from that distance and just clipping one ear.

Incidentally, they still haven't established that the second shooter was intending to shoot at Trump, though it seems likely. He didn't actually get a shot off and has been charged with possessing a gun with the id number removed. It seems that the motivation may have been the suspect's emotional attachment to Ukraine. But again just a possibility.

It's still early days and as usual theories fly everywhere, even from news reporters.

 

[Altfish]

Actually, there is not.

Why did you omit my second sentence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The TDS crew here on RF appear to lap up MSM lies about Trump like demons on meth.



Read the thread.

You do not seem to understand the there are far more on the right that have TDS than there are those that have that ailment on the right. Perhaps you need a new epithet to use.