TRUMP 2020!

[Mack]

i do listen to doctors and scientists thats where i got my knowlage..

i beleive what i beleive because of all the infomation i have seen and heard in the past. not from any one source

well just find 1 or 2 then, no need to find lots. Honestly though I don't know why you don't believe doctors and scientists especially say a family run GP. They have very little to gain by taking your money and are unlikely to be corrupt or misleading because if they were and people found out they would not get business and go bankrupt

are they sttuggling idk any of them personally to ask how well they are doing

also the government is paying extra for covid positive cases so i feel thry might look at that aswell

[Leo the Conqueror]

Anyone should be allowed to protest. I think that anti-maskers protesting is stupid, but I don't believe that there are/should be any laws prohibiting it.

Nice signature.

Mack, "allegedly" does not make anyone exempt from what they are being charged with. How about this: what if I met you at a park alone, and you were to say "putting pineapple on pizza is stupid and should be banned". Then I went and told everyone that you said that, and you denied it. Your word against mine, so there's no way to find the truth. But say, for instance, that I had brought 12 of my buddies to the park and all of them heard you say it. No matter how much you deny it, it's 13 against 1 so it's safe to say that you said that.

It's no different with Trump. He keeps "allegedly" saying all these stupid things while around a bunch of other people. He can deny it all he wants, but once their start to be multiple witnesses, his denial becomes less and less credible.

How do they catch murderers when there is no surveillance footage? They gather the physical evidence they can, and then link it together with witness testimony.

While I understand that witness testimony isn't the most reliable way to gain info, it can be pretty credible when there are multiple people all saying the same thing happened.

And last off, I can't prove Trump said that. But you can't prove that he DIDN'T say that, so for all we know he did! (Just kidding, that's horrible logic )

[DezNutz]

Anyone should be allowed to protest. I think that anti-maskers protesting is stupid, but I don't believe that there are/should be any laws prohibiting it.

Nice signature.

Mack, "allegedly" does not make anyone exempt from what they are being charged with. How about this: what if I met you at a park alone, and you were to say "putting pineapple on pizza is stupid and should be banned". Then I went and told everyone that you said that, and you denied it. Your word against mine, so there's no way to find the truth. But say, for instance, that I had brought 12 of my buddies to the park and all of them heard you say it. No matter how much you deny it, it's 13 against 1 so it's safe to say that you said that.

It's no different with Trump. He keeps "allegedly" saying all these stupid things while around a bunch of other people. He can deny it all he wants, but once their start to be multiple witnesses, his denial becomes less and less credible.

How do they catch murderers when there is no surveillance footage? They gather the physical evidence they can, and then link it together with witness testimony.

While I understand that witness testimony isn't the most reliable way to gain info, it can be pretty credible when there are multiple people all saying the same thing happened.

And last off, I can't prove Trump said that. But you can't prove that he DIDN'T say that, so for all we know he did! (Just kidding, that's horrible logic )

Stop making strawman arguments. You aren't good at them.

[Leo the Conqueror]

If I am not mistaken, that is a misuse of the word.

'A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".'

Does that seem like what I'm doing?

[Lachlan]

i do listen to doctors and scientists thats where i got my knowlage..

i beleive what i beleive because of all the infomation i have seen and heard in the past. not from any one source

well just find 1 or 2 then, no need to find lots. Honestly though I don't know why you don't believe doctors and scientists especially say a family run GP. They have very little to gain by taking your money and are unlikely to be corrupt or misleading because if they were and people found out they would not get business and go bankrupt

are they sttuggling idk any of them personally to ask how well they are doing

also the government is paying extra for covid positive cases so i feel thry might look at that aswell

Mack I don't believe you listen to doctors and scientists because they will say it's bad. The only reason why it isn't like the Spanish flu in terms of sheer amounts of death and infections is because we have learnt a lot medically in how to stop diseases before it gets bad. I myself am not a doctor as I'm still in high school but I'm surrounded by medical professionals telling me it is pretty bad. My dad is a Doctor, my mum is a nurse (not in a public hospital where they have Covid patients but a private one), my dad is a doctor and most of my dads friends are some kind of medical professional. I'm also learning about infectious diseases and vaccines as a subject I am doing to learn more about this given the current situation around the world and I can get help with it from my dad. Frankly Mack I don't mean to be rude but as far as I can tell what you have said is bullshit backed up by no science or medical facts. I mean as Mustache said the only source you provided actually partially if not fully validated his side of the argument too. Sure there might be some corruption but your acting like Covid is just a moneymaking business which is not true.

[DezNutz]

If I am not mistaken, that is a misuse of the word.

'A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".'

Does that seem like what I'm doing?

You are, it isn't.

You are arguing against the point that Trump didn't actually say something or taken out of context based on the argument well if 12 people said you said it, it's 12 v 1.

Your argument is a logical fallacy, thus a strawman. In the world of legal ramifications, 12 people can testify that they have first hand eyewitness testimony, but eyewitness testimony is only as credible as the credibility of the people giving it. If 12 people have a proven bias against someone, there statements without supporting evidence would not be credible. It can be 12 v 1, that doesn't mean much of anything without supporting evidence and those 12 being credible.

Case and point.

12 can state that you are an idiot. That's 12 v 1. You can deny you are an idiot, but 12 people have stated that you are.

[Leo the Conqueror]

You cannot factually be an idiot. You cannot prove that someone is an idiot. You can, however prove that someone said something. What I am saying is that if 12 people say you said something, and you deny it, well, odds aren't in your favor that you said it. Doesn't mean that you DID say it, but it greatly increases the chances that you did.

When there are all these things that Trump has supposedly said, it makes you start to wonder...

Of course there is a very small chance that he didn't say any of it and that everyone is just out to get him. It's very unlikely though.

[Mack]

you are in fact an idiot

[Leo the Conqueror]

Allegedly!

[Meliva]

You cannot factually be an idiot. You cannot prove that someone is an idiot. You can, however prove that someone said something. What I am saying is that if 12 people say you said something, and you deny it, well, odds aren't in your favor that you said it. Doesn't mean that you DID say it, but it greatly increases the chances that you did.

When there are all these things that Trump has supposedly said, it makes you start to wonder...

Of course there is a very small chance that he didn't say any of it and that everyone is just out to get him. It's very unlikely though.

No, pretty sure you can indeed be an idiot by facts. If someone can't read or write, then frankly they are an idiot(when it comes to that subject anyway, could be smart in other areas.) I myself consider myself to be socially an idiot. I'm not good with people in person, and prefer to be alone or with just a few close friends. My father called himself computer illiterate as he had no clue how to work one.

I would also argue that anyone who want's to claim vaccines cause autism, or the earth is flat would frankly be an idiot in my opinion.

Also, Bias is a thing. If the 12 people who claim one person said or did something are known to hate that person, can you really trust their word? Imagine 12 known members of the KKK all saying that a black man committed a crime, while the black man says he didn't do it. No one else is a witness. Would you take them at their word? Like you said- 12 against one. Frankly, if you would take them for their word despite the fact that their is CLEAR bias present, then you are factually an idiot.

Folks can, and will lie about other folks. Especially if they dislike the other person. Word alone isn't always good proof. Not to mention many folks have a dislike of trump, and many folks are often pretty bad about lying nowadays. Just look at all the cases of false accusations, it's horrendous.