Comment by qarl

14 hours ago

No need for insults, friend. It weakens your position.

But sure, if I actually need to, let me spell it out.

The statement: "He is a liar" is stronger than the statement "He is a liar who sometimes tells the truth", despite the fact that the second is more detailed. Extraneous details distract from the main argument. Also - there is almost no example in the world of someone who makes only false statements. It's a ridiculous insertion.

I hope you can understand why your suggestion above is nonsensical.

7 comments

qarl

Reply
simondotau  5 hours ago

I humbly apologise. When I said you were confused, I only meant to state a fact, not cause you harm.

  • qarl  4 hours ago

    > I humbly apologise.

    OH! No need. I enjoyed explaining it to you.

    • simondotau  1 hour ago

      Yes, I recognise that you cannot see beyond your personal enjoyment. Maybe one day you'll gain some self awareness of how your brain is seeking and self-rewarding with dopamine.

      1 reply →

  • qarl  4 hours ago

    It would seem we've filled the queue on the other thread. Allow me to respond to you here:

    > is an assertion without supporting evidence

    I’m sorry, I thought the evidence was obvious. Allow me to explain it to you: someone who has a history of lying has a significantly higher chance of lying again than someone who does not.

    > You also construct your own straw man

    Asking a question is not putting words in someone’s mouth - and it was resolved with his simple “No”.

    > The insults

    Oh my. Do you really want to go there after this sequence:

    > you're moving from the territory of reasonable questions to moderately desperate conspiracy theory

    > Your confusion is understandable given your own (excruciatingly obvious) motives.

    > find the words to make yourself feel good when pressing 'reply'

    > I humbly apologise. When I said you were confused, I only meant to state a fact, not cause you harm.

    > These linguistic motte-and-bailey tricks are pure debate bro.

    Motte-and-bailey? I have not retracted a single thing.

    > hope of actually changing the other person's mind

    HA! I realized that would be impossible quite a long time ago. Now it’s just a fun game to see how bloodied you get.