Why are interracial divorce rates higher for white women than white men?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAmazingGrace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueEyedLady said:
You know, when you were initially caught you could have saved a lot of face (relatively, at least) by just gloating that it doesn’t matter because as the Dalrock link shows, you keep spare accounts anyway.

But, arguing against the documentation instead of owning up to the things you’ve said is definitely another option. It’s getting pretty funny though.
Click to expand...
You’re trying to take a comment that I posted on behalf of another CAF user (who I have identified and linked to) as proof for an entire conspiracy theory involving a network of accounts run by someone on a fringe website with the intent of disrupting discussions on here (without even providing evidence for disruption, mind you). Where your single piece of evidence falls short, you add “evidence” or embellish the story.

I get that you might not like the views I’ve expressed on CAF, but that is no reason to smear me.

Again, since you don’t seem to understand this fact: Evidence does not become proof of a claim when it simply does not refute that claim.
 
PLinz said:
I photoshopped nothing. I did not manipulate any images with any image editing program.

Stop lying! :mad:

And again: Evidence does not become proof of a claim when it simply does not refute that claim.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha! So you’re claiming that’s a post of mine? Ok, link to it then. I linked to yours.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
You know, when you were initially caught you could have saved a lot of face (relatively, at least) by just gloating that it doesn’t matter because as the Dalrock link shows, you keep spare accounts anyway.

But, arguing against the documentation instead of owning up to the things you’ve said is definitely another option. It’s getting pretty funny though.
Click to expand...
Why the heck would I when I have no connection to “dalrock.wordpress.com”?? :mad:
 
PLinz said:
Again, since you don’t seem to understand this fact: Evidence does not become proof of a claim when it simply does not refute that claim.
Click to expand...
Even Bill Clinton couldn’t talk his way out of this one…😉

Sorry, but you’re caught red handed word for word.
 
PLinz said:
The comment in question was sarcastic, as BlueEyedLady, by implication, fully admits.
Click to expand...
Sarcastic, as in: “this image is doctored, just like the image you cited, BEL?”

If that’s not what you meant, then what, exactly, was the sarcastic point you were trying to make by posting that image?
 
PLinz said:
You seem to misunderstand what exactly constitutes a standard of evidence.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Again, word for word you were caught offering to post, accepting the message, confirming it was done, and then doing the same with responses.

This thread reminds me of a particularly crude song from the early 00’s where Shaggy is confronted with all sorts of evidence of cheating, and even in the face of a video recording maintains “Wasn’t Me”.
 
PRmerger said:
Sarcastic, as in: “this image is doctored, just like the image you cited, BEL?”

If that’s not what you meant, then what, exactly, was the sarcastic point you were trying to make by posting that image?
Click to expand...
BlueEyedLady has repeatedly claimed that images of text posts are irrefutable evidence, which they are not. They are not admissible evidence in any court in the US, except to visually represent what is elsewhere testified to.

In any case, she is distracting (again) from the fact that she has lied repeatedly about what I’ve said and done.

I can accept if she thinks her meager level of evidence somehow can underpin an entire conspiracy theory (the details of which are spread out across this thread), but she has become unreasonable when it is shown to her how little her evidence actually proves (i.e. nothing).
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Nope.

Again, word for word you were caught offering to post, accepting the message, confirming it was done, and then doing the same with responses.

This thread reminds me of a particularly crude song from the early 00’s where Shaggy is confronted with all sorts of evidence of cheating, and even in the face of a video recording maintains “Wasn’t Me”.
Click to expand...
In case you missed it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14412375&postcount=42

And: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14412823&postcount=80
 
PLinz said:
BlueEyedLady has repeatedly claimed that images of text posts are irrefutable evidence, which they are not. They are not admissible evidence in any court in the US, except to visually represent what is elsewhere testified to.

In any case, she is distracting (again) from the fact that she has lied repeatedly about what I’ve said and done.

I can accept if she thinks her meager level of evidence somehow can underpin an entire conspiracy theory (the details of which are spread out across this thread), but she has become unreasonable when it is shown to her how little her evidence actually proves (i.e. nothing).
Click to expand...
Sorry, PLinz.

I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt…

but the above doesn’t explain how that picture you posted was a “sarcastic” comment.

It certainly sounds like you were suggesting: I can post false pictures, too.

That is, “I can fabricate pictures just like BEL did”.

No?

Then try to convince me what your point was in posting the pic.
 
PRmerger said:
Sorry, PLinz.

I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt…

but the above doesn’t explain how that picture you posted was a “sarcastic” comment.

It certainly sounds like you were suggesting: I can post false pictures, too.

That is, “I can fabricate pictures just like BEL did”.

No?

Then try to convince me what your point was in posting the pic.
Click to expand...
BlueEyedLady stated that I claimed that she fabricated the images posted here (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14415016&postcount=116), which is not a claim that I made (i.e. she’s lying, again).

Again, BlueEyedLady is trying to stretch her meager evidence farther than it can actually go. It has never been hard evidence, and now BlueEyedLady is trying to use a “hint of an implication between the lines” as evidence.
 
PLinz said:
In case you missed it: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14412375&postcount=42

And: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14412823&postcount=80
Click to expand...
I don’t really care that you insist it “wasn’t you”. I get that you maintain that. I’m just confused as to how you think anyone could possibly believe it in the face of what I’ve posted. And your insistence that no explanation is required isn’t exactly convincing.

Be mad all you want, but if the tables were turned and I tried these explanations and excuses, you’d hold my feet to the fire too. For someone who uses the word ‘fallacy’ so often, you have to understand how objectively unconvincing you’ve been
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I’m just confused as to how you think anyone could possibly believe it in the face of what I’ve posted.
Click to expand...
You mean, how could anyone not believe you? Is that narcissism? The same kind that leads you to Google yourself all the time?
BlueEyedLady said:
but if the tables were turned and I tried these explanations and excuses, you’d hold my feet to the fire too. For someone who uses the word ‘fallacy’ so often, you have to understand how objectively unconvincing you’ve been
Click to expand...
I’m not the one crafting conspiracy theories, you are. And no, I’m not letting you get away with smearing me with your little conspiracy theory. I want you to apologize.
 
PLinz said:
You mean, how could anyone not believe you? Is that narcissism? The same kind that leads you to Google yourself all the time?

I’m not the one crafting conspiracy theories, you are. And no, I’m not letting you get away with smearing me with your little conspiracy theory. I want you to apologize.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top