Why does BK participate in gay topic threads?

[loinburger]

You're arguing that

if X is true, than Y must be true, and Z must not be true.
if X is not true, than Z must be true and Y must not be true.

Or at least that's what you should be arguing.

Instead:

If Y is true you are arguing that X and Z must both be true. Terrible logic.

You are retarded.

Fact: David Floyd posted that he is a racist. If he was telling the truth, then he is a racist. If he was lying, then he is a liar. A kindergartener would be able to understand this.

[loinburger]

Well, yeah, that kind of defeats the purpose of the PM in the first place. We all know that Lori is willing to smear people that he disagrees with so, no surprise there.

YOU posted the contents of your PM you twit! Lorizael confirmed that you sent the PM - you're the one who revealed its contents.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fact: David Floyd posted that he is a racist. If he was telling the truth, then he is a racist. If he was lying, then he is a liar. A kindergartener would be able to understand this.

David Floyd is a racist and/or inveterate liar."

Why is that AND there?

[Ben Kenobi]

YOU posted the contents of your PM you twit! Lorizael confirmed that you sent the PM - you're the one who revealed its contents.

And what, pray tell, did I write that would change the overall impression of the PM?

[loinburger]

Why is that AND there?

It's possible that he was telling the truth about being a racist but was lying about some unspecified statements. I was covering my bases.

If the problem is that you don't understand what "and/or" means then you are beyond help. (Rather, further beyond help than I'd thought)

[giblets]

You are retarded.

Fact: David Floyd posted that he is a racist. If he was telling the truth, then he is a racist. If he was lying, then he is a liar. A kindergartener would be able to understand this.

Holy crap.....
If X then Y. Not X, therefore not Y.

[loinburger]

And what, pray tell, did I write that would change the overall impression of the PM?

Now, let's meet at the Church you most regularly attend, when the priest you mostly regular confess to is there, and then you can beat the **** out of me. I won't even defend myself. Let's do this.

PM Sent

He did, in fact, send a PM with information about his church.

So, Lori asked you to send him a PM with the location of the church you attend so that you could beat him up. You confirmed that you sent the PM. He confirmed that he received it. Then you threw a fit.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's possible that he was telling the truth about being a racist but was lying about some unspecified statements. I was covering my bases.

Logic > You.

If you're arguing this, then it's entirely possible for him to lie to you and still be truthful about being a racist, meaning that you have no way to obtain reliable information from that statement.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, Lori asked you to send him a PM with the location of the church you attend so that you could beat him up. You confirmed that you sent the PM. He confirmed that he received it. Then you threw a fit.

Simply logic loin. What might I have said to Lori that hasn't been posted here on the thread, that would cast what I wrote in a different light than Lori has posted so far?

Why did Lori refuse to reply to the PM, and post about the PM here on the thread?

You're not a stupid man, loin. You've got all the pieces out in front of you.

[loinburger]

If you're arguing this, then it's entirely possible for him to lie to you and still be truthful about being a racist

Ummm... what the hell is wrong with you?

It's possible that he was telling the truth about being a racist but was lying about some unspecified statements. I was covering my bases.

I just posted the exact same thing. Reading comprehension > you

I'm not sure how much more simply I can state this. David Floyd said that he is racist. If he was telling the truth then he is racist. If he was lying then he is a liar. If he is a racist then he may still be a liar, hence, David Floyd is a racist and/or liar. This shouldn't be so difficult for you to grasp.

[Lorizael]

Simply logic loin. What might I have said to Lori that hasn't been posted here on the thread, that would cast what I wrote in a different light than Lori has posted so far?

Why did Lori refuse to reply to the PM, and post about the PM here on the thread?

You're not a stupid man, loin. You've got all the pieces out in front of you.

Fine, I'll reveal the truth. There was not a single complete sentence in the PM he sent me.

[loinburger]

Simply logic loin. What might I have said to Lori that hasn't been posted here on the thread, that would cast what I wrote in a different light than Lori has posted so far?

I don't know - maybe if you spoke plainly instead of making page after page of insinuations then you wouldn't have to keep making page after page of insinuations. You have not posted the crucial facts that would magically change the tone of the PM, and you have already threatened violence to multiple people in this thread, so the logical conclusion is that there are no crucial facts that magically change the contents of the PM. Instead you continue to post lies and half-truths in an attempt to discredit Lori, while at the same time forbidding him from posting the contents of the PM to clear his name.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not sure how much more simply I can state this. David Floyd said that he is racist. If he was telling the truth then he is racist. If he was lying then he is a liar. If he is a racist then he may still be a liar, hence, David Floyd is a racist and/or liar. This shouldn't be so difficult for you to grasp.

K.

1, he could be lying about the statement that he was serious. If he's an inveterate liar, then both statements would be lies, and you now have zero reliable information.
2, your entire case revolves around him telling the truth about both. Arguing that he's an inveterate liar AND that the statement, "I was serious", doesn't fly.

[HermanHitro]

Unarmed? I'd prolly kick your ass.

May I take that challenge? Fair and, err, square? No bull**** sadism, no bull**** weapons and ****? You, potent and all, pay for transfer to Europe and we just get rid of some aggression. If you win, you drink free on my cost for a week. If I win, I gotta shag that Floyd guy's arse.

[Lorizael]

K.

1, he could be lying about the statement that he was serious. If he's an inveterate liar, then both statements would be lies, and you now have zero reliable information.
2, your entire case revolves around him telling the truth about both. Arguing that he's an inveterate liar AND that the statement, "I was serious", doesn't fly.

Whether he's serious or not doesn't matter. If he intentionally posted something that was not true then he is lying. If he did so only in jest then his lie was not malicious, but it was still a lie.