Why does BK participate in gay topic threads?

[kentonio]

Indeed. He can be a liar OR a racist. He cannot be both.

Except as Loin said already, he could lie about other things, thus 'and/or' you dip****!

[Ben Kenobi]

Kent:

AND is incorrect, OR is correct.

[loinburger]

Indeed. He can be a liar OR a racist. He cannot be both.

So if somebody makes a few true statements, it is impossible that they have ever lied or ever will lie about any other statements they've made or will make?

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, I honestly have no idea what you were trying to communicate in your PM because none of your sentences were grammatically correct. That said, you did give the name and address of a church.

Hmm, I guess that could be true. However you seemed pretty durn sure about that when you initially posted. You could have asked me for clarificiation, but didn't, choosing to post in public.

I'm disappointed. You were doing quite well until now.

[kentonio]

Kent:

AND is incorrect, OR is correct.

NO! Its only incorrect in the context of the lie being about the racism thing! If he is genuinely a racist, he could still lie about something else, thus making him a racist and a liar!

[Ben Kenobi]

So if somebody makes a few true statements, it is impossible that they have ever lied or ever will lie about any other statements they've made or will make?

As opposed to the true statement, that he was lying about both for the purposes of entertainment? Logically, Loin, you could have arrived at the conclusion that Floyd was trolling everybody if you were more logical and less emotional. Instead, you'd rather cling to the emotional answer, ie, "Floyd must be both a liar and a racist because I hate him and it hurts that he PWNT me badly"

[loinburger]

Kent:

AND is incorrect, OR is correct.

Let's see if your mind can grasp this scenario: David Floyd tells the truth about being a racist, but lies about some unspecified statement. This would make him a racist AND a liar. Pointing to two true statements does not prove that he is not a liar - therefore in the absence of evidence about whether he is a liar, he is a racist and/or a liar, because the truth value of the second statement remains unknown. Understand?

[loinburger]

As opposed to the true statement, that he was lying about both for the purposes of entertainment? Logically, Loin, you could have arrived at the conclusion that Floyd was trolling everybody if you were more logical and less emotional. Instead, you'd rather cling to the emotional answer, ie, "Floyd must be both a liar and a racist because I hate him and it hurts that he PWNT me badly"

I'm not going to take lessons on acting rationally from somebody who threatens physical harm to others for such petty reasons.

And lying to rile people up is still lying - or at least this is the case in my universe, I'm not sure about yours.

[Ben Kenobi]

NO! Its only incorrect in the context of the lie being about the racism thing!

Which is what is being discussed.

If he is genuinely a racist, he could still lie about something else, thus making him a racist and a liar!

Then he's not an inveterate liar, and once again the argument falls apart.

It's really clear. If he's truthful, he's a racist and not a liar. If he's lying about the statement, "I am a racist" and "I am serious" then he's an inveterate liar, but NOT a racist.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

[Lorizael]

Hmm, I guess that could be true. However you seemed pretty durn sure about that when you initially posted. You could have asked me for clarificiation, but didn't, choosing to post in public.

I'm disappointed. You were doing quite well until now.

Yes, I was pretty darn sure you gave me the name and address of a church.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's see if your mind can grasp this scenario: David Floyd tells the truth about being a racist, but lies about some unspecified statement. This would make him a racist AND a liar. Pointing to two true statements does not prove that he is not a liar - therefore in the absence of evidence about whether he is a liar, he is a racist and/or a liar, because the truth value of the second statement remains unknown. Understand?

Yes, but you said he was an inveterate liar. If your argument requires selective lying then it's no longer a logical argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, I was pretty darn sure you gave me the name and address of a church.

No, I'm pretty sure you were clear on what I was saying. What, didn't you come on here and rail about how I was a violent individual who threatened you with bodily harm? Odd that, you are NOW saying that "you didn't understand what I was getting at".

For the peanut gallery, what might I have said to Loin that he wouldn't be willing to post about here, that would cast me in a better light AND be something that would totally push him away from replying to me about?

[loinburger]

Yes, but you said he was an inveterate liar. If your argument requires selective lying then it's no longer a logical argument.

Once again. Racist and/or inveterate liar. And/or. And/or. Before you post again, first explain what "and/or" means so I know you're not a complete idiot.

Also, are you under the impression that somebody can only be a "liar" if they ALWAYS lie? Because that would be a retarded belief on your part.

[Lorizael]

What, didn't you come on here and rail about how I was a violent individual who threatened you with bodily harm?

I never called you a violent individual, and I never said you threatened me.

[kentonio]

Yes, but you said he was an inveterate liar. If your argument requires selective lying then it's no longer a logical argument.

Inveterate liar does not mean he always lies...