War on Women

[grumbler]

The PP videos are edited so heavily as to be fairly described as fake. Just like if I took a photo of you and photoshopped it onto a photo of the JFK assassination so it looked like you were guilty, that would also be considered fake.

I am arguing that they are unauthentic, rather than that they are "fake" (whatever that really means in this kind of context).

These videos aren't like a photoshopped picture, they are like me taking Kid's statement and ust changing the word order, without changing any words, and then deleting everything that doesn't fit the narative:

I have reason to be not be too bright. It's true. There is evidence. It shouldn't shock you. Women have seen it. Now, I've had over 10 abortions.
I just pander.

None of these words are "fake," they just are taken out of context.

[giblets]

How did Kidicious manage to get butt-pregnant so many times? That's amazing.

[grumbler]

How did Kidicious manage to get butt-pregnant so many times? That's amazing.

When he talks about "abortions" he is talking about the arguments he has tried to make in this thread.

[Kidlicious]

I am arguing that they are unauthentic, rather than that they are "fake" (whatever that really means in this kind of context).

These videos aren't like a photoshopped picture, they are like me taking Kid's statement and ust changing the word order, without changing any words, and then deleting everything that doesn't fit the narative:


None of these words are "fake," they just are taken out of context.

Please go take an English language class.

[Kidlicious]

When he talks about "abortions" he is talking about the arguments he has tried to make in this thread.

I'm not making arguments. I'm just reading yours, or your bull**** anyway. First you said the videos are fake. Then you said they were out of context, but you obviously don't know what that means. And you haven't provided any evidence for any of that bs.

[loinburger]

He doesn't want to pander to your type

[Kidlicious]

Well, he doesn't really believe what he's saying. It's quite ridiculous.

[grumbler]

Please go take an English language class.

It would probably do more good for you to take my English class. I could teach even you reading comprehension and even some ability to argue persuasively. Your last teacher clearly failed at both.

[grumbler]

I'm not making arguments. I'm just reading yours, or your bull**** anyway. First you said the videos are fake. Then you said they were out of context, but you obviously don't know what that means. And you haven't provided any evidence for any of that bs.

I never said they were fake, and always said that they were unauthentic. They were prepared by amateur hacks to fit an agenda, and left out not only context, but also evidence that made the videos' contentions untenable. The evidence I have is contained in the videos themselves, which are choppy and clearly don't represent complete conversations. So, I have evidence, and you have lies and "secret evidence" that you can't be bothered to show because you laughably believe that supporting your arguments with evidence would be "pandering."

[grumbler]

And I have noticed (and so, I am sure, has everyone else) that you are weaseling out of actually responding to my arguments by engaging in ad homs and red herrings. The weasel out of responding to an argument by arguing instead that your opponent simply doesn't believe what he writes is pathetically lame and transparent.

[Kidlicious]

I never said they were fake, and always said that they were unauthentic. They were prepared by amateur hacks to fit an agenda, and left out not only context, but also evidence that made the videos' contentions untenable. The evidence I have is contained in the videos themselves, which are choppy and clearly don't represent complete conversations. So, I have evidence, and you have lies and "secret evidence" that you can't be bothered to show because you laughably believe that supporting your arguments with evidence would be "pandering."

Any reasonable person would understand that the video should be edited. You're ridiculous. What are you trying to do here?

[giblets]

A scientific explanation for Kidicious's angry ranting

Beware loud-mouthed guys: Monkeys with smaller testicles roar the loudest to make up for their shortcomings when attracting females

Howler monkeys are among the loudest terrestrial animals on the planet
Males with larger throats tend to have smaller testes, study reveals
Attract females with their roar, while those with larger testes share mates
Research is the first evidence in any species of a trade-off between vocal investment and sperm production, University of Cambridge experts say

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3284885/Calls-versus-balls-Monkeys-smaller-testicles-roar-loudest-make-shortcomings-attracting-females.html

[Kidlicious]

Not angry. Why would I be. Please keep amusing me. I'm fascinated as to why people like you and grumbler spend so much time bullshiing.

[grumbler]

Any reasonable person would understand that the video should be edited. You're ridiculous. What are you trying to do here?

So you are admitting that these are not the kinds of videos (because they are edited for a purpose) for which laws should be based? If so, then you have conceded my point and we have nothing further to debate (given that I am wholly uninterested in debating your lies or suggestions that I "take an English language class"). Any reasonable person would understand that laws cannot be based on partisan "evidence." That was always my point, and, given that you have conceded it, this concludes our little debate. To paraphrase Lord Nelson, "You have lost little credibility in this debate, for you had little to begin with. But what little you had, you lost."

[Kidlicious]

So you are admitting that these are not the kinds of videos (because they are edited for a purpose) for which laws should be based? If so, then you have conceded my point and we have nothing further to debate (given that I am wholly uninterested in debating your lies or suggestions that I "take an English language class"). Any reasonable person would understand that laws cannot be based on partisan "evidence." That was always my point, and, given that you have conceded it, this concludes our little debate. To paraphrase Lord Nelson, "You have lost little credibility in this debate, for you had little to begin with. But what little you had, you lost."

I certainly didn't agree with you on anything. At least I hope not, as you are a lunatic.

The fact that they were edited means absolutely nothing. You claim that they were taken out of context, which you have no evidence for. In other words, you are just bull****ting. Fortunately I'm not that stupid. However, you seem to be affecting giblets. So maybe you aren't completely wasting your time.