MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
New Spanish government surprises Gibraltar at C24 calling for bilateral talks with UK
Chief Minister Fabian Picardo told the United Nations on Monday that Gibraltar was ready to work with Spain’s new Socialist government for the mutual benefit of citizens on both sides of the border. This, he underscored, did not deviate from Gibraltar’s cast-iron position on sovereignty and the principle of self-determination. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“Mrs. Pedrós confined herself to setting out Spain’s historic position on territorial integrity and sovereignty”
Jun 12th, 2018 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse +2That's odd, she didn't mention Morocco's 'territorial integrity and sovereignty' - must be an oversight I'm sure....
Has Spain ever tried to negotiate practical measures to eg reduce cigarette smuggling with Gibraltar or cooperate on drug trafficking? All they ever seem to talk about is sovereignty.
Jun 12th, 2018 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse +2Ah the militant, unconstitutional and ineffective committee.
Jun 12th, 2018 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Gibraltar and the UN C24 Decolonization Committee (1 pg):-
https://www.academia.edu/36763568/Gibraltar_and_the_UN_C24_Decolonization_Committee
Bob
Jun 12th, 2018 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I see you are quoting the...
“the Principle of Equal Rights and Self- Determination of Peoples ”
Do you think the Catalans are a people or are they just Spanish citizens..?
Do you think the Gibraltarians are a people or are they just British citizens...?
Voice
Jun 12th, 2018 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I'll go with BKM and the Catalonia -
“When one speaks of self-determination, certain areas have been recognized by the United Nations as non-autonomous territories. But Catalonia does not fall into this category,” Ban Ki-Moon said in an interview with Spanish newspapers El Pais, El Mundo, ABC and La Vanguardia. (31 Oct 2015).
BKM is not the UN and his opinion is only that...an opinion...
Jun 12th, 2018 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -2It could easily be said, and it would be true that Scotland was not entitled to an Independence vote being an integral part of the UK the UK Parliament could legally have stopped the vote...
Are the people of Scotland a people because they were allowed to vote...?
BKN doesn't get to decide who are people and who are not...
If you support self determination for one “people” and not another...what does that make you...?
Voice
Jun 13th, 2018 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse -1What does that make me? Right in respect of the Falklands and Gibraltar.
“British magazine The Economist, in May 2016, called Ban ”plodding, protocol-conscious and loth to stand up to the big powers“ and ”the dullest—and among the worst“ secretary-generals.”
Jun 13th, 2018 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1That seems about right, loth to stand up to Spain and more likely the EU...
btw...It also makes you wrong in respect of your understanding of self-determination for all peoples...
Basically, it makes you a hypocrite...
You are a champion of your own point of view which is clearly biased...
What else are you wrong about...
Ja ja.
Jun 13th, 2018 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Venice Commission – a panel of experts who advise the Council of Europe on constitutional law – wrote to Puigdemont, Catalan politician, telling him that the referendum would have to be carried out “in agreement with the Spanish authorities … and in full compliance with the constitution and the applicable legislation”.
No panel of experts considered the legality of self determination of the Catalonian people as you are trying to imply...you are like Terry great at misleading folk with part of a story...
Jun 13th, 2018 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“You are, no doubt, aware that not only the referendum as such, but also the cooperation with our Commission, will have to be carried out in agreement with the Spanish authorities” Buquicchio insisted to Puigdemont.
The Venice Commission can only write reports at the request of another body of the Council of Europe, a member state, an international organization, or by its own initiative. This means the Catalan Government is not able to ask directly for the Venice Commission's opinion on the referendum and has to rely on a petition by the Spanish government (which is unlikely), a body of the Council of Europe, another international organization, a third country, or the organization itself.
The Venice Commission ‘guidelines’ of good practices for referendums state that any referendum “must comply with the legal system as a whole” and “cannot be held if the Constitution or a statute in conformity with the Constitution does not provide for them”. Therefore, a unilateral referendum against the will of the Spanish government could easily fall outside the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
In other words the commission was unable to give an opinion without the blessing of Spain and merely quoted the guidelines stated above...
It only took the President of the Venice Commission, Gianni Buquicchio less than a week to state the obvious that could have been read from Commission ‘guidelines’ of good practices...
Twist away...English Bob...Good enough for Brits, but no one else eh...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 13th, 2018 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“You are like Terry great at misleading folk with part of a story...” You cannot meet your BoP as cannot show one instance where I have done that. Moreover, I have made no comment on Spains internal affairs. Whereas it is you who constantly attempts to deliberately misrepresent the Falklands position under the UN Charter and therefore, under binding international law. Which means no discussion is permitted between Argentina and the UK as to the status of the Islanders.
Oh dear...I shouldn't have mentioned Terry...
Jun 13th, 2018 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Voice
Jun 13th, 2018 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lol, indeed:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Kingme.png
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 13th, 2018 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Quiet in the cheap seats, you like that other sophist claim much but are unable to substantiate either.
Go on DemonTree reply...I dare you...;-)
Jun 13th, 2018 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 13th, 2018 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Still unable to locate any of those missing 3.4 million Afro-Argentineans?
Voice
Jun 13th, 2018 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Supreme Court of Canada did analyse self-determination arguments in respect of Quebec, The Court held that the “right to secession” only arises under the right to self-determination of a people under international law in three specific situations. First, where a people is governed as part of a colonial empire; secondly, where a people is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and thirdly, possibly, where a people is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. According to the Court, in the absence of these situations, international law has established that the right to self-determination of a people is fulfilled through internal self-determination: i.e. within the framework of an existing state.
Conclusion
International law does not support the equation of the right to self-determination of a people with the right to secede. If one adopts the view of the Supreme Court of Canada set out above, then the current internal self-government (autonomy) of Catalonia could satisfy Spain’s obligation to respect the right of the Catalan people to self-determination. (Oxford Human Rights Hub 2017).
@Voice
Jun 13th, 2018 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Don't, I find it hard enough not to argue with him, even though I know it's a waste of time.
Google 'pigeon chess', it's the perfect description of talking to Terry...
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 13th, 2018 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +1While your still trying to fit square pegs in round holes, try familiarising yourself with Argumentation theory.
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
Jun 13th, 2018 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I've seen the same kind of 'debates' with conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers and idiots who think they've proved the real numbers are countable or that they can build a perpetual motion machine. All of them lacked the background knowledge to understand why they were wrong, and all of them stubbornly refused to learn.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 13th, 2018 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since I do not subscribe to any of the theories that you attempt to attribute to me. It is you that fails to adhere to the requirements of Argumentation theory, and previousy disputed the requirement necessary of :
1. Establishing the “burden of proof” – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.
2. For the one carrying the “burden of proof”, the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
I didn't attribute any theories to you, Terry (but hey, if the shoe fits...) It's not your beliefs but your style of 'argument' that is similar to theirs.
Jun 13th, 2018 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I see you've learned a little, though. Have you also discovered what a sound argument is, or do you still believe a misapplied and/or misleading quotation is an acceptable (and the only) form of proof?
You are really grasping at straws to justify your stance Bob...
Jun 13th, 2018 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Let's ask a Canadian Court what they think about splitting up Canada...
Let's ask the UK Parliament there view on splitting the UK...
Let's ask a Spanish court what they think about splitting up Spain...
Do you see where I'm going with this...?
Hey Terry...do you ever do any research...who ever said there was 3.4 million Afro-Argentineans...?
What a silly thought...;-)
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 13th, 2018 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you're still on your God perch, and still your ego doesn't see anything wrong with rejecting the only correct way of making an argument which is meet your burden. Invariably you can't, so you will engage in all types of deceits from argumentum ad hominem. To reediting images and arguing falsely, that because you engage in fraud that its evidence that others do.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
“Who ever said there was 3.4 million Afro-Argentineans.” Why you did.
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/06/05/argentina-identifies-remains-of-the-92nd-combatant-buried-in-the-falklands/comments#comment489139
3.4 million slaves was the total of slaves taken by the British...you surely didn't assume that they all went to Argentina did you...?
Jun 14th, 2018 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse -1Don't you ever do any research...?...;-)
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 14th, 2018 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Who ever said there was 3.4 million Afro-Argentineans.” Why you did.
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/06/05/argentina-identifies-remains-of-the-92nd-combatant-buried-in-the-falklands/comments#comment489139
So you only get one kick at the can, you are now estopped from claiming anything else whether it be true or not. It's a long tradition in all aspects of law that you cannot benefit from your own fraud. So I don't have to do anything else as it's not my burden.
Ah, good old Terry the hypocrite. Tells me to learn something I already know, but when I reply in kind, I'm 'on my god perch'.
Jun 14th, 2018 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse -1If he gets something wrong, it's merely a 'mistake of fact'. If someone else gets something wrong, or he misunderstands their ambiguous statement, he claims it's illegal for them to correct themselves!
@Voice
Britain wasn't the only country taking slaves to the Americas. That's why I linked to that article about the asiento, showing who had permission to sell slaves to the Spanish colonies at various times. AFAIK most of the slaves in Brazil were taken there by Portuguese ships, and it probably would have been easier for the Spanish in Argentina to get them from there. Most of those brought by Britain would have gone to British colonies in the Caribbean and North America, right?
Voice
Jun 14th, 2018 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse -1Grasping at straws?
Just producing facts. Ja ja.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 14th, 2018 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Their ambiguous statement, he claims it's illegal for them to correct themselves”
Glad to see that you're doing what you best by arguing on behalf of those that are both amoral and dishonest.
Therefore, reenforcing your moniker as 'the slavish follower aka The Appendage'. Further confirmed by your implicit support of that other sophist JB you're attached too. Which you don't deny, 'reediting images and arguing falsely, that because you engage in fraud that its evidence that others do.'
Fraud Terry...?
Jun 14th, 2018 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Here is your quote...
“In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”
Did Argentina exist in the late 18th Century....;-)
...are you taking about the UP?
Or are you taking about BA...?
What was the population of BA in the late 18th Century...?
In 1776 it was 2200...
In 1806-1807 the city of Buenos Aires had 15,708 Europeans, 347 indigenous and cholos (mestizos), and 6,650 Africans and mulattoes, while in 1810 there were 22,793 whites, 9,615 Africans and mulattoes, and only 150 indigenous and cholos. The area most densely populated by Africans was located in the neighborhood of Monserrat, also known as Barrio del Tambor (Drumtown), just a few blocks from the Congressional Palace”
So tell me Terry... quantify your statement...“In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”
What was the population of Argentina in the late 18th Century and could a third of it equate to 3.4 million...?
Ya dope...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 14th, 2018 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Fraud Terry...?Here is your quote...” I'm just the messenger so you'll have to quibble your nuances with the following. 'Afroargentines and the whitewashing of history by Daniel Voskoboynik'
“Quantify your statement.” Don't have to as my reliance was on your statement, you fraudster.
So you only get one kick at the can, you are now estopped from claiming anything else whether it be true or not. It's a long tradition in all aspects of law that you cannot benefit from your own fraud. So I don't have to do anything else as it's not my burden.
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/06/12/new-spanish-government-surprises-gibraltar-at-c24-calling-for-bilateral-talks-with-uk/comments#comment489361
Sooo....do you often quote ridiculous nonsense that couldn't possibly be true based only on that you read it in a book...?
Jun 14th, 2018 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Do you not read it and think...that can't possibly be true...?
So what about your fraud Terry...?....Do you know so little history that you were oblivious to the fact that you were quoting complete nonsense...?
Or you knew it was complete nonsense and quoted it anyway...
Either way, you are either a fraudster to a complete dimwit...which is it....?
I think I know which....;-)
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 14th, 2018 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You are either a fraudster to a complete dimwit” The old fallacy of a 'and/or' argument.
You can wriggle and quibble all want. 'It was you who said there was 3.4 million Afro-Argentineans.' So you're stuck with your misrepresentation, you wear it exceedingly well. It looks good on you, well deserved.
@Voice
Jun 14th, 2018 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I think I know too. ;)
No I didn't...
Jun 14th, 2018 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I merely asked who brought them...
”I wonder who brought them...
....all 3.4 million of them...ya dope..
Memo to myself...Terry will not only quote complete nonsense, but will also quote things you didn't say...
On the bright side it means I can say any old nonsense and Terry will not only believe it, but will swallow it hook line and sinker...then regurgitate it for future argument...
My day is getting better and better...
.....Yay...;-)
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 14th, 2018 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”I wonder who brought them.......all 3.4 million of them” Thats already established, you did. So you can blather all sophistry you want, but still on the hook for your statement. You made it, you wear it, such are the rules of all civilised nations.
Great Terry, so we've established that I didn't say...“there was 3.4 million Afro-Argentineans.”
Jun 14th, 2018 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That was you who said that....;-))))))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 14th, 2018 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can attempt all the fraud you want, whereas the link verifies what you claimed . Moreover, the rule of estoppel denies your claim. While your attempts at avoiding the facts of situation, and your reliance on your wits, comes up short. Leaving you exposed as the half-wit you really are.
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/06/05/argentina-identifies-remains-of-the-92nd-combatant-buried-in-the-falklands/comments#comment489139
Is to wonder a misleading fact... is to wonder even a fact...let's take a look...
Jun 14th, 2018 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0verb
1.
desire to know something; feel curious.
“how many times have I written that, I wonder?”
synonyms: ponder, ask oneself, think about, meditate on, reflect on, deliberate about, muse on, speculate about, conjecture;
Can wondering be fraudulent...
I'm not seeing anything factual about it...
I wonder how stupid Terry is....am I saying that Terry is Stupid...?
I wonder how clever Terry is...am I saying Terry is clever...?...I wonder...
“In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”
I wonder how stupid a person must be not to know that Argentina didn't exist in the 18th Century...
Did you know that Argentina didn't exist in the 18th Century Terry...?
If you did you were being fraudulent...
If you didn't you are a halfwit...
Which is it...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 14th, 2018 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A fact...let's take a look...”
You can dance around the issue all you want. But they're still your words and you are bound by them. Any attempt to amend them is a clear admission of fraud. So feign surprise, you're still in your customary position of attempting end runs around the truth, and are hence estopped.
“A ’mistake of fact’ which stands on its own merits, unless you can show some subterfuge or deliberate evasion.” - Terry showing he doesn't think he's bound by his own words.
Jun 14th, 2018 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The same applies to Voice, Terry. You haven't shown any subterfuge or deliberate evasion.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 14th, 2018 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still on your well trodden path of sucking up, of those that least merit any admiration .
“A ’mistake of fact’ which stands on its own merits“ It is not, it is part and parcel of his well established continuing sophism.
”People call it arguing out of both sides of your mouth,“ The Purposeful Argument: A Practical Guide By Harry Phillips, Patricia Bostian.
“He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other.” This elementary rule of logic expresses, in technical language, the saying that a man shall not be permitted to “blow hot and cold” with reference to the same transaction, or insist, at different times, on the truth of each of two conflicting allegations, according to the promptings of his private interest. Says the Satyr, if you have gotten a trick of blowing hot and cold out of the same mouth, I've e'en done“ with ye.' en.wikiquote.org/wiki
He hasn't 'alleged things contradictory to each other'. He said something you misinterpreted (and apparently believed), and then he corrected you.
Jun 14th, 2018 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You, on the other hand, have frequently alleged things contradictory to each other, which is why I'm done with you.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 14th, 2018 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He said something you misinterpreted in your biased opinion. He clearly and unequivocally stated “In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.” “I wonder who brought them...all 3.4 million of them...”
“You ...alleged things contradictory to each other” But, you are unable to substantiate your claim
because it's false. Otherwise, you would have validated it. Pretty weak sucking attempt.
“So if its 'truth' is unsupported, then it follows it cannot be true”
Jun 14th, 2018 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“So while I'm unable to meet my burden, my assertion may still be the correct one, since there in no evidence too the contrary.”
Here are two directly contradictory things you said to me. And it wasn't a mistake either, you refused to admit that you had contradicted yourself or that either of these is untrue.
I predict you will still refuse to admit the glaringly obvious now.
No Terry...“In the late 18th century, a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”...is what you said that is why I put it in quotes...I said, “I wonder who brought them...all 3.4 million of them...” how do they contradict each other...?
Jun 14th, 2018 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -2It's quite simple I was having a conversation with Roger...about British hypocrisy and you just happened to butt in...
I wasn't even replying to you, I saw your quote and added the muse underneath...
”I wonder who brought them....
...all 3.4 million of them”
Meaning the British brought them and I surmised that someone would Google how many slaves the British transported during the slave trade...thinking I was exaggerating and find it was 3.4 million of them in total...
I also assumed that seeing as you keep mentioning the slaves that surely you must have at least read a little about it...
When I saw later that you had misinterpreted my meaning I corrected you...
That is not fraud I can't help it if you jump into someone's conversation and misinterpret a post not directed at you...
Quite simple to understand in context, but I always have to explain to you in Janet and John fashion...it appears...
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 14th, 2018 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Here are two directly contradictory things you said to me. And it wasn't a mistake either ...I predict you..” No! this is plain unadulterated duplicitous misrepresentation, because what I actually stated is: “So if its 'truth' is unsupported, then it may still be true. It only pertains to opinions, not to issues of fact”
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, extraordinaire and mythology major
“Meaning the British brought them...” Wrong!
“More than 70 percent of the value of all imports arriving in Buenos Aires were enslaved Africans. Slaves came primarily from Brazil via the Portuguese slave trade from Angola and other western states in Africa. ...the period of blanqueamiento, or the disappearance of the black population.” Slavery in Argentina Erika Edwards
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0157.xml
Of course it was wrong ya dope...
Jun 14th, 2018 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If the British only traded 3.4 million slaves most would have gone to their own colonies...
Not only wrong , but obviously wrong to anyone...
Perhaps if you had bothered to read about it before assuming you would have known..
You blatant liar, Terry. Here's your comment in full:
Jun 14th, 2018 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“3 DemonTree
“None of those quotes says anything at all similar to your statement. And I don't have to refute your claim.”
Thats correct, but neither those quotes do anything other than buttress my statement.
Meanwhile, your unable to refute, the compellability of those that assert to prove. The truth of the statement “Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense. You've attempted an 'argument from ignorance' and a 'reductio ad absurdum', in attempting to shift the burden of proof to an irrelevant aspect of philosophy.
So while I'm unable to meet my burden, my assertion may still be the correct one, since there in no evidence too the contrary.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/27/deutsche-bank-in-danger-zone-shares-down-50-this-year-and-sliding/comments#comment450984
And you're not allowed to change your mind afterwards and say it was just an opinion, because that would be speaking out of both sides of your mouth, blowing hot and cold etc, and according to you you're estopped from saying anything different later.
Now go on and deny that your own rules apply to you, Hypocrite.
@Voice
That number was lower than I expected, actually. The only thing I thought unlikely was that most of the slaves in Argentina were brought on British ships, when BA was so much closer to Brazil with its big Portuguese slave trade.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 15th, 2018 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You blatant liar, Terry. Here's your comment in full:”
No, I'm not, if you through lack of any citation left me to follow a trail through six threads. That is what I discovered on my merry journey.
So if I can't discover what you wouldn't reveal that's your fault not mine. Incidentally, the very next post is exactly as I stated. “It only pertains to opinions, not to issues of fact. As they should be easily provable. The only likely reason for such a refusal, is the party knows it's not true.” So a simple apology should suffice to correct the record.
@Terry the Hypocrite
Jun 15th, 2018 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are simply making things worse for yourself, by making more contradictory statements. First you say Voice is not allowed to clarify his statement about the number of slaves, but must stand by your misinterpretation of it. However, you insist that you are allowed to clarify your statement about being unable to meet your burden of proof, and so far from standing behind it, you claim I am misrepresenting you by quoting it. An obvious contradiction and your usual hypocrisy.
Second you say now that a simple apology should suffice to correct the record, but in this very thread you have said any attempt to amend your words is a clear admission of fraud, and that you are 'estopped' from claiming anything else whether it's true or not. Which is it? (And I note that you did NOT apologise in that thread, so you have not 'cleared the record' (what record?) anyway.)
Thirdly, you tried to get out of proving your statement by saying it was just an opinion, yet you've repeatedly said “Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense” and “he who asserts must prove”. Another contradiction.
Conveniently, all your rules about who must prove things, whether people are allowed to correct their words or even someone else's misunderstanding of them, and whether something is an opinion or a fact that must be proved, only apply to other people. Whenever they would prove troublesome for you, you happily ignore them. This is why I call you a hypocrite.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 15th, 2018 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Daniel Voskoboynik was the author who stated “a third of Argentina’s population were slaves or of African origin.”
You reiterated that statement and added “I wonder who brought them...all 3.4 million of them...” This what you said and it's what you're stuck with,
as estoppel applies, even under Argentine law. So you can whinge all want, the cat is out of the bag, and you are held accountable for what you say period, as there is no equivocation permitted.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“Things worse ... by making more contradictory statements.” Not at all its crystal clear, it's a comparison between FACTS vis-à-vis OPINIONS, two different issues, i.e. apples and oranges. Sorry your bosom buddy was revealed in all his glory. But facts are facts and opinions are opinions. I don't expect an apology from someone
who's only purpose is a personal angst. Its sufficient for me to expose your attempted sophistry.
“It only pertains to opinions, not to issues of fact.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/27/deutsche-bank-in-danger-zone-shares-down-50-this-year-and-sliding/comments#comment450988
You are the one who needs to apologise, idiot. If your statement is just an opinion then you have revealed nothing more than you own opinion of Jack Bauer (along with your extreme stupidity and stubbornness). But you previously claimed (falsely) that every statement is true or false, so saying yours is an opinion in no way exempts you from having to prove it, as you are claiming now. More contradictions from Terry LIAR Hill.
Jun 15th, 2018 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've changed my mind; talking to you is not exactly like playing chess with a pigeon, it's like playing with someone who has drastically misunderstood the rules, and insists that you follow his own warped understanding of them. Which might actually be doable, except that he refuses to follow any rules himself and simply moves his pieces anywhere on the board as he chooses, then declares he's won. Totally pointless.
PS. Estoppel is a legal term and does not apply to debate on an internet forum. Duh.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 15th, 2018 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A fact is a statement that can be proven true, while an opinion is a statement that cannot be proven true. Facts can be confirmed by checking books or reliable internet sources” http://www.education.com/lesson-plan/can-you-prove-it-facts-and-opinions/
Give yourself a shake, you made an emphatic claim which is shown to be false. So now you want to a second kick at the can, and engage in the fallacy of moving the goal-posts.
Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.” So for all of the reasons above your claims are conclusively shown to be false.
I'm impressed; I've never met such a small mind inside such a big head before.
I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.
I would have liked to insult you, but the sad truth is that you wouldn't understand me.
You quoted a false statement either in ignorance or fraudulently...
Jun 15th, 2018 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did you think it was true or false...?
“Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.”
Are you ignorant or fraudulent...?
We all know it's the former Terry...
Why not admit it...?
Or you deliberately misled me with false information.... ”It's a long tradition in all aspects of law that you cannot benefit from your own fraud.”...;-))))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jun 15th, 2018 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's over for you as you're clearly defined by what you state, which was “I wonder who brought them...all 3.4 million of them...” It's what you're stuck with, therefor you're done like dinner.
“Losers are always in the wrong” Spanish Proverb
a. The statement below is NOT an opinion, it's a fact:
Jun 15th, 2018 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So while I'm unable to meet my burden, my assertion may still be the correct one, since there is no evidence to the contrary.”
b. Your original claim (which contradicts the above) is neither a fact nor an opinion; it's a false statement, and trivially disprovable. That you still refuse to recognise this implies you are either remarkably stupid or intellectually dishonest. Probably both.
c. Anything you say or write must first be a thought, so opinions are also thoughts and your two quotes contradict each other.
-----
“I'm impressed; I've never met such a small mind inside such a big head before.
I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.
I would have liked to insult you, but the sad truth is that you wouldn't understand me.”
Did you get these off a coffee mug? What is it you continually repeat (hah!) about imitation? Oh yes:
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”? Oscar Wilde
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation” Herman Melville
“Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from the imitation of those who we cannot resemble” Samuel Johnson
“In everything truth surpasses the imitation and copy” Marcus Tullius Cicero
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 15th, 2018 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Babble on little brook your moment in the sunlight is over. The instant you were revealed as deliberately misrepresenting the issue.
“or the wretched conceit of a liar, in supposing himself clever enough to invent stories so ingenious that they shall, for any time, impose on people for the truth, and the still grosser folly in imagining, as he must do, that the world will, without investigation and analysis, take for granted anything he chooses to assert that world more shrewd, more cunning, and as prying as himself what a conceited ass must the liar be! How superior over others in cunning must he not believe himself! What fools must he not suppose the rest of mankind!”
CHARLES WILLIAM DAY, The Maxims, Experiences, and Observations of Agogos
As per usual, after losing the argument in 5 different ways, he flies away declaring he's won.
Jun 15th, 2018 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Voice
To be fair, his interpretation of your comment is the most natural one. I just object to his absurd illogic and idiocy.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jun 15th, 2018 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“after losing the argument...” great example of a completely 'self-serving' statement.
“Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts.”
E. B. White
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!