It’s actually quite clear just apparently beyond your ability to grasp. Rather than you continuing to fling verbal feces at what you don’t understand I’ll try and dumb it down further for you and, I don’t know, type slower?
Facts are objective truths. This includes things like the boiling point of water, the speed of light and other scientific facts as well as where you were on a particular date at a particular time, whether you punched someone, etc.
Opinions are subjective, and to the extent that they are true they are subjective truths. The two categories of objective and subjective truths are mutually exclusive. No matter how many people agree that x is a racist or y is beautiful it will never be a fact akin to the boiling point of water or how many feet are in a mile. Even if those opinions are based on facts they still remain subjective because the significance of those facts remains subjective. Objective facts have no subjective qualities unless you get all philosophical. The temperature of the water and the atmospheric pressure are objective criteria relating to the boiling point of water and in no way subjective.
This is relevant here because Lance Turbo was actually correct that truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims. Where he is incorrect is that it applies to this case at all. The only claims of defamation that are subject to the truth defense are, unsurprisingly, those based on a falsifiable claim of objective truth - claims of defamation for being called a thief for example are defeated by a relevant criminal conviction for theft.
When the claim of defamation is based on a non-falsifiable accusation such as racism then truth is not available as a defense precisely because opinions are non-falsifiable. On the other hand matters of opinion, or at least pure opinion, are protected speech and not normally subject to defamation claims anyways. Which is exactly what happened in the case in question.
The claim of being an “adult” was in relation to k9 blathering on about things clearly beyond their comprehension and in no other sense. As in their opinions as to whatever facts were being discussed were irrelevant and lacking in knowledge and logic like those of a petulant child. And maybe it’s just me but Pit or not I think going after people should be restricted to those who deserve it or general gonad- busting for amusement and not pathetic efforts to feed one’s ego. And sometimes people do indeed need to lighten up and sometimes assholes use it in an effort to rationalize and minimize their asshole behavior
And no one “convinced” me. What are you even talking about? Do you think I listen to Rush Limbaugh or sit around watching FOX News? LOL I came to that conclusion on my own, from watching the video.
There’s really only one kind of “common” porn that’s illegal in the US and that ain’t it. So while this comment is…whatever, you might understand what I thought you were implying was much more disturbing, although rape-porn or whatever the hell you’re getting at is disturbing enough. It wouldn’t even occur to me to go there to insult someone but you do you I guess
Look you’re an unapologetic racist on top of being a notorious contrarian dumbass so it is completely unsurprising that you can’t see fault in Smirky McDouchebag with your funhouse mirror view of right and wrong.
You seem to know an awful lot about where exactly the line between legal and illegal porn is. Like. A. Lot.
Why is that snowflake? You seem like the type who thinks about that a bunch. I don’t know this, but I feel it strongly, and that should count for something.
Listen, you know if you’ve spent any time at all in the Pit that lack of reading comprehension that BigT and others display over multiple years has to be an act. I don’t see how one could be a functioning adult and read as poorly as they appear to. So chalk it up to dishonesty. You aren’t going to get through to their weasely little brains because they don’t have any intention of honest debate.
Because I don’t like you. I don’t feel like it. And it would be a waste of time since explaining right and wrong to you is like trying to teach a dog calculus.
You’re still doing exactly what I said, DirkHardly. You prove your logic skills not through claiming you have some sort of rewards, but by actually making rational arguments. Your reply to me, however, was not rational.
This paragraph is not logical or rational. Rather than debunk anything I’ve said, it simply brings up an argument I’ve made in the past. And then it can’t even actually debunk that argument.
This entire paragraph is just a giant ad hominem. Not rational argument.
This also is not rational. For one, you misread my post, where I did not actually make assumptions, but merely explained why certain assumptions would be made. But, more importantly you actually do the very thing you claim is wrong.
You assume that I and “k9” have never felt the touch of a woman. You have no evidence of this. But you are willing to make an assumption. Yet you claim making any sorts assumptions is wrong. You ignore your own logic.
This portion of your argument has nothing to do with anything I argued. I never said anything about the general public.
This is just faulty logic. Placing your statement into conditional form: Stupid people assume the fault lies in everyone but them. BigT assumes that the fault lies is someone else. Therefore BigT is stupid.
It should now be apparent that this paragraph is merely the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.
Except that isn’t incontrovertible fact. It is information that you claim to have, but none of the rest of us know it is actually exists.
It is foolish to try to refer to one’s accolades to try and bolster their argument on an anonymous message board.
And this is the crutch of your bad argument. Rather than bolster your argument through showing evidence that it is correct, you argue that, because you have received some academic credentials related to logical thinking, your subsequent responses must in fact be always logical.
Even if I accept that everything you have said is true, it would have no bearing on whether or not any specific argument you have made is in fact logical. This entire line of reasoning is faulty, which is exactly what I said before.
Your logical reasoning abilities appear to be no better than that of Helmet Doork or anomalous1. Your entire reply to me is full of logical mistakes. It is ultimately nothing but an appeal to emotion.
It is perfectly rational to assume that your logical abilities are not actually all that great, based on the examples you have provided here. If you actually want to try and convince people that your arguments are rational, you need to actually argue in a rational manner.
Really, he did it to himself?
Did he film himself, post a tendentiously edited video to social media? Publish the story in mainstream media with titles such as (IIRC) “This is the face of white supremacy”?
What you are doing is blaming the victim, and I have zero doubt you’ll change your tune pretty damn fast if it was you or someone you care at the centre of a manufactured moral panic like this.
But, evidently, the kid is a convenient scapegoat for Trump, can’t really hurt the big guy so lash it out on a kid, it’s utterly disgusting.