Kalbear Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yes I do.When a large part of your response is "but look at what Trump has said or done" it is truly irrelevant to me, because I do not consider him to be a viable candidate. I only brought him into it because you and others keep bringing him up. When she exhibits a lack of transparency, she acts in a comparable manner to him. I don't think that's fair. Her not being perfectly transparent is still not equivalent to outright lying about things and making up shit. Her not disclosing her pneumonia is not comparable to him saying that he saw stacks of cash being rolled off a plane, or that he was there helping clean up rubble at 9/11, or he saw the video of thousands of muslims in New Jersey cheering. It simply isn't a comparable thing except to say 'this is not comparable'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Just now, Kalbear said: It was literally 4 hours later. And her being overheated is, ya know, accurate. What the campaign didn't say outright is breaking a person's medical privacy. I know how long it was. I'm not sure why that is relevant. They knew she was sick already, and they knew exactly what she had. the 'overheated' statement was pure obfuscation. She's a presidential candidate. Her health is a matter of public concern. Normal rules of privacy don't apply here. Quote Your standard of what constitutes a lie is absurdly low, and targeted specifically towards one candidate. This is nonsensical. We are talking about a specific candidate, Of course I'm targeting my comments to that specific candidate. To do otherwise would not make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I don't think that's fair. Her not being perfectly transparent is still not equivalent to outright lying about things and making up shit. Like landing in a foreign country under direct hostile enemy fire, you mean? Something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Swordfish said: Ha. The campaign came out as late as Sunday and said she was simply feeling 'overheated'. Your standard of what constitutes a lie here seems dubiously high. Big fucking deal. She's having a relatively common medical issue and didn't immediately go into detail about it with the entire world. I guess that means she isn't worthy of the presidency. Oh, and by the way, it seems your standards for what constitutes a lie include things that aren't actually lies. One can have pneumonia and feel overheated. These things aren't mutually exclusive. In fact one is often a symptom of the other. This shit is getting blown way out of proportion. It just goes to show that even if they've been roundly rejected by most, the right wing health conspiracy theories about Clinton have left their mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Swordfish said: I know how long it was. I'm not sure why that is relevant. They knew she was sick already, and they knew exactly what she had. the 'overheated' statement was pure obfuscation. She's a presidential candidate. Her health is a matter of public concern. Normal rules of privacy don't apply here. Of course they do. Especially when being held to such an absurdly high level of speculation. Again, it is a massive violation of privacy rules for her campaign to reveal anything without her permission. This would literally be breaking the law. You think that presidential candidates should break the law? 1 minute ago, Swordfish said: This is nonsensical. We are talking about a specific candidate, Of course I'm targeting my comments to that specific candidate. To do otherwise would not make sense. You are, however, not holding Trump to remotely the same standard. You're not commenting on how he spent money from his charity to buy a 6 foot picture of himself for $20,000. You're not commenting on how he lied about seeing the Iran money being rolled out of planes. You're not commenting on how he appears to have lied about donating tens of millions of dollars to charity when there is only a record of $5 mil at best since 1987 - and 20k of that was spent buying a picture of himself. You're not commenting on how Trump's aides said that it is horrible how we're supporting the TPP deal with China - which isn't a deal with China. Instead, you're simply saying that Clinton not saying that she had pneumonia immediately constitutes her lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Of course they do. Especially when being held to such an absurdly high level of speculation.Again, it is a massive violation of privacy rules for her campaign to reveal anything without her permission. This would literally be breaking the law. You think that presidential candidates should break the law? What the hell are you talking about? The presidential candidate is not breaking the law by releasing their health information. Quote You are, however, not holding Trump to remotely the same standard. You're not commenting on how he spent money from his charity to buy a 6 foot picture of himself for $20,000. You're not commenting on how he lied about seeing the Iran money being rolled out of planes. You're not commenting on how he appears to have lied about donating tens of millions of dollars to charity when there is only a record of $5 mil at best since 1987 - and 20k of that was spent buying a picture of himself. You're not commenting on how Trump's aides said that it is horrible how we're supporting the TPP deal with China - which isn't a deal with China. Instead, you're simply saying that Clinton not saying that she had pneumonia immediately constitutes her lying. Oh geez. This is so laughably dumb that it doesn't even really warrant a response. I could give a fuck less about Trump, since I find it highly unlikely he is going to get elected. There is also no one really running around here rapid posting defenses of him every time he lies(the way there is with Clinton), so it's sort of pointless in a 'well, yeah, water is wet.' kind of way. If it somehow makes you feel better to hear me say that Trump is a bigger liar than Clinton, then i'm ok freely admitting that. But that's not a valid defense of HRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 14 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I don't think that's fair. Her not being perfectly transparent is still not equivalent to outright lying about things and making up shit. Her not disclosing her pneumonia is not comparable to him saying that he saw stacks of cash being rolled off a plane, or that he was there helping clean up rubble at 9/11, or he saw the video of thousands of muslims in New Jersey cheering. It simply isn't a comparable thing except to say 'this is not comparable'. Again, this isn't about Trump, it's about Hillary. I never would've made the comparison had others not insisted on making it, over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 43 minutes ago, Kalbear said: And just last week that's what she thought it was. She got diagnosed on Friday. She said it wasn't a big deal earlier than that. Which...was the truth. She was coughing huge wads of phlegm out last Monday, so she's known for at least a week that it wasn't allergies. I don't blame her for not knowing that it was pneumonia, but I think it's very likely that she was aware that it wasn't allergies. Had she claimed that she had a cold, I would have bought that. But claiming allergies after coughing out a golf ball sized wad of phlegm? She suffers from seasonal allergies so she's aware of the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Mudguard said: She was coughing huge wads of phlegm out last Monday, so she's known for at least a week that it wasn't allergies. I don't blame her for not knowing that it was pneumonia, but I think it's very likely that she was aware that it wasn't allergies. Had she claimed that she had a cold, I would have bought that. But claiming allergies after coughing out a golf ball sized wad of phlegm? She suffers from seasonal allergies so she's aware of the difference. Maybe? During a certain part of the allergy season that's basically what I do, too. Should she have said 'I don't know what it is, I'm going to see a doctor'? How would that have played into the wonderful alt-right bullshit machine of her health? Honestly the easiest answer is the straightest. She thought it was allergies. It didn't get better. She went to a doctor. Got a surprising diagnosis. Knew that it'd look super bad if she didn't go to the memorial, felt like shit but tried to power through it. She did that for 90 minutes and then threw in the towel. If she thought it was super bad she probably would have gone in earlier. There have been plenty of women in my life who thought that they were fine and it was just something they ate, and it turned out to be something horrible like an untreated ear infection that would kill them. Again, the idea that this is some massive amount of subterfuge is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 48 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Yes, shockingly they didn't state her medical history and break her privacy until after she gave the okay, a few hours later. They didn't say anything prior to that that was a lie, either - the notion that it was 'a mix of outright lies' is bullshit. If they wanted to preserve her privacy, they could have either said so or simply said "No comment." Instead, we got statements such as she is "feeling great" (an outright lie) or she "overheated" (an equivocation). 28 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: If Hillary was diagnosed with a type of contagious pneumonia, yeah fucked up for her to till be out there. Her staff has supposedly had similar symptoms so it's probably contagious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Pretty sure that 'overheating' is easily under the umbrella of symptoms of pneumonia. If someone was decapiated you wouldn't be like "fuck that some mofo chopped their head of with a sword, LIARS LIARS LIARS. " You'd be like "huh, looked like the head fell off, seems the culprit is that bastaed with a sword" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Again, the idea that this is some massive amount of subterfuge is ludicrous. Not sure why it has to be massive for us to be critical of it. And yet another example of BUT...BUT...THE DONALD! I know Orange Foolious is a POS. It's not enough that Hillary is not as big a POS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Just now, larrytheimp said: Pretty sure that 'overheating' is easily under the umbrella of symptoms of pneumonia. If someone was decapiated you wouldn't be like "fuck that some mofo chopped their head of with a sword, LIARS LIARS LIARS. " You'd be like "huh, looked like the head fell off, seems the culprit is that bastaed with a sword" A more apt example would be someone getting their head lopped off, their staff reporting that they were suffering from 'lightheadedness', and then when the beheading was revealed, her sycophants coming out of the woodwork to insist that the initial releases were 100% accurate, and it's unfair to imply otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Not sure why it has to be massive for us to be critical of it. Because it's bullshit? And because people - including you - are calling her a liar for it, which is factually untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: Because it's bullshit? And because people - including you - are calling her a liar for it, which is factually untrue. It bothers me. So sue me. It might be being overblown by myself and others, but I'm not sure about that yet. I took the 2nd part back 2 pages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Not sure why it has to be massive for us to be critical of it. And yet another example of BUT...BUT...THE DONALD! I know Orange Foolious is a POS. It's not enough that Hillary is not as big a POS. This is a slightly strange takeaway. In essence it proclaims Trump to be a big POS for draft dodging, and Clinton a small POS for not immediately telling the world she had pneumonia. One might call that a false equivalence. One might also say that this is precisely the reason why a ridiculous idiot like Trump has managed to garner any support at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Altherion said: If they wanted to preserve her privacy, they could have either said so or simply said "No comment." Instead, we got statements such as she is "feeling great" (an outright lie) or she "overheated" (an equivocation). Her staff has supposedly had similar symptoms so it's probably contagious. Is it, and can someone prove it to be so beyond reasonable doubt? In the moment, if she is appropriately doped up (on legal medications) and the fever had abated for a while it is possible to feel great and still have a disease. And feeling great can be a relative thing. When my dad was terminal with prostate cancer the days when he wasn't in pain he might have described himself as feeling great on that day. He still had terminal cancer and was just a few months from dying, but on that day he was feeling great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, Myshkin said: This is a slightly strange takeaway. In essence it proclaims Trump to be a big POS for draft dodging, and Clinton a small POS for not immediately telling the world she had pneumonia. One might call that a false equivalence. One might also say that this is precisely the reason why a ridiculous idiot like Trump has managed to garner any support at all. To me it is a childish response to criticism to say yeah, but look what he's doing. That's what this is. It's deflection. It was typically the first debating tactic my son would employ back when he was like 8 or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 40 minutes ago, Mudguard said: She was coughing huge wads of phlegm out last Monday, so she's known for at least a week that it wasn't allergies. I don't blame her for not knowing that it was pneumonia, but I think it's very likely that she was aware that it wasn't allergies. Had she claimed that she had a cold, I would have bought that. But claiming allergies after coughing out a golf ball sized wad of phlegm? She suffers from seasonal allergies so she's aware of the difference. I have allergies and spit out a foul greyish black substance that would have gotten me burned as a witch 300 years ago on a daily basis this time of year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myshkin Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: To me it is a childish response to criticism to say yeah, but look what he's doing. That's what this is. It's deflection. It was typically the first debating tactic my son would employ back when he was like 8 or something. 1) My response to the critism Clinton is getting for not immediately announcing she had pneumonia is, why the fuck is she getting criticized for this? How in the world is this even remotely a scandal? 2) It is perfectly reasonable to point out that one candidate is being inexplicably criticized over a ridiculous issue, while the other candidate is allowed to skate on actual wrongdoing. We are judging these candidates by two different sets of standards, and that is extremely dangerous considering our judgment will decide which of them becomes the next President of the United States. 3) Even if you think those defending Clinton are making childish arguments, that does not excuse the logical fallacy of your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.