Corbyn criticised by his own mps about Russia

[transam]

Corbyn has obviously come under pressure to back track for the good of the party they have probably taken a look at the opinion polls on the subject

and corbyn has decided to be some what more coherent instead of " I support the governments expulsion of the Russian diplomats"

along with the comment " we need more evidence before coming to a conclusion" a sort of have your cake and eat it comment.

Tis a wonder he has not flown out to Moscow by now , to congratulate Putin on his election victory He would need to be reminded to pack his shoe shining box , just in case Putin wants his shoes polished

 

[Notch7]

What does it have to do with Hitchen?

Oh dear Wrongabe doesnt understand the meaning of logical fallacy.

not surprising, his rambling posts show a shocking lack of logic

 

[Notch7]

I read that this poisoning caper was a political sleight of hand to avoid TM taking the brunt of the blame for compromises made in order to gain a transition deal with the EU

Ha ha,

Now you are saying the conservative party did the poisoning

Great conspiracy theory, did they recruit Elvis to send to Salisbury.....

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I read that

I read that

Ha ha,

Now you are saying the conservative party did the poisoning

Great conspiracy theory, did they recruit Elvis to send to Salisbury.....

Notaclue is demonstrating his utter stupidity again.
Do you not understand Hitchen's relative irony?

 

[Notch7]

I say again, "what does it have to do with Hitchen?"
Or is this another of your silly idiotic mistakes that you will claim is irrelevant, because it is your mistake?
Effing plonker.
Have you decided to ditch your alter ego now, "sodinfraud"?
I am amazed how anyone can be so stupid enough to think that they can join a forum to support and defend your ridiculous allegations, but within 72 hours, not only lose their own credibility but manage to destroy your allegations in the process.
You really are so stupid, unbelievably stupid.
So utterly stupid you are even an abject failure as a troll.

Some quite unpleasant insults in that load of drivel, its very upsetting when somebody flouts the rules and is so insulting.

I'm surprised the moderators put up with it.

I mean even new members quickly seem to agree there is a major problem

have worked out why this is a fallacy yet?: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

No....I didnt think so
A lack of logic probably.
Understandable when somebody doesn't get why a computer isnt basically a pcb

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

why this is a fallacy yet?: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Stop squirming, backpedaling and goalpost shifting.

that is commonly called Hitchens logical fallacy

For the umpteenth time: what does it have to do with Hitchen.

If you need a shovel, you now where they are.

Have you found any evidence to support your assertions yet?

I read that notachance is so utterly stupid he does not have the brains of a donkey.
I do not consider myself gullible. I believe every word of it.
He demonstrably does not have the intellectual capacity to understand Hitchen's Razor.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof
regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

Epistomology from Greek, meaning 'knowledge', and 'logical'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Keep making stuff up. It is what you do. But not very well.

It is why your allegations do not need rebuttal, because you have consistently failed to provide proof of your allegations.

 

[Notch7]

For the umpteenth time: what does it have to do with Hitchen.

I keep telling you, it is a logical fallacy. What don't you understand? -all of it?

Are you struggling to understand that it is self-contradictory......Hitchens assertion that anything which has no evidence can be dismissed without evidence, does not provide evidence to prove its own validity. Thus making his own statement dismissible within the rules of his own assertion.

Hows George Soros these days?.....still not a British citizen?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Are you struggling to understand that it is self-contradictory......Hitchens assertion that anything which has no evidence can be dismissed without evidence, does not provide evidence to prove its own validity.

It does not need to. It is a logical conclusion when it applies to presentation of false ideas, like yours.
"Hitchens's razor is an epistemological principle maintaining that the burden of evidence in a debate rests on the claim-maker, and that the opponent can dismiss the claim if this burden is not met"

Your silly made up nonsense, is exactly that: silly made up nonsense, and without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
There is no fallacy with Hitchen's Razor. It applies to notachance's made up nonsense, not other Razors, or theories, or propositions.

Thus making his own statement dismissible within the rules of his own assertion.

You are ignoring Rand's Razor.

Now for the umpteenth time what has Hitchen to do with logical fallacy?

that is commonly called Hitchens logical fallacy

 

[TicTac]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, it's an interesting proposition, but it's more nicely rhyming, than anything. It really should read "What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed and ignored", but that still doesn't mean that a lack of evidence doesn't make it true, it's just makes it not provable.

If you told a blind man that the sun was up, because he couldn't see it, he could tell you you're wrong, or he could by the definition of Hitchins Razor, dismiss the assertion, because he couldn't see the evidence, and therein, lies the fallacy of Hitchins razor.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, it's an interesting proposition, but it's more nicely rhyming, than anything. It really should read "What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed and ignored", but that still doesn't mean that a lack of evidence doesn't make it true, it's just makes it not provable.

If you told a blind man that the sun was up, because he couldn't see it, he could tell you you're wrong, or he could by the definition of Hitchins Razor, dismiss the assertion, because he couldn't see the evidence, and therein, lies the fallacy of Hitchins razor.

There are other ways to prove that the sun is up, than relying on seeing it.
Your analogy is faulty.

Anyone who presents assertions, knowing full well that the evidence does not exist to support their assertion should expect ridicule.
Notaclue presented an assertion, and when invited to present evidence to support his assertion, he began his squirming, side-stepping, hole-digging, goalpost shifting, weaving and dodging to avoid embarrassment.

I read that the Britains request for assistance under the Chemical Weapons Convention was done last week

Show us what you apparently read somewhere.

If you think what I've posted is wrong, by all means prove it

If you think what you've posted is right, by all means try to prove it

I posted what is correct. I don't need to prove it.
If somebody disagrees, then it is up to them to provide some evidence to substantiate that.

Wrong.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Notch7]

and when invited to present evidence to support his assertion, he began his squirming, side-stepping, hole-digging, goalpost shifting, weaving and dodging to avoid embarrassment.

Says wrongabe, somebody who nevers stops squirming. I think you may have got a case of CJD, probably caught it from one of French cows that had it.......you know the ones you think dont exist

How is George today, is he enjoying a traditional British breakfast?

And how are you feeling, still having trouble with your diarrhoea?

how many seats do the DUP have? (dont forget, Motorbiking never asserted they had a majority, only that they had the most seats).

I said I read that the UK had informed the Chemical weapon guys early and so they did. And that they were slow deal with it. You cant prove I didn't read that.

 

[SirGalahad]

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/20/politics/do-not-congratulate-trump-analysis/index.html

When President Donald Trump called Vladimir Putin on Tuesday morning, he congratulated the Russian leader on his re-election as President.

He did that in spite of the fact that he had been warned not to do so by his national security advisers -

I thought everyone likes a bit of a contrarian.

 

[TicTac]

There are other ways to prove that the sun is up, than relying on seeing it

Of course there is, but I'm just trying to show you that that Hitchins Razor isn't absolute.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Of course there is, but I'm just trying to show you that that Hitchins Razor isn't absolute.

But it is when applied to the situations for which it was designed.
You cannot apply a Razor to a Razor, and destroy the principle, as notaclue tries to do.
It is like taking Boyle's Law and applying it to Boyle's law. It is bunkum.
Or trying to apply Newton's Law to Newton's Law. It does not make sense.
Or applying Occam's Razor to Occam's Razor. It is ridiculous.
Or applying a litmus test to a litmus test, the results are nothing.

Hitchen's Razor does not provide any assertion. Hitchen's Razor simply states a principle to be applied to dismiss made up assertions without any supporting evidence, just like notaclue's made up nonsense.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Says wrongabe, somebody who nevers stops squirming. I think you may have got a case of CJD, probably caught it from one of French cows that had it.......you know the ones you think dont exist

How is George today, is he enjoying a traditional British breakfast?

And how are you feeling, still having trouble with your diarrhoea?

how many seats do the DUP have? (dont forget, Motorbiking never asserted they had a majority, only that they had the most seats).

I said I read that the UK had informed the Chemical weapon guys early and so they did. And that they were slow deal with it. You cant prove I didn't read that.

You refuse to read the subsequent comments of mine? (referring to George Soros)
Just so that you can invent more made up nonsense.

When you do choose to read the relevant subsequent posts, and I can fully understand why you refuse to read them, because it will blow gaping holes in your allegations, I hope you will accept that your accusations are groundless and malicious, but I doubt it.
As far as CJD is concerned, can you remind the forum (and me) of the original discussion.
The only, and earliest reference I can find to CJD is your allegation:
View attachment 138740

When I say remind the forum, I do mean with reference to the original comments!
Not just more groundless allegations.

Of course, if you will not, or cannot, it will indicate that your allegations are without evidence.
Hitchen's Razor!
So all you will do is persistent squirming, dodging, weaving and goalpost shifting, like this:
"Motorbiking never asserted they had a majority, only that they had the most seats"
In case you are not aware, it does not matter what someone else says, you are accusing me of lying, without a scrap of evidence to support your accusation.