Stewsburntmonkey wrote:First off, your use of "proof" is highly selective. What you did was nothing resembling "proof".
It resembled something that you could no longer deny and piles of evidence that you had deliberately and repeatedly lied. It resembled proof that your statements were false and you were trying to hide it. Your lack of admission does not weaken that.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:You took a statement out of context and have not listened at all to my explanation of where it came from.
Hehe. I took the original statement you made. Then, instead of letting you switch it about and change it and qualify it away to clear yourself, I maintained your original statement in my critique. I see no problem with that. Seeing as you claim to always check your facts, surely every statement you make should be factually accurate without needing to be adapted and changed three times. Because you were not 'explaining' it, you were changing it.
Shall we see your changing comments:
sbm wrote:There have been less than 1 million abortions ever reported worldwide. Certainly there are a lot of unreported abortions, but I still think it is a stretch to say millions of deaths can be atributed to abortions. Then there is the whole when does a collection of cells become life debate.
In this quote, we see you claim there have been less than a million abortions reported ever. That is not true. There have been 10s of millions if not hundreds. In the post, you separate out the 'collection of cells become life' issue from your claim.
sbm wrote:Yeah, I do not include the morning after pill in the numbers I gave (only what I would call medical and surgical abortions are counted).
You discounted the morning after pill, but maintained that surgical and medical abortions counted. The rest of your post was about the morning after pill and you said "Even most anti-abortion people don't consider morning after pills as a real abortion (though many do)." The statistics I provided had not included the morning after pill which was the excuse you used to explain away the difference.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:It was a very selective count of abortions (only those late term abortions that could be taken as killing a child, as opposed to a bunch of cells).
Funnily enough, in your first post you had separated out the whole question of timing from your claims. Neither of your first two posts said that you were discounting all except 'late term' abortions. You singularly failed to say that. For all intents and purposes, this is an all new claim.
First you simply said 'abortions', then you said 'surgical and medical abortions', and now you say 'late term surgical and medical abortions'. If I had dramatically changed my ground and switched and altered what I said, you would be calling me on it.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:In fact anything I say, you automatically assume is a lie.
I let you get away with unqualified assertions in the past, because I believed they were so easy to prove one way or the other that no-one would bother lying. I have now seen the error of my ways.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:A lie implies prior knowledge that what you are saying is false. I have never lied in any of my posts. I never post anything I know to be false.
I took a statement you made and showed you it was entirely false. You then lied repeatedly claiming you had found sources and such and never produced a single source. You claimed you were talking only about surgical and medical abortions. When I pointed out that there were still millions upon millions more than you said, you changed your tune again, for the third time. Your definition of 'abortion' has now changed for about the 3rd time in one debate and no longer fits any definition of anyone else.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about here. . . abortion? If it is that, that was weeks ago. . . and I have explained that more than I feel is necessary.
More than you feel necessary. Please, you're a liar, you should admit as much.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:And how on earth do you know if I have or don't have a source.
Becuase you claimed to have it, I asked you to find it in the strongest terms (almost begging) and you refused. At the same time, I can find no source that comes even close to saying what you claimed. I have not a shred of evidence you having a source, so why am I supposed to believe you do? Your word is cheap.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote: If you wanted to talk about that, it should have been in the relevant topic. Not here where no one cares and it is totally out of context (and you claim I am the one taking things out of context).
I accused you of being a liar where I found it appropriate and provided evidence where I thought it appropriate. You have not managed to demonstrate a single one of my points to be false.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:That's like when you compare me to a mass murderer is it?
Sorry, ME compare YOU to a mass murderer?
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Hitler, Bin Laden, Curiosity.
But nice manipulation there, it's a usual tactic, you try to trick people in to believing your asserions and rely on them not remembering or knowing. Unfortunately, I have a very long and very good memory, and I can remember what you called me, where you called me it and I can find it again. Your low deceit doesn't work always...
Stewsburntmonkey wrote: If there are contextual issues then they should be able to be explained, most of the time however this so called "context" is simply an excuse for a hypocritical argument.
Wow. So you deny that there's valid context and situation in world political situations that can be used? You know someone is talking shit when they start putting "context" in quotation marks, as if it's some concept that is only claimed to exist.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:In the UK the PM's Questions session is rather close to a real debate, but the PM always has a huge binder of facts and figures ready to be cited if need be and the MPs generally just ask one question which has been pre-prepared.
Ever watched PMQs? Because I think you'll find that a hostile pre-prepared question is regularly followed by supplementaries, which are unseen. Indeed, the PM does not know the precise issues that the Opposition leader in particular might raise, him and his staff can only guess.
Frequently during Hague's tenure as Conservative leader, Blair got his ass handed to him at PMQs despite his big file.
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:No, that is certainly true. I do label myself pro-Israel and pro-American, however those are not in my mind absolute terms. However many people use them as absolute terms.
You labelled yourself pro-Israel and then later said you could not easily be labelled pro-Israel or anti-Israel and then you labelled yourself pro-Israel again! Are you schizophrenic or really confused?
And they may not be absolute terms, but just because you don't think Israel should be destroyed and it's inhabitants driven in to the sea, does not make you 'pro-Israel' in any shape or form. Your evidence to back up your proclaimed 'pro-Israel' stance is virtually non-existent.