Rudy Guiliani is an idiot

[The Man]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

This shows that you haven't understood the significance of this point. Since there is no way of measuring the extent to which "X never happened" is true inspite of being manfestly false, there is no way of saying "I hav never, ever, seen Mick admit to errors" is a slight exaggeration of the truth, rather than a falsehood.

Of course "I have never, ever seen mick to errors" isn't literally true. We established that a long time ago. However, it is counterbalanced by the number of cases in which seebs has seen you make an error to which you have not admitted. The reason seebs's statement is still an exaggeration while Giuliani's isn't is because the general trend seebs's statement articulates (mick almost never admits to errors) is still true. There is no such trend being articulated by Giuliani's statement, since he directly compared it to a statement which he stated to have exactly one case. There is no conceivable way in which Giuliani's statement could be interpreted to be intended to mean "There were almost no domestic attacks during Bush's presidency," because he directly juxtaposed it against a statement, "There has been one domestic attack during Obama's presidency." In short, the context of the two statements is entirely different, and therefore it is possible for one to be an exaggeration while there is no possible way for the other one to be interpreted at anything other than face value.

And that's not even getting into the fact that the underwear bomber wasn't even on U.S. soil, and therefore not a domestic attack. In other words, both parts of Giuliani's statement are false, and each part proves that the other is intended to be a precise statement rather than an approximation.

Furthermore, there are probably hundreds and maybe thousands of cases where you have been clearly in error but haven't conceded the point.
I assume this is supposed to be a gross exaggeration?

A "gross" exaggeration? Not really. I'm far too lazy to go about finding hundreds of cases in which you haven't conceded a point, mostly because searching through your post history seems like far too time-consuming a task. However the number of cases in which you do not concede errors you make vastly outnumbers the number of cases in which you have (thus far, you have identified exactly one).

This is why people call you an idiot.
LOL People do that for all sorts of reasons, a common one being they haven't understood the argument they have to answer.

Or maybe you just really are that fucking stupid.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Man

Yeah I, uh, don't think it's a straw man to point out that one of the exceptions to Giuliani's statement is a lot more significant than what thus far has been the only exception noted to seebs' statement.

No, if you had made that point instead of the one you actually tried to pass off, it wouldn't have been a straw man. But you attacked my position on the grounds that I seemed to have ignored this exception. That is a falsehood.

[The Man]

To spell it out even more clearly, for Giuliani's statement to be an exaggeration, there would have to still be far fewer domestic terror attacks during Bush's presidency than there have been under Obama's presidency. Since there has been exactly one attack, and it was not a domestic attack, Giuliani's statement cannot be anything other than a falsehood.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

No, if you had made that point instead of the one you actually tried to pass off, it wouldn't have been a straw man. But you attacked my position on the grounds that I seemed to have ignored this exception. That is a falsehood.

Except that you only addressed that in an edit, which hadn't been made at the time I typed up that post. Or else I just didn't see it. If you want people to note your addenda to your posts, editing them in twelve minutes after the original post probably isn't a good idea, especially when multiple other people have posted after you.

(edit #2: lol irony. Though to be fair, this one isn't really all that important and I won't expect people to notice it)

[The Man]

To address the argument you actually made, if Giuliani intended to phrase his statement with 9/11 as an exception, then it's a really dumb statement. "Obama's presidency has had more domestic terror attacks than Bush's, if you ignore that one where three thousand people died." Not likely to be particularly convincing to anyone. (And still, incidentally, false).

[Cliche Guevara]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Overlooking the attacks of 11 Sept 2001 is so unaccountable, it was almost certainly an error rather than a lie, I reckon.

Overlooking the attacks of Sept 11 2001 is 'unaccountable' if you are, say, a trippy hippy raving it up on a beaches of Goa without a care in the world.

Guiliani is no such space cadet. He was there. He lost people he knew. He saw, felt, breathed the awful dust from the devastation that was wrought that day. And he also made great political hay with it for quite some time afterwards.

If it was an error and he somehow 'forgot', then he is possibly being affected by early onset dementia.

This was a world changing event, and one that brought NYC - his city - to it's knees. He was there, and you don't forget stuff like that. (Unless you have a brain disease).

So, he was once again attempting to make political hay by ignoring it or skirting it or playing it down - which I'm pretty sure is not "hyperbole". Hell, it's not even "truthiness"! It's either an outright, calculated lie; or he's not playing with a full deck. Or both.

YouTube- Rudy Giuliani after 9/11 (Part 1)

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Man

The reason seebs's statement is still an exaggeration while Giuliani's isn't is because the general trend seebs's statement articulates (mick almost never admits to errors) is still true.

"Mick almost never admits to errors" is not what seebs actually said, any more than "We had almost no domestic attacks under Bush" is what Giuliani said.

You are saying that if "Mick almost never admits to errors" is true then seebs's falsehood counts as honest exaggeration. Yet, according to you, the truth of "The US suffered almost no domestic attacks under Bush" has no similar justifying power on Giuliani's falsehood.

You say this is because the context of Giuliani's statement established one attack per year as the measure compared with which the frequency of attacks under Bush can be counted as "almost never". Just as the context of seebs's statement established the rate at which someone without NPD might be expected to admit to errors as the measure compared with which the number of errors I admit is "almost never".

Giuliani's falsehood still looks as innocent an hyperbole as seebs's.

[The Man]

Giuliani said nothing about frequency. He specifically elucidated the number of attacks which he established as a standard for comparison: one attack. He didn't say one attack per year; he said one attack. If he had meant one attack per year he would have said one attack in one year.

And you're still ignoring that the one attack he names wasn't even on American soil.

No matter how you slice it, there is no way to paint Giuliani's statement as an exaggeration.

[Cliche Guevara]

nm. not worth it.


g'night!

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Man

Except that you only addressed that in an edit, which hadn't been made at the time I typed up that post. Or else I just didn't see it.

LOL Okay, so now you have noticed where I specifically acknowledge the giant fucking exception. All you have to do is to indicate where I said something which ignores it and your micksucks will look like a mistake anyone could have made...

[The Man]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

LOL Okay, so now you have noticed where I specifically acknowledge the giant fucking exception. All you have to do is to indicate where I said something which ignores it and your micksucks will look like a mistake anyone could have made...

Considering that you edited your acknowledgement of the giant fucking exception into your post (which, before your edit, directly responded to the post in which I noted the giant fucking exception and completely ignored it) after I had already made a response to you, yes it does look like a mistake anyone could have made, since the vast majority of people, after seeing that a person has responded to them, don't edit things into posts they made before that person responded.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Man

Giuliani said nothing about frequency. He specifically elucidated the number of attacks which he established as a standard for comparison: one attack.

Okay, are we confining our analyses to what Giuliani and seebs actually said, or are we also consdering what can reasonably be inferred from the context? You seem to be switching focus back and forth to whichever best serves your agenda here.

Giuliani specifically referred to Bush's and Obama's terms in office and if we are comparing frequencies of events, the periods over which the events occured is significant. One attack under Obama is one attack per year.

ETA: No matter how you slice it, there is no way to paint Giuliani's statement as an exaggeration.
And I reckon the same could be said of seebs's "I have never, ever, seen Mick admit to errors". Thanks for helping make that more clear.

Mick
And you're still ignoring that the one attack he names wasn't even on American soil.
Yes I guess I am, but only because I'm not saying "we've had one under Obama" is true. I am focussing on whether "We had no domestic attacks under Bush" might qualify as innocent hyperbole according to the arguments you've used elsewhere.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Man

... which, before your edit, directly responded to the post in which I noted the giant fucking exception and completely ignored it ...

You are confusing an absence of explicit acknowledgement with ignoring. Even before I had edited in my comment acknowledging the giant fucking exception, I wasn't ignoring it. Your "a giant exception you seem to ignore" was a micksucks straw man the moment you thought of posting it.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Okay, are we confining our analyses to what Giuliani and seebs actually said, or are we also consdering what can reasonably be inferred from the context? You seem to be switching focus back and forth to whichever best serves your agenda here.

Giuliani specifically referred to Bush's and Obama's terms in office and if we are comparing frequencies of events, the periods over which the events occured is significant. One attack under Obama is one attack per year.

Ok, how much more clearly do I have to spell it out? Giuliani said that there were domestic attacks under Obama. This is false. Giuliani also said that there were no attacks under Bush. This is also false. There is no way to reconcile this as "exaggeration" because what Giuliani said is the exact opposite of what actually took place. The frequency is a complete red herring.

And again, 9/11. There's no way you could fucking forget that especially if you were mayor of New York and used it in your campaigning as much as 9iu11ani has. Flat-out lie.

ETA: No matter how you slice it, there is no way to paint Giuliani's statement as an exaggeration.
And I reckon the same could be said of seebs's "I have never, ever, seen Mick admit to errors". Thanks for helping make that more clear.

You reckon that, huh? How pomo of you. Unfortunately, seebs' statement is not inextricably linked with another falsehood the way Giuliani's: he really has seen you refuse to admit to errors far more often than a normal person would. Unless you have evidence to the contrary which you've been withholding, in which case it would certainly be in your best interest to provide it.

And you're still ignoring that the one attack he names wasn't even on American soil.
Yes I guess I am, but only because I'm not saying "we've had one under Obama" is true. I am focussing on whether "We had no domestic attacks under Bush" might qualify as innocent hyperbole according to the arguments you've used elsewhere.

Red herring. Your initial statement was that Giuliani's statement was a hyperbole rather than a lie. Context, as you already agreed, matters.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You are confusing an absence of explicit acknowledgement with ignoring. Even before I had edited in my comment acknowledging the giant fucking exception, I wasn't ignoring it. Your "a giant exception you seem to ignore" was a micksucks straw man the moment you thought of posting it.

You made a post that did not address a very important flaw in your argument. I am sorry this offends your oh so fragile ego but the simple fact is that from all the evidence I was aware of, the natural conclusion was that you were ignoring it (and I even deliberately phrased my post to make it clear that I may have been mistaken). I'm not going to apologise because you've made it more than apparent that if you had done the same thing, you would not extend the same courtesy to others.

[chunksmediocrites]

From the OP:

Originally Posted by Rudy Giuliani

We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama.

That is not an exaggeration, that is a lie.
From the last paragraph of Politifact's article:

Giuliani ran a presidential campaign based on the leadership he showed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. We would expect him to at least acknowledge that those attacks occurred while George W. Bush was president. But even considering that he was talking post-9/11, Giuliani is just plain wrong to suggest no terrorist attacks happened under Bush's watch. The clarifications added by a Giuliani spokesman are thredded so thin, it sounds like damage control more than anything. We say Pants on Fire!

In case children in the UK don't use this rhyme, that's pants on fire, as in "Liar, liar, pants on fire". Not "exaggerator, exaggerator, slacks in the incinerator".

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

In case children in the UK don't use this rhyme, that's pants on fire, as in "Liar, liar, pants on fire". Not "exaggerator, exaggerator, slacks in the incinerator".

Oh Christ! Now you've done it. Mickthinks now has his new mission in life: correcting the "social damage" done by the lack of nuance in children's schoolyard rhymes.

[Caligulette]

I am going to taunt people with that one. Also, I have two children now, and so this little rhyme will go global in about three weeks.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Naruto

I was wondering why this thread wasn't about mick yet.

I wonder why anyone engages in dialogue with the idiot.

[The Man]

Boredom and/or masochism.

[Garnet]

I'm betting on masochism.

[Stephen Maturin]

Not long after Goodbye Rudy Tuesday, I read some journalist's interview with some pundit about the reasons for 9iu11iani's epic failure. The journalist asked how 9iu11iani's bid fell apart so quickly and so completely given his early sky high public approval ratings and massive reserves of campaign cash. The pundit's spot-on, two-word assessment: "He campaigned."

At his many public appearances there was simply no way for Rudy to hide what a sociopathic, lying puddle of fuck he is. Only the weakest and weepiest of the 9/11 sorrow junkies could picture 9iu11iani as president. Rudy's failure was a little oasis of sanity in a campaign season that featured birfers, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney squabbling over whether Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, Paultardation, Ashley "I was brutally attacked by a Giant Invisible Negro" Todd, etc. etc. etc.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Man

Ok, how much more clearly do I have to spell it out? Giuliani said [...] that there were no attacks under Bush. This is also false.

Okay, how much more clearly do I have to spell this out? seebs actually said he had never, ever, seen me admit to errors. This is also false.

[seebs] really has seen you refuse to admit to errors far more often than a normal person would.
Actually this is also false. It's a popular misconception that seebs has repeated so often that you've apparently come to believe it. But it's also a red herring, because even if it were true it wouldn't make seebs original falsehood any less false.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by The Man

You made a post that did not address a very important flaw in your argument.

That just shows how little you have understood of my argument. The 9-11 attacks show that Giuliani's statement is literally false. But they don't stop it being mere hyperbole, just as the occasion on which seebs saw me admit to an error does not itself prevent you from saying seebs denial was mere hyperbole.

I'm not going to apologise because you've made it more than apparent that if you had done the same thing, you would not extend the same courtesy to others.
Wait! If you are not apologising because you think I've made similar mistakes without apologising, I think that shows you do recognise that you have made the mistake that you are quibbling about.

I am sorry this offends your oh so fragile ego ...
Do you think this kind of cod-psychological sniping makes your argument look stronger?

[Brimshack]

Heh! Cause if it weren't for Seebs no-one here would ever think Mick was reluctant to admit an error!

I wonder who is responsible for the impression that he keeps pulling threads off topic in the pursuit of personal vendettas...