Replies

But if you are trying to be responsible in your evaluations then at some point you have to examine the rules under which you operate to see if they actually map to reality accurately.

And mine do, in my view.

No, it has everything to do with how it spends.

So you are so arrogant as to tell me that you think you know better than I do what my point is? Good heavens, you are so hopelessly stuck in defending your little hero, you can't even have a reasonable discussion.

Have a nice day.

So you are so arrogant as to tell me that you think you know better than I do what my point is?

No. I am only telling you that the evidence disproves your point in every way.

Have a nice day.

You as well.

Before I run, I'll summarize what I think you're missing, since the thread is admittedly getting long, and I was close to walking away from it myself for sake of time.

Here is your statement:

Because it indicates that the person accepting the donation agrees with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation.

You state this over and over again with no proof. OK. Then by the rules of logic, this is what is known as a "premise", a statement you take as true for it's own sake. Premises are a valid logical tactic. However, once they are made, they must be tested.

So let us. If what you say is true, then there should be a long history of words and actions outside of this item that back up this conclusion, a life lived under the obvious love of racism.

*looks*

Wow. I see one other item that is at best disputed, and at worst invalid.

So we have a problem. The evidence doesn't support your conclusion. But that's only half of the battle. Now we ask whether or not there is another reason that would explain his actions other than agreement with those he is taking money from.

Well look at that, there is. He states that if someone sends him a donation, he'll simply use it for his agenda not theirs. That's certainly a valid response: there's nothing impossible about that scenario, at least not that I can see (can you?). That was the point in showing you how the $100 spends. To prove that the alternate explanation to replace your premise of racism was consistent. And as you had no objections to it, it was.

But that still is incomplete. This may be a valid explanation, but to believe it, we have to also see the evidence that he is not just saying this. For that, then, we would have to see a life of word and action that is consistent with this claim. Let's see...

*looks at Ron Paul's voting record, and a history of his own written and spoken word*

Well, what do you know. It is. Our exercise is now complete. In logic, if a single fact contradicts a premise of unknown truth, that premise is false. That has happened here. Your statement...

Because it indicates that the person accepting the donation agrees with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation.

...has been proven by the counter-example that Ron Paul has taken their money, but clearly, does not agree with the stated positions and/or actions of the individual or group giving the donation. We have done so by showing that the evidence for this agreement is all but non-existent, whereas the evidence for an alternate reason, including the mechanics of how it works, is existent, and without contradiction.

It's not that I didn't understand your point. I do. It's that through the mechanisms I've shown you, your point is proven wrong. QED.

Now, have a nice day.