You haven't proven anything.

 

I have to disagree with you @shootersa he proves a great deal with every post created....Total and complete ignorance of the truth...

 

And again just another totally false statement just like your false claims about the Steele Dossier.

 

Point Proven....

 

Yes I can prove and back up what I say. And will continue to on this thread. @shootersa's lies about the Steele Dossier have gone on long enough.

 

The only thing you prove is just how little you know and understand of the truth.... Not everyone can or will be baffled by your bullshit...

 

Don't just sit there and run your mouth. Prove it.

 

Stumbler says "don't just run your mouth" ....... after stumbler posts another wall of his bullshit.

The entertainment value alone is worth seeing how far the forum American hater will take this.

 

If I thought that you were open in any way, shape, or form to an honest and open debate I would greatly do so.

However, you have proven time and time again that you don't care about having an open debate. All you care about is that you're right, at least in your mind, and anyone that disagrees with you is a treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican clown...

Personally, I think you're a close minded, bitter individual because of some perceived wrong you think you experienced in life with nothing better to do than to piss off as many people as possible on any given day because everyone understands that misery loves company and the only ones that agree with or like the the garbage posted are just as unhappy because life dealt them the same shit hand.

You my friend, are NOT worth my time, energy, or consideration to prove a damn thing too. I don't have battles of wits with unarmed people, it's not fair to me....

 

Your extended personal attack rant is completely wrong. I would welcome a debate with you on this topic or any other for that matter as long as we both agree to actual debate rules. One stick to the topic no tangents deflection, distraction, or personal attacks and name callng. Two argue with sources to back up what is said. And I will even commit to not using RAWSTORY as a source. Three answer the questions asked. And four, when a point is proven wrong concede the point and do not try to bring it up again.


Are you willing to debate by those rules. If so say so right here. And if you don't then we know you are the one who is closed minded and afraid of an honest debate. It is your move.

 

@Barry D

Well here try @shootersa's cowardly attempt to get me suspended and/or banned for exposing his out and out lies about the Steele Dossier. Maybe you will have better luck than shootersa because due to his favored status the administration does not respond because if they did they would have to acknowledge they let shootersa get away with aggressive bashing, personal attacks, and name calling that gets other members suspended or banned.


https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/once-and-for-all-the-steele-dossier.667600/page-2#pos

Go ahead and tag Stanley and see if you have any better luck.

 

Uh oh.
Stumbler calls out Barry to settle this like "men".
OI! Barry!
Know that whatever you say or source to Stumbler will deny.
Oh, and he loves the role of victim, claiming that Stanley doesn't like him, but likes Shooter.
*Stanley hates both of us equally. Said so himself.
But hey, you two play nice now. No biting or scratching.

 

I will gladly make you the same offer on this topic. Do you agree? If so say so right here. But if you don't then we know everything you are saying here is just psychological projection were you are falsely accusing me of what you are actually guilty of yourself.

 

@stumbler as much as I would enjoy debating you, rules and all, I respectfully decline your offer....
I decline not out of fear of defeat, I just don't consider you worthy of my time or energy....
As I said previously, I don't have battles of wits with unarmed people.... I'm sure you'll spin it differently....

 

No this is obviously just cowardice where you are lashing out with personal attacks and name calling anonymously because there is no consequence for it and you never have to back up what you say with actual effort and action.


But being afraid to debate me is a good call for you at least because you have already lost this one. Anytime someone resorts to a logical fallacy in a debate they lose. And you just did.


Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html


PS Did you report me or tag Stanley yet? Because getting me suspended isn't enough to save you at this point. Your only hope is to get me permanently banned.

 

See, Barry, told ya so.

And no, stumbler, Shooter isn't going to meet you behind the gym after school.
Your insults are noted and dismissed.

 

Interesting....I was correct.... I knew that it would be seen differently and spun as defeat on my part, it's not as if I didn't know it would happen....
Why is there a need to involve Stanley?? I am not as thin skinned as some here that feel the need to report someone when they get their feeling hurt, mine haven't even been phased at all.
As far as anonymity goes, I have no problem putting my name on something, in light of the fact that my name is actually Barry. I don't say anything here that I wouldn't say to someones face given the opportunity. I suggest a review of definitions with regard to insult and observation. What I stated in my initial retort were observational and apparently there was some truth to those observations. After all "treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican clown" certainly doesn't scream open to fair and honest debate with opposing views now does it....Move on, I have...

 

You can't and nobody knows that better than you. Because I am not asking for a fight. Just a civil debate using standard debate rules. But you can never even answer even simple straight forward questions let alone debate. You are actually famous for that on this board.

And besides the overwhelming evidence of your false claims is easily visible on this page.

 

And another
Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

You would have to ask @shootersa that because he is the one who keeps tagging Stanley about me on this and other threads. But Stanley does not respond for the reasons I already said. It would put him on the spot as to why he allows shootersa to get away with the same things other members get suspended or banned for.

On an anonymous porn forum we have know way of knowing if what you are saying is true or not. The only thing we can know is what you post. And so far that is nothing more than just running your mouth with nothing to back it up while making personal attacks and name calling.

When I use the label treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republican I can define and defend each and every term and they do not apply to all conservative/Republicans. The label applies to the Trump supporters who followed him all the way to treason against the United States of America. Never denounced the attempts to steal a free and fair election, the first attempted coup in American history or the armed violent deadly insurrection to try and prevent the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our 230 year history.

That is actual and literal treason and I do not see how you can hate the United States of America and every great thing it has ever stood for more than that.

But the one thing you are good at is logical fallacies.

Definition
red herring


A red herring is a logical fallacy in which irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information, distracting attention from that relevant information. This may be done intentionally or unintentionally.

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/red-herring


Your "observations" are actually nothing more than your own personal prejudices and bias without really knowing anything about me and to fearful to find out.

And no @Barry D I will not be moving on. In fact I am more inclined to be looking for you from now on offering more opportunity to debate.

This thread has a very specific purpose which is to once and for all address the lies @shootersa has been telling for years about the Steele Dossier no matter how many times they are proven lies. It is simply his method of trying to create the illusion of truth by just repeating the same false claims over and over and over again.

In fact shootersa once even posted a very interesting article on it that would be worth your while to read.

How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’

By Tom Stafford26th October 2016

Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford
.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect. Here's how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like "A prune is a dried plum". Sometimes these items are true (like that one), but sometimes participants see a parallel version which isn't true (something like "A date is a dried plum").

After a break – of minutes or even weeks – the participants do the procedure again, but this time some of the items they rate are new, and some they saw before in the first phase. The key finding is that people tend to rate items they've seen before as more likely to be true, regardless of whether they are true or not, and seemingly for the sole reason that they are more familiar.

So, here, captured in the lab, seems to be the source for the saying that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. And if you look around yourself, you may start to think that everyone from advertisers to politicians are taking advantage of this foible of human psychology.




But a reliable effect in the lab isn't necessarily an important effect on people's real-world beliefs. If you really could make a lie sound true by repetition, there'd be no need for all the other techniques of persuasion.



The 'illusion of truth' can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of a propagandist like Joseph Goebbels (Credit: Getty Images)

One obstacle is what you already know. Even if a lie sounds plausible, why would you set what you know aside just because you heard the lie repeatedly?

Recently, a team led by Lisa Fazio of Vanderbilt University set out to test how the illusion of truth effect interacts with our prior knowledge. Would it affect our existing knowledge? They used paired true and un-true statements, but also split their items according to how likely participants were to know the truth (so "The Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth" is an example of a "known" items, which also happens to be true, and "The Atlantic Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth" is an un-true item, for which people are likely to know the actual truth).

Their results show that the illusion of truth effect worked just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgements of plausibility.

To cover all bases, the researchers performed one study in which the participants were asked to rate how true each statement seemed on a six-point scale, and one where they just categorised each fact as "true" or "false". Repetition pushed the average item up the six-point scale, and increased the odds that a statement would be categorised as true. For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable.


Repetition can even make known lies sound more believable (Credit: Alamy)

At first this looks like bad news for human rationality, but – and I can't emphasise this strongly enough – when interpreting psychological science, you have to look at the actual numbers.

What Fazio and colleagues actually found, is that the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was... whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies.

This shows something fundamental about how we update our beliefs – repetition has a power to make things sound more true, even when we know differently, but it doesn't over-ride that knowledge

The next question has to be, why might that be? The answer is to do with the effort it takes to being rigidly logical about every piece of information you hear. If every time you heard something you assessed it against everything you already knew, you'd still be thinking about breakfast at supper-time. Because we need to make quick judgements, we adopt shortcuts – heuristics which are right more often than wrong. Relying on how often you've heard something to judge how truthful something feels is just one strategy. Any universe where truth gets repeated more often than lies, even if only 51% vs 49% will be one where this is a quick and dirty rule for judging facts.


The illusion of truth is not inevitable – when armed with knowledge, we can resist it (Credit: Getty Images)

If repetition was the only thing that influenced what we believed we'd be in trouble, but it isn't. We can all bring to bear more extensive powers of reasoning, but we need to recognise they are a limited resource. Our minds are prey to the illusion of truth effect because our instinct is to use short-cuts in judging how plausible something is. Often this works. Sometimes it is misleading.

Once we know about the effect we can guard against it. Part of this is double-checking why we believe what we do – if something sounds plausible is it because it really is true, or have we just been told that repeatedly? This is why scholars are so mad about providing references - so we can track the origin on any claim, rather than having to take it on faith.

But part of guarding against the illusion is the obligation it puts on us to stop repeating falsehoods. We live in a world where the facts matter, and should matter. If you repeat things without bothering to check if they are true, you are helping to make a world where lies and truth are easier to confuse. So, please, think before you repeat.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

 

Well Barry, welcome to the club.
You'll want a good pair of waders.
You know, for the bullshit you'll have to wade through.