Yoshi
all you're doing is convincing me that you draw your conclusions based on ideology instead of based on consistency.
I applaud your mental gymnastics, but once again I am left with the question of why you go to such great lengths to defend NI while calling out none of the inconsistencies? In fact, you'll go as claiming I am only disagreeing (not only me, but the other GAFers who disagree, too) because I disagree on ideological grounds. Furthermore, I can't understand because your shared ideology is "too foreign" to me. All of these are plausible, I admit! However, you have no proof for these accusations.
I've offered my own side (which you dismiss and break apart further) but you still don't walk back or address the things I asked for. This makes it feel very one-sided, and it brings us back to why I called NI a troll.
Running in circles is not the same thing as winning the argument. Dodging a question, feigning skepticism toward everything the other person said, or nitpicking one specific phrase while ignoring whole paragraphs is not a debate. I am beginning to remember why I stopped engaging you on these topics: because they go nowhere. You never answer direct questions when asked for proof. You never concede contradictions, merely throwing up your hands and saying "well I didn't witness this, I've yet to see that, I see no evidence for that". I can provide links and you merely play contrarian again: oh, this is just being open to new information, these duplicitous statements don't contradict one another if you only consider it from this specific perspective.
Maybe I'm just a bit jealous that you can never seem to extend this gratuitous benefit of the doubt to me and my posts or anyone else on the forum.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c4fb/1c4fb4a004ac374ae735c210f8560be0dce354ac" alt="Loudly Crying :messenger_loudly_crying: :messenger_loudly_crying:"
It is always specific posters and specific viewpoints who you rush to defend, even when there are contradictions. Since your support appears based on ideology and not evidence, that is why I say you are unqualified to comment about NI's truthfulness and reliability.
This circles back to the issue of honesty and "arguing in good faith". I do not appreciate the backpedaling, the misrepresenting of what the other person is saying, or the assumptions about what they I am
really thinking. I'm very familiar with the tactic. Then you have the gall to turn around and say "but what's your proof?" after either ignoring or casting aside the very proof you asked for. Gaslight much?
I'm not asking you to turn on your buddy, or even to agree with me and disagree with them. I'm pointing out how your standards will bend depending on the person and the ideology. When you say "I don't see how there's any inconsistency at all", it boggles my mind.
Perhaps you are right: this ideology is "too foreign" to me and I just don't understand it. I am unable to rationalize the intricate web of inconsistencies with the same fervor and faith as you.
DunDunDunpachi
So no. I haven't moved jack shit when it comes to Mueller. I have been consistent in my expectations of the Mueller report since I got here. I never thought impeachment was a realistic possibility. In fact all I wanted was the investigation to uncover as many negative things as it could about Trump and his inner circle so it could be used to obstruct his agenda. And thats exactly what it did. So me saying I am satisfied is not me moving goalposts. It fits perfectly in line with my stated expectations and desires.
Now you can argue that its a petulant outlook or that its a shitty outlook, but its a consistent one. One that I have maintained my entire time here. So i would appreciate it if you are gonna accuse me of shit at least make sure its shit I have actually done please.
Hey, I'm glad you can finally admit this. My issue isn't so much that you slowly backed away from the conclusions you made earlier in the investigations. It's that you will champion for something merely based on obstructing the agenda of a political opponent. Since truth isn't important to you, I don't see why anyone should take your viewpoints seriously.
Consistently dismissing the importance of the truth is not something I would boast about.
I guess it's up to you: maybe I was wrong about you being a troll, you just have zero substance to your character. If you'll approve of dishonest treatment towards politicians because a righteous agenda is served, I cannot help but wonder how willing you are to misrepresent yourself here on NeoGAF as long as you believe it is for a good cause.