Romney the Bully

I just thought it prudent to point out a few things to no one person in particular...At age 17, neural activity is fundimentally different then it is a decade later. Neural pathway development, hormonal levels, fundimental brain chemestry, even the location of common activity is different. In terms of how he thought as a 17 y/o verses how he thinks presant day, neurologicly, these are two distinctly different people.In fact, the brain isnt even fully developed into an adult brain by 17.Of course, that is not to say that actions at this age or earlier should be completely disregarded, they are often times indicaters of behavior patters, neurosis, psychosis, and/or developmental issues. But neither are they absolutes.In my youth, I percieved a threat from a classmate of mine (a friend at the time). I thought he was going to punch me in the arm, so I lunged at him and drove a pencil into his left eye, broke it off, and thought nothing of it.(They saved his eye and he fully recovered.)I am not the same person I once was.My argument of personal incredulity...

You're making quite a large assumption there. Are you able to demonstrate that Romney recalls the incodent?Is there any evidence to that effect? You're claiming that you are judging his character based on this fact, but you've, without evidence* determined he is guilty of lying before assessing his character.Judging his character before applying the criteria you are claiming to evaluate it from? Isn't that.. backwards?Perhaps I missed something said in an earlier post that I'm just not seeing...

That there are other people who have no problem remembering the event is irrelivant to the question of if Romney remembers.If I say I remember you downloading child pornography along with ten others, regardless of if you committed the offence or not, if you don't remember doing so then you don't remember doing so. No number of wittnesses will change this fact. And you think that an argument from ignorance is convincing.. Why? Would you provide the maths for that probability? How did you come to that conclusion? Do you have anything to back your incredulity or is this simply conjecture? I find it ironic that you, as an attorney, don't seem to understand how a trial works.The issue being raised is if Romney remembers the incident, the reality of his involvment is irrelivant. To use your example, in a criminal trial, if you are charged with a crime (in this case, remembering the incident) and go to trial, the law requires a judge or jury to consider you innocent unless the prosecutor proves you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not have to prove that you are innocent, in other words, Romney doesn't have to demonstrate he doesn't remember the incident, you have to demonstrate he does remember.Remember, strawmen aren't your friends. Nobody said anything about absolutes, what did I tell you about strawmen?One last thing, I also find it ironic that you don't seem to remember what we were discussing in the first place... It hasn't even been 50 years yet...

Would you mind explaining this? How exactly is this spurious? Romney doesn't share the same exact cognitive processes as everyone else involved. That someone else, anyone else, hell, everyone else, has no issues with recalling the incident is irrelivant to if Romney remembers.Ten people line up and watch a couple having lunch for an hour, if not 2 minutes later, 9 out of the 10 people remember with ease that the conversation the couple had during their meal was about the movie they saw, it does not mean the 10th person necessarily remembers this fact.It is that simple.

Yes, I honestly think such an incident is forgetable. Your own argument from personal incredulity aside, can you provide a reason why this isn't a possibility?What about this incident would be so signifigant from Romney's perspective that he could not forget about it in 40 years time? Why do you assume that everybody in his group of friends remembering this is signifigant? Yes, they regret the incident. This is a byproduct of recalling what happened and coming to the conclusion that they were in the wrong, not the other way around. Had they not remembered, they would have no reason to feel regret. Cause and effect. Your line of reasoning is falacious. I'm sure he didn't think anything of it.. Hell, he likely felt like his actions were justified. Why then, would this be overtly signifigant to him, or at least signifigant enough to necessarily be easy to recall after almost an half a lifespan? I said nothing of the sort, though I do not rule out the possability. Has it occured to you that to Romney, this wasn't a major event? What makes you so sure it was? Strawmen are not your friends. I think your question is irrelivant to the quote you were commenting on. Why dont you explain it's relivance, and I'll answer your question. For referance, here's the quote; **The first paragraph was added from the original post the quote came from for clairification purposes.** So, by your reasoning, if somebody cannot remember an incident from half a lifespan ago, they therefore must have 'memory problems'. And this reasoning follows from..?I'd be willing to agree that Romney isn't fit to serve as president, but not because he cannot remember something from his adolesence. Thats abserd.

Yes. It is irrelivant that others remember, because we are discussing if Romney remembers, not if he is guilty of the act. Correct, the fact that others remember is not absolute evidence that Romney also remembers, in fact, its not any kind of evidence that Romney remembers. For clairity sake, I'll post the comment you are referencing. No, you were taking issue with the line of reasoning, not the content of the scenario. At least, that was your claim...
You're not being very consistant.If your issue is now, that you take offence to the content of the example, I made no claims about you, nor did I attack your character in any way, so if you're offended, deal with it. In what way does it fail? Can you provide the link between person A remembering something and person B necessarily remembering the same thing as a result or person A's remembering? Explain that. You have yet to demonstrate how.

So, according to you, if someone doesnt remember something from forty years ago they are a sociopath......Do you know what a sociopath is?

Agreed, let's explore what that something is... From the victims perspective, I'm sure it was a traumatic event but why are you assuming it was necessarily memorable for Romney? Why would this stick out from his perspective to the point where there was no possibility that after 40 years, he could not have forgotten? I chose my words with the intent to avoid conflating with the other conversation on this thread. If you are unable to continue this discussion without attacking my character, then you have nothing of worth left to offer. Your assesment of my word choice is disingenuous and frankly childish.With all due respect, grow up.Edited by Evlreala, : No reason given.

That has not been your claim; You are being dishonest.
You seem to have an issue with being consistant. You have said it once, and what you said is that it was not absolute proof, not that it isnt proof. accordingly [ ə kwrdinglee ]
1.correspondingly: in a way that is appropriate
2.in consequence: in accordance with what has been said or with a principle or practice
Synonyms: appropriately, suitably, correspondingly, fittingly.So, appropriately utilizing a word within its intended meaning doesn't advance my argument or address yours? No, I would imagine not, however, the joint effort of multiple appropriatly utilized words arranged to form coherant sentences would likely do the trick.If you are going to try and talk down to me, I would advise that you do so in a manner that doesn't make you look dumb. It's counter productive. That is not nor has it been the issue. Stop listening to strawmen, they are not your friends.I'll make this easy for you..
How is the fact that others remember the incident evidence in determining whether Romney is lying?

You seem very capable at repeating yourself, unfortunatly, you also seem unable to grasp the fact that because someone remembers something, because many people remember something, doesn't mean someone else will remember it as well. You have provided no causal link between the two, no reasoning as to why you think this is the case. What? Bullying isn't a common occurance in adolesance?

quote:

---

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly a third of all students aged 12 - 18 reported having been bullied at school in 2007, some almost daily.

---

quote:

---

9 out of 10 LGBT teens have reported being bullied at school within the past year because of their sexual orientation, according to the most recent gay bullying statistics. Out of those numbers, almost half have reported being physically harassed followed by another quarter who reported actually being physically assaulted.

---

Bullying Statistics - Anti-Bullying Help, Facts, and More.These are recent studies (2007 and current date), sense 40 years ago, bullying involving physical assault has gone down, bullying involving physical assault and gender role/sexuality/sexual identity involvment has gone down signifigantly.Gay bashing is no longer as socially acceptable as it was in 1965.Don't try and play the numbers game unless you have the evidence to back it. Irrelivant speculation. I dont care.
Really, I don't see why you think that your being offended matters?Nor do I particularly care about your trite story either. You took an attempt of consideration as a personal offence, that seems to be your failing, not mine. Yet another attack on my character.. shocking.
Honestly, is this the extent of your abilities? And yet you are reluctant to do so, what a pity. False dilemma and irrelivant conclusion, do at least try to make some kind of rational sense...Please try again.

proof
Noun: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.absolute
Adjective: Not qualified or diminished in any way; total: "absolute secrecy".adjective/ˈajiktiv/Noun: A word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.The funny thing about adjectives...adjective
Noun: A word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.So when you put "absolute" in front of "proof", it changed the its meaning to "Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement that is not qualified or diminished in any way."So yes, there is in fact a distinction between proof and absolute proof. Perhaps you missed it... I took your grammar mistake into account, my statement still applies...I provided the definition as an example of how I understood the word, because even with the comma, it doesn't make much sense. The answer is no, as Person A's ability to remember any given event has nothing to do with Person B's ability to remember the same event. It's much like flipping coins. Let's say you flipped nine thousand nine hundred and ninty-nine coins and every time they landed on heads. What are the chances that the very next coin flipped will land on heads coin will also land on heads? (assuming a scenario where there are only two possible outcomes for flipping the coins, either heads or tails) Their recollection is evedence only for what happened, not for if another party remembers what happened. It is only probative of what happened, not if Romney recalls what happened.

Excuese me?
Do your research, before you make accusations..Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data The definition I provided fit the context, the worst you could accuse me of is using a definition you disagree with, but you then go on to provide an alternative definition. By your own accusation, you are cherry picking, never the less, let's see how your definition holds. Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth that is not qualified or diminished in any way.So sorry, the meaning still changes. Even using your own chosen definition, your argument falls flat.
Dishonesty seems to be a theme with you.

I understand your point, it's simply dishonest.
You're taking offence to an imaginary slight and expect me to feel bad over it. I don't. Deal with it. Once again, you provide no evidence to support your case, so you resort to acting like a child. Grow up, it will only benifit you.

Once again...
I understand your point, it's simply dishonest.
You're taking offence to an imaginary slight and expect me to feel bad over it. I don't. Deal with it. Irrelevant, not only is this an appeal to emotion, it was never my position to begin with. And yet, you keep talking..
You have a bad problem with honesty. Oh, look.. Yet another unfounded personal attack. I'm shocked. Again with your honesty issues, you should seek help. *points at the quote you are responding too* I never refused to acknowledge what happened, quote me where I did. Your conjecture is unfounded, if you're unable to distinguish your assumptions from demonstrable, reality I would suggest seeking medical help. Can you quote me where I ever said this was my stance? Becasue it IS something that happened, your appeal to emotion is not pursuasive. One more time, you're taking offence to an imaginary slight and expect me to feel bad about it. I don't.Get over it.

Saying that this is my stance is dishonest, are you having trouble following along? QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS WAS MY STANCE. Was that clear? Do you need me to explain it further to you? You've been saying you were done, yet you have yet to stop. Either stop responding, or stop claiming that you are done.If all you can do is attack my character and make stuff up, your opinion is of no value. Are you done making claims you cannot defend?
It's been amusing... Seek medical help.