Romney the Bully

Yes there is evidence. That evidence includes the fact that the others involved seem to have no problem remembering the event.I find it highly unlikely that the other involved perps recall the incident while Romney does not. I personally find the probability low enough that I don't give Romney a pass.You are demanding a standard of proof that would not be required even during a criminal trial. We don't let fences escape prosecution for knowingly receiving stolen goods, because we cannot read their minds or catch them in admitting what they knew. We don't require that intent/criminal disregard/neglect and other states of mind be determined using telepathy. Those things are determined by inference from testimony and circumstantial evidence.Is there absolute proof that Romney isn't a lying, unrepentant bully? No. But we don't demand absolute proof before we execute convicts.

You seriously believe that Romney and his posse simply hated bad hair cuts?I think it is clear that they singled out a person for assault because he was different. It hardly matters much whether or not being gay was what it was about.How would making the incident be about gay bashing make it any worse.

It was a hate crime regardless of whether it was gay bashing.

Unless you are trying to claim that the assault never happened, the above quoted particular line of reasoning is completely spurious.It is indeed relevant that everyone else recalls the incident. The ease with which others remember is evidence that Romney's claim to not remembering is not credible.

There were lots of people I didn't like back in the 70s. I couldn't stand people who tried to call charging fouls when we were playing pickup basketball. I thought such behavior was babyish. But I didn't assault any of those playground weaklings.I can remember witnessing a few instances of bullying during my high school years, and I regret that I attempt to stop only a very few of them. On the other hand, Romney's background was apparently so replete with bullying that he cannot remember, let alone feel bad about a particular incident in which he himself participated. I see you are still saving the funny stuff for your paid gigs.

Did I?Is it your position that all physical contact prohibited by the formal rules of a game should be considered assault? That when a basketball referee makes a charge/block call, that he is actually determining which player has assaulted the other. Because otherwise, your assertion is not worth considering.If we want to be legally correct, we should point out that an assault is merely an intentional overt action that threatens harm, and a battery occurs when the overt intentional action causes contact and harm. Generally speaking, out of the countless thousands of collisions that I've seen on a basketball court, only a few of them include the mens re necessary to be legally considered assault and battery. Better in what way? I believe that the entire question would go away quickly if Romney simply admitted to a current regret for his actions. His denials simply are not credible and as a result allow Romney to be painted as both a bully and a liar. How is that better?To answer your question. It is Romney's current dissembling that I find to be the bigger deal? Seriously dude. Yet another men dig lesbians joke?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, that's not what I said. I did not say that either. I simply said that I did not like people who attempted to call offensive fouls. That would be regardless of whether any contact was or was not an offensive foul. Maybe you were a bully as a teenager. You are free to give Romney a pass on his behavior then and now.

So why does Romney feel the need to lie about a non-event. My issue is primarily his current refusal to acknowledge that the event even happened. You are mistaken about exactly what abhorrent policy the LDS used to have towards blacks. But in any event, this thread isn't really about listing all of Romney's flaws.

I've made a number of posts to this thread addressing that question. That does not appear to be an effective squashing technique; it looks like lying given that everyone else involved has no trouble remembering the event. Wrong.
The official LDS policy was to limit people with black ancestry from holding a number of important positions, and from participating in some important church ceremonies. The church dogma was that black people were barred from certain levels of heaven.

Do you have a problem with calling an incident in which several people held a man down an cut the man's hair against his will a real assault?That appears to me to be what you are saying in this post, but that impression does not jibe with other things you've said about the incident. And in fact you yourself have used the term assault in Message 81.I totally understand the reluctance about calling scissors a deadly weapon was used, but I don't get the hesitancy to call the incident a real assault.Would your opinion be different if the participants were all adults and they held down another adult to cut his hair?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is not irrelevant that others remember. I agree that the fact that others remember is not absolute proof that Romney also remembers.What I took issue with is your analogy comparing the incident to some repulsive crap that you described about me that never even happened. If in fact, the hazing incident in which Romney is described as a major participant did not happen, then I agree that it wouldn't matter how many other people claimed to remember it. But since we are not claiming that the incident did not happen, then your example/analogy fails. Your attempted analogy was spurious. Edited by NoNukes, : Add outrageEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Given that I've explicitly denied such to be my position, why are you asking me to explain that.Whether you wish to believe it or not, the fact that others remember the incident is putative to determining whether Romney is lying. As I've said several times, the fact is not proof. Accordingly lacing your questions with "necessarily" neither advances your argument nor addresses mine.If you believe Romney's statement that he does not remember, you are welcome to hold that belief.

I can see generally why you'd take that position. But I think you should apply a little context before taking offense. It should be pretty clear that none of the terms I have use to describe the assault have the goal of minimizing what happened. My position on the matter is abundantly clear.

There is no distinction between proof and absolute proof. Those two expression, have the same meaning. There is, however, a distinction between evidence, which means facts probative of the truth of an assertion, and proof which would means facts that inescapably require a given conclusion. [qs]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. I did omit a comma after the word "accordingly", which created the opportunity for you to make a grammar based attack on my statement. And as is the case with with most grammar flames, your attack included one or more grammar/spelling errors. There is no such thing as a "coherant" sentence. "Appropriately" has an "e" in it.I'm going to spell out my position regarding evidence. You are free to highlight any grammar or spelling errors that you note.In deciding whether there is evidence, the question to answer is, 'does the fact that the other participants do remember the incident make it more likely that it is true that Romney is lying when he says he does not remember, than if that fact were not present.The answer is of course, 'yes'. There are a number of reasons why Romney might not remember, but at least some of those reasons would apply equally well to the five other participants. But since those other participants do remember, we can rule out all of those common excuses, thereby increasing the likelihood that Romney is simply lying.Accordingly, the recollection of the assault by the other members is evidence. But the recollection is not proof (or absolute proof), for reasons that neither of us disputes.I'll also note that the above is entirely consistent with my statements that "the fact that others remember is not absolute proof that Romney also remembers." Probative, yes, and therefore evidence. But not proof.Enjoy.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are cherry picking definition. Try this one:

quote:

---

proof
noun

​

evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

---

There is no difference between evidence necessary to establish a thing as true, and absolute evidence necessary to establish a thing as true.The use of "proof" to refer to evidence necessary to establish a thing as true is the conventional usage, and is also the usage I intended. Yes, there are other definitions, but the context forces this one.Of course, your own purpose is for me to be wrong. So you cherry picked a different one.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.