Liberal Forum

@Johnny You  I know what you are going to say. Before you do, let me ask you. If you drove by a train wreck, would you just keep on driving or would you stop and admire the wreckage? People just don't drive on without either rubber necking or getting out to video it. The Level of destruction is breathtaking. 



Anyway, back to the point:
I am making this thread so I do not have to keep answering the same recycled argument over and over.

 1. Exhibit A: The Pink Floyd / Milli Vanilli argument. His first self-destructed argument that proves he is beyond hope. Blackvegetable keeps asking:

“When you buy a Pink Floyd 8-track, how do you know it’s not Milli Vanilli?”

Answer: because there are external indicators — label, packaging, catalog info, publisher, commercial history, recording history, etc. In other words, we do not know it is Pink Floyd merely because someone declares, “Trust me, bro.”

So this example actually proves my point: authorship claims are supported by evidence and context, not just assertion.

 2. Exhibit B: The contradictionBlackvegetable first said:

“Authorship need only be asserted - once claimed it can be falsified, but only with evidence.”

Then later said:

“Unless you post the prompt, you're not showing me....you are asserting it.”

Excellent. You want the prompt because otherwise I am merely asserting it.
Correct.
Now apply that to yourself.You claimed authorship. Unless you provide evidence, you are not showing it. You are asserting it.

 3. Exhibit C: Repetition does not fix the error.

 Repeating the same argument does not make it stronger. It just gives the contradiction more screen time.Either assertion is enough for both of us, or evidence is required for both of us.You do not get one standard for Blackvegetable and another standard for Vegas.Thank you for attending today’s episode of “Logic Should Not Be This Difficult.”