Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Originally posted by: Craig234
When the far right is in a completely indefensible position, they concede with the statement 'both sides are wrong', translation, 'we're wrong'.
I think when someone says that "both sides are wrong" from either side, they are being realistic. But it's good to know you someone that looks at everything objectively.
Well, you have a point. I think in the Holocaust, both Nazis and Jews were wrong.
In the OJ situation, both OJ and Nicole were wrong.
You get the idea.
But I'm glad you have decided the definition of 'objectively only has one conclusion, both sides being wrong.
That is some FVked up shit!!! Don't be a typical lib and put this on something it's not! I still don't know where or how wtf you mean by saying the jews were wrong??? Or even that Nicole was wrong.
Congratz winner of the the most 711cked statement of the day.
Point being that you were siding with *always* saying that the statement 'both sides are wrong' is correct, contrasdicting my position that it's a wrong phrase sometimes when one side realizes it's indefensibly wrong, to at least try to bringing the other side down since it's going down.
You attacked my position as being biased without *any* justification, any evidence, any supporting logic, just practically if not actually a personal attack.
I showed you that your position is wrong, by showing some ultra clear examples when 'both sides are wrong' is NOT the right position you claimed it to be.
The jump I asked you to make - and it was obviously too much to ask - was that if 'both sides are wrong' can be wrong in my extreme examples, then JUST MAYBE I was correct in saying that there are also situation in which one party is terribly wrong, and it's WRONG for them to say 'both sides are wrong' to smear the other party which actually has not done the wrong they did?