Dishonest Government Propagandist, Sittingnut, Reduced to Insults
It all started when Sittingnut published a false, propagandist article titled “sarath fonseka supporters incite and welcome violence” (visit http://llibertarian.blogspot.com ) (update since the Nut is adamant that I publish the specific link: http://llibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/02/sarath-fonseka-supporters-incite-and.html ) . Since he wouldn’t answer me on my blog (falsely claiming that I censor his comments), I decided to march to his territory. There I asked him how he supports his claim that the allegations of Fonseka being physically abused during his arrest are false… The Nut’s answer was “there is no independently verifiable evidence of physical abuse”… We argued and it went on and on for quite some time (the link is given above). I asked him what he thinks about the fact that the cameras and memory chips of the AFP reporter and Daily Mirror reporter who were covering the arrest were confiscated. But since I didn’t know the names of them and since I couldn’t verify whether they made a complaint, this argument became useless… Then I decided to make my point using an example. So I wrote something like this… “Let me make this easier for you to undestand Snut. If I say that god exists, you’d ask me what evidence I have to prove it. I will tell you that I saw god (There are 4 eyewitnesses). You can say that you doubt me because you didn’t see what I claim to have seen, and also because you don not trust me. Here you do not have to produce anymore facts or evidences. But if you say that god does not exist, I’d ask you to prove it with facts and evidence. Simply because I don’t have any physical evidence to prove that god exists, it doesn’t mean that god does not exist and that you are right.”…. (Fyi, I don’t believe there’s a god)…Sittingnut’s immediate response was to insult me by calling me a fool. Then he asked me “what does [the] existence of god has to [do] with facts of this case? lol”. By the time he asked me this, I had stated I won’t publish any comments on that thread anymore since I had made my point. So I’ll write my reply here… The existence of god has nothing to do with this case. What has everything to do with this case is the logic that is used there. Simply, if you make a claim, you should back it up with facts and evidence… Since Sittingnut couldn’t counter this argument, he resorted to insult me. He also kept saying that even though four people who claim that Fonseka was physically abused were there at the time, since they don’t have any physical evidence, he doesn’t need any evidence to prove that they are lying. I’m leaving this up to the reader to ponder on…. Sittingnut said that unsubstantiated statements denigrating others are slander and that this is a case of slander. I beg to differ. There are 4 eyewitnesses. You can doubt their truthfulness, especially considering the fact that they are polticians supporting Fonseka. But in front of law, they are eyewitnesses; people who saw what happened. As far as I know, eyewitnesses are valid evidence in a court. So I argued it is not slander…. Sittingnut makes his dumbest mistake when he says “fool continues to ignore the fact that military has categorically denied any physical abuse, which means there is conflicting eyewitness accounts.” I countered by stating that whatever the Army claims, the Army isn’t an eyewitness since it is the accused, or the culprit. I argued that only a third party can be an eyewitness. Then Sittingnut wrote the dumbest thing he has ever written. He wrote “not true. anybody can be eyewitness”…. Let me explain this using an example. A man rapes a girl. The girl’s Aunt witnesses it. Later, the girl’s parents sue the rapist. Now who can be used as an eyewitness? According to Sittingnut, the rapists’ lawyer can use the rapist as an eyewitness. The Nut’s a great joker, even though he doesn’t mean to be funny, isn’t he?… Sittingnut continues to claim that the Daily Mirror article ( http://www.dailymirror.lk/index.php/1579-court-severely-reprimands-police.html ) doesn’t contradict his article. I implore the readers to go and read this article, find the dictionary meaning of the word “incite”, and learn who incited violence. According to the article, all what the SF supporterr had done was reacting to violence. They hadn’t incited it. Sittingnut wants them to run when thugs attack them… Sittingnut continues to ask why the police vehicles were attacked. Read the article linked above and also find and look at the photo published in Ravaya Newspaper, in which you’ll see thugs gloating behind police ranks. The police have their backs turned towards the thugs and the eyes turned towards the civilian protestors.