Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@David
1.) I could go either way. It doesn’t do any harm.
2.) Rules shouldn’t be enforced, but people should be allowed to write an RFD that considers them (or not).
IE: if there is a no forfeit rule, a voter shouldn’t be able to award all 7 points for the forfeit, but should be able to specify that the agreed rule states that the forfeit warrants a loss - ONLY if mentioned by one side or the other as an argument. It is after all, a single argument that is weighted against all the others in order to make a decision.
Likewise, if the debate contains a discussion of the rule (like Omar vs Speedrace), this must be referenced in the RfD if applied (or not), as rule discussion is itself an argument.
Moderation should NOT enforce the rules in a way that overrides the content of the debate (so cant treat a debate as unmoderated if no one mentions the forfeit rule).
Anti-Voter rules should never be enforced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I am not Canadian.
I still call it Ice Hockey.
Created:
Posted in:
Chrome and Chromium were released at the same time late 2008; Chromium is literally the open source code used for Chrome. I don’t know where you’re getting your facts...
The whole reason google created Chromium is to have an open source code they could share with everyone to make their own browsers and tie it in with their ecosystem. It ties in with their open source release of android, and its very much the case that Chrome was and always has been based upon the Chromium core - intentionally and by product design.
Of course, as a software designer, I cannot stress the stupidity, effort and complexity of designing and implementing a proprietary browser, then making deciding to split it into the proprietary and open source portions after the fact....
Even the name should give it away; the element Chromium is used to make Chrome plating...
Created:
Posted in:
Never was there a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Except for Create Debate.
Created:
If your hate boner lasts more than 8 hours, you should seek immediate medical help.
Created:
Posted in:
Chromium doesn’t track activity actively any more than Firefox does. I suspect RM is confusing Chrome with Chromium again. Given this one is somewhat up my alley, as I have worked a bit In the past on Firefox, and have previously reviewed the code: There’s not really a big difference between the two.
The main issue is really a faux problem - if you do anything on the internet, your activity is tracked by the sites you use, things you buy, and a variety of other means and frankly unless you never use social media, pay cash for everything, use a different email on every site you log into, and never ever enter your real name or ID anywhere - whoever you don’t want to have your data... probably has your data. Google, Facebook, Amazon, and any data mining company has large teams of actual real Geniuses writing algorithms to mine and associate data from various locations, and I guarantee that the these algorithms are an order of magnitude smarter than anyone’s capacity to evade them.
The thing people should be really worried about, is using cards to pay for things or owning loyalty cards, entering social security numbers, addresses or real date of birth into ANY website.
Created:
Posted in:
Giving your data to the Illuminati only matters if you’re not Illuminati
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Just to correct what RM says - Chrome and Chromium are not the same thing.
Chromium is the core browser technology - and it is completely open source. Google takes this and wraps its proprietary layers on top of it - including detailed cookie and data related features - on top of it to make Chrome.
For Chromium and Firefox, you can be reasonably well assured that there is no sneaky data mining going on because the code they are based on is public facing - and various people trawl the code to find potential issues, exploits and data tracking features - and are pretty good at finding them.
Personally, I’m using Safari - I use a mobile phone and some social networks, so the idea of having any privacy has long since sailed. Firefox and Brave are probably very similar in terms of security and privacy - though I suspect that the Chromium core is probably better performance, in general - as google are pretty good at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yeah - just double checked, and apparently by vague recollections are pretty accurate. Guess I do know it all!
Brave supports most google extensions that run on Chrome - as they both run on the same browser core code. Saying that, if you’re interested in security - you probably don’t want to bother with many or any extensions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
From my understanding, Brave uses the Cheomium core, so you can use some google extensions. It’s been a while since I fiddled though.
Created:
-->
@Death23
I have to say though, that the text, and vote analysis was the smartest thing I’ve ever contributed to this website. I picked out a verbal tell for Magic too that I kept in private so we can figure out if he came back!
Created:
So you’re telling me - without irony - within your 8492nd call out thread of Bsh, and after you mentioning me for the 482018592nd time in the forums negatively - that when you feel someone is acting in bad faith, and mods don't act, you will work in private to resolve it?
Well okay then, Gilderoy!
Created:
-->
@Death23
If it helps, I’ve never seen you take any of my credit for me exposing Magic Ain’t Real as a Multi Accounter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People who don’t have issues with truth, coherence and logic don’t claim the left are the violent crazies, and inciting violence after each incidence of violence, then forgot to watch the news when Trump supporters send pipe bombs, shoot up mosques and synagogues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
An accurate and factual description of what you do is neither paranoia, nor projection.
You've repeatedly accused the left of inciting violence at the smallest incidence; and ignore each and every example of the right wing violence we see regularly.
You know that violence exists, so you’re continual repetition of the violence of the left is inherently dishonest and misrepresentative, and thus far - you simply resort to trolling and deflection to prevent it being talked about. This goes the same way for pretty much every thread you join, be it about deliberately lying and continuing to lie about the Mueller report, for no reason, to pretty much every other claim.
It’s odd - I’m here to argue, and I’ve never seen an individual so adverse to actually justifying anything on a debate website. But go ahead, single line troll strategy to deflect away.
That appears to be all you have!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let’s tackle this one by one.
Firstly, the same dismissive trolling rhetoric that avoids any attempt to engage with what I’m saying, is your modus operandi, yet another refusal
to defend the topics you decide to engage with or not is yet another case in point. Everything I’ve said, is specifically behaviour you engage in; and your mostly proving the point with the deflection.
Secondly, there are some circumstances where people are misinformed, some where they are clearly liars: and this can be determined to 100% accuracy. In your case, your inability to engage in a specific topic, your constant and deliberate misrepresentation, and outright lies can be deduced by the words you say when confronted with an actual argument. For example, your on a debate website yet have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a discussion that is more substantial than throwaway misrepresentation in meme form; and when a conflicting point of view is presented, your replies inevitably attempt to spin the conversation onto your misrepresented talking point.
Given that I don’t think your dumb, or mentally ill; the consistency of this behaviour and deflection to avoid taking about your misrepresentation is only really possible if you know it’s misrepresentation: those that aren’t lying generally try and defend it
Finally: What you’re doing is engaging in a straw man - again. My point, and has been clearly spelled out by my explanation of your behaviour: is that you specifically know how baseless, misrepresentative, hypocritical and nonsensical your frequent propagandizing is - You just don’t appear to care. As should have been obvious, I’m not talking about politicians, people in general, society, or really making a wider point like you appear to be stating; but I strongly suspect you already know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am calling you out for your repeated and blatant hypocrisy, and inability to retain a clear ethical or factual stance on issues, and make repeated complaints about the left on the very same issues that you conspicuously ignore when they come up on the right. I’m pointing out that you have repeatedly lied and misrepresented facts in order to trash the left, giving the clear and unambiguous impression that truth, facts, ethics, reality is less important than pretending the other side is evil/bad/scary.
How you confused that for a “demagoguery lesson”, I don’t know.
Actually, as is mostly your MO; you try and throw out your initial propoganda and misrepresentation bomb to try and smear your political foes:
them hide behind faux ignorant trolling, lies, evasion and nonsense like this.
So yeah: the reason you confused it, is your apparent incapacity to justify your position necessitating you deflecting with an inane troll statement that means nothing. As I am sure you will continue to do in response
Created:
Posted in:
“capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed”
Also, I’m still waiting for you to confirm that you are willing to go on record and agree that you’re an ignorant fool, with no knowledge of major events, if I am able to show each one of the listed examples actually occurred?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Except you aren’t able to explain what they look like, what colour they are...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You mean the air strike where he warned Russia the strike was coming so they weren’t harmed in the slightest.
Why not throw another dozen examples of things Trump has done that don’t seem in anyway constraining to Russia?
I asked before: Imagine you’re the leader of Russia - you want to poison a dissident, attack a country, or act nastily in your national interest.
Explain to me the reason they would decide not to do it?
As I said - I’ve explained that Russia do not seemed constrained in any way, they keep doing stuff; and Trump is famously averse to acting against Russia, famously took Vladimir Putin’s side over the US intelligence services and US national interests and has done little that would give Russia pause to act.
But go on, tell me more about those fantastic clothes your emperor has.
Created:
Posted in:
Firstly, no it hasn't. Lol.Russia;s willingness has gone down when Trump came,he's tough
Russias bombed civilians in Syria with impunity, used nerve agents on allied soil to kill dissidents, is still happily funding the Ukrainian civil war, and is engaging in electoral manipulation.
Secondly, Trump has barely done ANYTHING to constrain Russia, sanctions have been limited and enforcement pushed by congress; and none of the things you listed appear to have any obvious value, worth or relationship towards constraining Russia’s behaviour.
Your basically claiming that Russia’s behaviour has been constrained, but you can’t say by how much in what way, what policy led to it been constrained, and why.
This is a pitiful defence, it’s like you’re just throwing random nonsensical statements out and expecting us to believe them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah, you’re making no sense.
You’re claiming that Trumps refusal to work with Iran, and Iran’s and China’s crippled economy has curtailed Russia’s willingness to act.
None of things present any reason for Putin to be reluctant to act; and worse, China’s economy hasn’t been crippled by any meaningful measure.
This is yet again an absurdly naive non-explanation. Russia’s behaviour hasn’t really been curtailed at all by either Iran or China. There is no meaningful consequences as Trump isn’t willing to actually act against Russia, even indirectly. Sanctions had a much bigger impact - they actually led to Russia interfering in the US election to try and harm a more hawkish and constraining presidents election chances.
You're just throwing out nebulous random statements and asserting that despite making no sense, they’re all true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What? How? That doesn’t make any sense. Lol.The sanctions didn't do anything. Russia was still willing to do whatever. Trump's refusal to work with Iran has lead to Russia backing off
Why and how would a “refusal to work with” a fairly low level regional ally of Russia constrain Russias behaviour in any way? This literally makes no sense - It’s a total non sequitur.
Enlighten me: pretend your a Russian President.
It’s in your interests to interfere with an election, poison a dissident, or kill civilians in Ukraine.
Explain how Iran factors into the decision to do it, or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What I see is you being exceptionally generic and vague and not really answering with any specific details, and keeping the argument so light on facts and information that it doesn't appear helpful.
Take the first part “Russia could do whatever without consequence”.
Why so you say that? Do you think the sanctions levied on Russia weren’t substantial? What should or even could Obama have done to that would have successfully reduced Putin’s willingness to act, without potential destabilization or massive publish pushback?
The second point again: Putin still seems able to do what he wants, no? He pretty much kept bombing Syria, has not been sanctioned or punished particularly hard for attempting to undermine American democracy, and assassinating dissidents on foreign soil.
Thirdly, most of the help for Ukraine started under Obama, how has the material assistance to the country changed? How has the punishment of Iran materially affected Russias ability and willingness to act?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Okay, that’s a place and event.
It’s not a description of either what strategic error was made, nor an explanation of what the current administration has done to reverse this error.
What was the error he made? And what is the current administration doing to undo it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What obvious strategic error did Obama make with Russia, that allowed Russia to rise? Note: you are not allowed to use hindsight. How has current administration policy reversed or attempted to reverse this strategic error?
Created:
Posted in:
I know an awful lot, us: as you appear to be largely predictable, and this fits your pattern of argument, I think it’s largely fair and accurate.
It’s not like, say, our Transgender debate when you suggested I would offer an argument that wasn’t “here are all the issues that effect the transgender, and they are worse than the issues that effect the trans ethnic.”
Created:
Posted in:
Well the difference between my approach to Ks and yours: is that if the resolution was “Ramshutu is the king of Kritiks”.
My Kritik would be that there were so many types and format of K, pre-fiat, post-fiat, semantic, value based, etc : that it’s not possible to truly ascertain an overall king - as someone who is broadly good at all them, as they are inherently different.
Your kritik would be “The king chess peice is savagely underpowered, and the Queen is actually the brutally best peice, and as Ramshutu is the best he’s the queen.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pointing out specifically your pattern of behaviour isn’t projecting.
You're a troll who, like many other Trump conservatives, troll and opine based on the expedient events; then disappear and ignore the inconvenient times when those same issues of expedience bite you.
For example, you spend multiple pages opinion at how the media incited a shooting when a crazy left wing liberal shot congressman.
Now, after repeated examples of the right doing the same thing; you’ve purged those arguments and facts from your system.
Its called hypocrisy, and you don’t seem to do much else, other than repeated dishonest misrepresentation and outright lies.
You opine about Hillarys corruption, and lie to try and pretend Trumps instances of corrupt behaviour that objectively exist don’t matter.
This is the issue with many in the Republican Party now. Your principles and ethics do not seem to exist, and instead are replaced with an emotional need to claim the left are evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
its an implicit suggestion of violence: an implicit thread.
Do you not understand the principle of what “implicit” means? I’ve been saying it about 4729 times, and yet you seem to still be thinking I’m claiming he made an explicit threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do we have to wait for the next example of right wing terrorism for you to end up being conspicuously absent from the conversation?
Or how about I simply begin listing the examples of right wing Trump fuelled terrorism again, and wait for you to conspicuously avoid all those annoying contrary facts.
You don’t appear to care about right or wrong - only the party line and defending your side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That makes no sense. You can’t make an implicit threat and say it isn’t an implicit threat “because it’s Gun control.” What you said literally makes no sense.
Why does “because it’s gun control” make an implicit threat against the president unimportant!
Its exactly the same thing. Both individuals made an implicit threat of violence against the president.
You're selecting an arbitrary and meaningless difference and then stating one example of the right is fine, but a similar case on the left is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Excellent - so you have established that there doesn’t need to be an explicit threat for it to be incitement.
So - why is Ted Nugents implicit threat not also incitement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And holding a severed head isn’t a threat either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Whenever there is any violence even tenuously linked to the left, you’re fake outrage and opinionated trolling is out there for all to see.
The moment a Trump supporter runs his car into a crowd of people, shoots up a mosque, a synagogue or sends pipe bombs to liberals - silence.
Spare me and spare all of us the ridiculous, unabashedly gaslighting pretext that you're interest spans beyond the tribal need to protect clan Trump from any criticism of any kind.
You’re ethical compass appears to flop which ever ways blows towards being able to complain about liberals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Exactly - didn’t claim, the threats were implied.
The same way when Ted Nugents suggestion that Obama should suck on his machine Gun, that there would be bloodshed, and that he would end up in prison if Obama got re-elected weren’t specific threats or claims, the threat was implied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Kathy Griffin didn’t actually claim Trump should be beheaded either.
its the implication - as I explained by constant use of the word “implied”, that is what makes it problematic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No I get it perfectly.
You’re claiming that it’s okay for a celebrity to imply that the president should be shot in the face, because they are talking about the context of Gun control.
Thats a stupid and ridiculous argument: why someone implied the president should be shot doesn’t make the implication okay.
So far, you’ve only managed to peddle this nonsequitor, so I really have nothing else to work with.
I think you’re confusing your desire to believe the right is largely blameless with them being largely blameless: and quite frankly your inability to grasp this basic matter of common sense - that it’s never okay to imply the president, or anyone, should be shot; is really the big problem with the right: it appears that morality and ethics only matters when it’s the other guys.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
And again, for the nth time, publically implying that someone should be shot is incitement regardless of context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
...And the dissembodied head of Trump is for the perception of Trump saying and doing objectionable right wing things.
The reason someone tries to incite violence doesn’t make it not incitement to violence.
When someone intentionally portray violence or intimate violence against a political figure in a positive way - as Ted Nugent did - it’s exactly the same thing as what Kathy Griffin Did, and is bad for exactly the same reasons.
What you’re doing is just claiming one set of intimated violence is okay, because it was in the context of gun control. That’s a stupid argument.
Its okay to not like facts that disagree with you, but quite honestly, If your start engaging in ridiculous trolling, and acting out the moment you’re presented with arguments facts you don’t like, it does very much give the impression that you have been triggered by opposing points of view, and you’re just throwing out nonsense to make the mean man with his facts and reality go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I’m using what you said.
You're just being deliberately evasive; trying not to answer questions, being deliberately vague.
You're obviously being made incredibly uncomfortable at the facts I’ve presented. Hence you appear to have been triggered by my facts.
By all means - go ahead and explain how a celebrity pretty overt implying a president should be shot is not incitement.
All you’ve given me so far is some vague hand waving that its okay to imply the president should be shot when talking about gun control. Which is ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
What RM means, and is odd as it’s been explained multiple times, is that some Kritiks are good, some are bad.
Challenging a definition as unfair, and giving key reasons why the definition should not be accepted is a kritik, but normally if we’ll executed is good and reasonable.
Likewise, a Kritik where you challenge the validity of the assumption: for example that when comparing two things to see which is better, clarifying what better means, and whether better is even possible in context can be good in some cases. A great example is when one side shows A is better than B in some criteria, showing B is better than A using others - then rejecting the possibility of comparison as a result is a kritik, but a good one.
What often makes a terrible kritik, is when an individual simply unilaterally asserts what the meaning of a word is in some left field way; or decides to make some nonsense semantic point about what “anachronistic means”. When someone does that it is less about engaging in honest debate on a good point, and more trolling. When the individual who kritiks like that does so without justifying why the reasonably interpreted definition should be rejected, the argument fails on burden.
A good Kritik must justify to the voter why the assumption should be rejected; imo, when the resolution is fully clear, the person doing the Kritik needs to clear that burden. Different definitions or assumptions aren’t rejected just because one side demands it be so.
Note: while I’ve only seen one good example, this goes for rules too. If people put rules in the debate, they’re all challengeable. If an individual wants a rules to be rejected because they’re unfair, they can challenge it and provide good reason that the rule can be ignored - rather than simply moan about it in the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We were having a discussion. I pointed out that they’re both incitement, and you’ve just ignored everything and started to Troll.
I am completely in agreement that you think it’s okay to suggest the president should be shot when it’s related to policy you agree with : but that’s just part of your own ridiculous position being completely hypocritical.
I also provided other Ted Nugent quotes explicitly talking about and implying violence. Nothing to say about those I take it.
Given that you seem to be also unaware of a majority of major right wing terrorist events in the last 4 years, including Dylan roof, and the shooting less than a week ago: it seems your position is based on what you want to believe is true, rather than what is actually true.
Perhaps you should started reviewing facts, rather than getting triggered and going off into insane trolling when presented with contrary information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You said suggesting the president should be shot is not incitement because it’s relating to Gun control.
So yeah: you’re excusing the same violence on the right because you agree with their position.
I’m sorry if you’re not able to elaborate upon or explain your position: but don’t blame me For your inability to be coherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That makes sense: The right doesn’t incite violence or kill people, because you support their position.
- At least you’re more honest than most of the rest of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Its short for a Kritik.
Its a debate strategy where the underlying assumptions of a debate resolution are challenged by one side instead of the debate resolution directly.
For example, if you were debating whether Christianity was a good moral framework, a Kritik would be to argue that the question is nonsensical, as good and bad is meaningless without a moral framework to judge them by.
Created: