the easiest way to trip-link thinking users is to make a shortened URL of a site that isn't known to be a virus or something (such as an IP-tracking site) you can't screen short-url's so easily without pasting it into a dedicated 'short to long' URL decoder that only serves the most popular shortURL providers.
No, it doesn't exist. The closest thing to it is when the domain is something like the kind of redirect that NathanAllen used on us.
That is where the YouTube is so similar to the text of his domain that if you skim-read it on the bottom-left you'd barely notice it as even the ending is kept the same. It then redirects you to the real YouTube video after instantaneously pinging the IP-catch site where he gets your system info and IP emailed to him.
To screen the URL, look at the things before the '.com'-type part of the link (you can tell because this level of '.' will never EVER be followed by a '.' but be followed by a '/' or by only text/numbers/these symbols: %_-().
okay, the blue text you see, on Chrome it's as simple as this on a computer:
wave your mouse over it, instantly look at the bottom left of your screen. Read the URL that shows; that is 100% the real URL that you are about to click.
If this ever changes or you are using a different browser or something without that chrome-ability like a computer has, it's like this:
right-click the hyperlink (or hold down if on a phone), click either:
1. Copy Link Address
2. Copy URL
OR
3. Copy Linked URL
etc
THEN
Paste the URL into anywhere that text shows (make sure you are pasting and not 'paste and search' or 'paste and go' type pasting into the URL bar. That is your real URL of the link.
Are you very certain that it was from that link or is there not the possibility that the link was to a Google Image of a gun (maybe his and maybe not, from the sounds of it not, he likely stayed totally anonymous so wouldn't reveal it) and that it was from a previous link or encounter of some cyber-kind that he had obtained your IP address?
You probably shouldn't type the part where you wrote 'hoping I could either...' etc.
Anyway, there is no such thing as a regular link. What possibly happened was you saw a URL that wasn't the URL of the hyperlink (the blue text was a regular 'link' but not the website that is hyperlinked to go to when it's clicked. I could even do that on this website, would you like me to explain how never ever to fall for that again or was the issue that the link WAS what you thought it was (same URL) and simply did something you thought it wouldn't?
He gets the link by viewing on an Android Phone's Google Chrome the image on Google Images and clicking 'share' and 'copy to clipboard'. Google vets all the links, it cannot be a virus or doxxing, I am a computer expert trust me I know when a link can be dangerous.
you cannot prove something that slowly reduced over a long time was only due to their approach to hate speech, you can however spend your OWN TIME to try and prove there isn't a reduction which you'll find is brutally false. I cannot be bothered to prove it to you, you will argue it's immoral regardless and that we need to tell people not to listen to the hate speech if it makes them violent and blame the readers and listeners but that's simply too impractical for a justice system to do as it will end up with too many people in prison to be able to cope economically with them taken out of the work-force as well as putting into the prison system the dumber, violent ones rather than fining the smarter, influential ones.
What do you define as harmless joke and one what platform is the joke being expressed to how many people of the race/sexuality/group-etc that you're sadistically laughing at while making it?
In case you go into humiliation-kink masochists who get off on being made fun of, I am both for that and the above making it clear that hate-speech ban isn't applied to in-house type jokes and that abusive parents who hate-speech bully their children are not having their children away because it's hate speech in itself but because of the role of a parent vs what they're doing to their children psychologically (probably physically too as stress can lead to diarrhoea and much else that will indirectly harm the child's development but that's for another debate).
Hate speech bans and the entire left-wing progressive group that I identify with are not usually against hate speech in a private 'fuck them' kind of manner but also kind of are against it when the victimised group is present and also when the speech is made in a very large-scale manner that can both influence hatred that leads to more hate speech and furthermore into violence via butterfly-effect AND that itself is so large-scale that the pain is causing a rift in the nation's social landscape.
banning hate speech has severely reduced the exact agony and butterfly-effect violence in all social democracies that all ban it (western europe, canada, australia and... Well okay I can't say NZ now I suppose)
Comedy shows are just that and will always be a semi-exception (but you'll still never see them daring to hate-speech Muslims or Jews for different reasons, the first being more what I'm getting at). If you meant comedy shows that have clear context and warning 'we are only kidding and are rude as fuck, please don't watch if you're sensitive' that's fine and has a fair warning. If you meant making constant remarks at someone until they snap and they are the ones who end up demonised and fired, that's a whole other story. People experience agony at verbal bullying, no matter how funny the jokes are.
The pain and agony felt in the brain after a severely humiliating and ruthless joke passed about one's ethnicity, sexuality etc., is as involuntary an agony to experience as the physical pain received after a physical strike.
If you believe in true free will, you are simply deluded.
While the violence is illegal, it genuinely happens more often (much more often) the freer that people and especially people who are influential to the public, are allowed to broadcast loathing of that kind of people and this is objectively proven beyond any doubt.
It is true that the speech is strongest when it is done with the opposite: banning speech in defence of the attacked type of people while broadcasting severe hatred for them. What is untrue is that it can't still easily win out and influence many people even though people are free to speak against it.
You can actually, by filling their minds with good or bad information. Very few people are both motivated and intelligent enough to push past that and even if they can, such as those born into North Korea, they have very little ability to speak over the catchy, brainwashed BS that the masses believe and want shoved into their minds, regardless.
You see, if we allow people to speak of pure loathing of a particular race, gender or lifestyle-type, we naturally will have speakers encouraging people to 'end them by force'. Then this will become something quite unlike speech and no, there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop the influence other than to ban the communication.
Nikola Tesla was a fucking genius, you and I both know and respect that. If you had made the other debate about Tesla vs Sun Tzu you'd have stood a chance but I'd still have accepted.
Sun Tzu is literally a man I wish was my older brother or some shit. He's literally my kind of genius and his teachings led to a book or two written by Robert Greene that have helped me to this date to deal with bullies both domestic and school/work based and comprehend conflict and profiting from all situations or learning from my defeats that didn't kill me and analysing why I lost.
There is a reason why you are where you are on the leaderboard. Until you understand the difference between debating and actually finding truth, you'll remain what you are.
Debating is a sport; it somewhat resembles pure reason but it's so much more. There's tact, cunning and voter manipulation. I have been a victim of this and lost a few debates here that I objectively won.
I would never ever debate pro flat-earth or pro-Fiora because I know the difference between debating and knowing the actual truth. Some shit can't be definitively proven, some shit can't dare be said legally. Some shit is meant to be quietly known and simply let the fools who doubt it, doubt it. I don't debate to express truth, I debate to paint the truth and win. This is what Debating is, always has been and always will be. Until you learn that, you will stay where you are skill-wise as a debater and I will either stay where I am or improve; I won't get worse.
It was not the worst debate I've done so far. Your opinion of what is my worst and best debate is as valid as your quality of thought, which is too shallow and fuzzy to remotely impact me in its output other than getting my wins down as your inability to understand my case results in your inability to vote accurately.
So, I don't really care, I am over this site and online debating in general. I literally can't get better at it, I've tested it and did spot a couple of flaws in my technique early on here but now even at my flawless logic state there's still reason to be found to abuse the voting system to get me voted down so that's when I realise the system is flawed and I have got all I can out of it. Cheers for improving my brain's ability to reason, I'm out and probably gonna end up 13th on the leaderboard as the weeks go by. That's fine by me, engaging in debates is pointless and too risky as I have come to realise and I'd probably get my rating taken down more no matter what I do as people can wilfully ignore my case and say 'incoherent babbling hurr duurrrr' and get their vote passed.
You're so terrible at what you do and the system is so flawed that I could revenge-vote Ramshutu as long as I didn't say I would revenge-vote him and even if I said it, I can say 'only joking' later on. The thing is I'm too worried about actual debating and not going down with cunts like that when you finally fix the system and deal with idiots or malignant trolls who intentionally ignore all the rebuttals one side brings and say 'incoherent babbling because i'm too brain damaged to understand it' in order to make the other sides' points hold up.
This is where I'm literally out. Like I'm getting ma get average elo thanks to three bs losses and frankly I have perfected my brains ability to reason so I don't want to stay if this is what passes for valid. Just type a wall of text and your vote is valid.
Actually after I finish my Type1 debate aim gonna take a break from this site at least in formal debating. I want to spot what triggers retardation in voters like this and what doesn't. It's extremely random but seems to hit many voters at once like I. My debate vs MAR and vs Moeology. It is something that I havent solved yet but once I do, it will help me severely to avoid debating in the style that makes voters incapable of comprehending my flawless logic.
Do you think saying incoherent and blabbering makes you less of f a moron for not understanding my points? xD you win some you lose some, can't fathom x the voters' brains.
24-25 because you decided that a song is 2.7/10 alright then. Not ashamed of this loss, first time I went too non-pop so it's hard to tell with voters as I don't know who WILL NOT vote so I can't adapt to the taste of the majority of voters. At least I have confirmed how arbitrary this is and won't engage in this type of battle again.
If we made me assert Mars over the moon, you can write k outer space and even then say the moon is real but Mars is not etc. Enabling such flat-earth angles that I already know are plausible as I believe in it.
You are conditioned to think that. You are also conditioned to make them feel more shit for admitting they believe in it than the fact they believe in it. This is all by design; social engineering over the years.
the easiest way to trip-link thinking users is to make a shortened URL of a site that isn't known to be a virus or something (such as an IP-tracking site) you can't screen short-url's so easily without pasting it into a dedicated 'short to long' URL decoder that only serves the most popular shortURL providers.
No, it doesn't exist. The closest thing to it is when the domain is something like the kind of redirect that NathanAllen used on us.
That is where the YouTube is so similar to the text of his domain that if you skim-read it on the bottom-left you'd barely notice it as even the ending is kept the same. It then redirects you to the real YouTube video after instantaneously pinging the IP-catch site where he gets your system info and IP emailed to him.
To screen the URL, look at the things before the '.com'-type part of the link (you can tell because this level of '.' will never EVER be followed by a '.' but be followed by a '/' or by only text/numbers/these symbols: %_-().
okay, the blue text you see, on Chrome it's as simple as this on a computer:
wave your mouse over it, instantly look at the bottom left of your screen. Read the URL that shows; that is 100% the real URL that you are about to click.
If this ever changes or you are using a different browser or something without that chrome-ability like a computer has, it's like this:
right-click the hyperlink (or hold down if on a phone), click either:
1. Copy Link Address
2. Copy URL
OR
3. Copy Linked URL
etc
THEN
Paste the URL into anywhere that text shows (make sure you are pasting and not 'paste and search' or 'paste and go' type pasting into the URL bar. That is your real URL of the link.
Why are you certain?
Anyway, there is a way that it is possible. The URL he has as the text of the link is the same as the end-point of a redirect link that ends up there.
Again, this is the false-hyperlink scenario if that's the case. Do you want to know how to never fall for it? (I won't explain how to do it).
Are you very certain that it was from that link or is there not the possibility that the link was to a Google Image of a gun (maybe his and maybe not, from the sounds of it not, he likely stayed totally anonymous so wouldn't reveal it) and that it was from a previous link or encounter of some cyber-kind that he had obtained your IP address?
"there has never ever been an inventor "
I meant "here has never ever been an inventor OTHER THAN ST"
I'll correct this in my R2.
You probably shouldn't type the part where you wrote 'hoping I could either...' etc.
Anyway, there is no such thing as a regular link. What possibly happened was you saw a URL that wasn't the URL of the hyperlink (the blue text was a regular 'link' but not the website that is hyperlinked to go to when it's clicked. I could even do that on this website, would you like me to explain how never ever to fall for that again or was the issue that the link WAS what you thought it was (same URL) and simply did something you thought it wouldn't?
He gets the link by viewing on an Android Phone's Google Chrome the image on Google Images and clicking 'share' and 'copy to clipboard'. Google vets all the links, it cannot be a virus or doxxing, I am a computer expert trust me I know when a link can be dangerous.
It's a very fine line on what's illegal. What exactly inspires the ones who say to hurt the type if not the speech inspiring hatred?
you cannot prove something that slowly reduced over a long time was only due to their approach to hate speech, you can however spend your OWN TIME to try and prove there isn't a reduction which you'll find is brutally false. I cannot be bothered to prove it to you, you will argue it's immoral regardless and that we need to tell people not to listen to the hate speech if it makes them violent and blame the readers and listeners but that's simply too impractical for a justice system to do as it will end up with too many people in prison to be able to cope economically with them taken out of the work-force as well as putting into the prison system the dumber, violent ones rather than fining the smarter, influential ones.
What do you define as harmless joke and one what platform is the joke being expressed to how many people of the race/sexuality/group-etc that you're sadistically laughing at while making it?
In case you go into humiliation-kink masochists who get off on being made fun of, I am both for that and the above making it clear that hate-speech ban isn't applied to in-house type jokes and that abusive parents who hate-speech bully their children are not having their children away because it's hate speech in itself but because of the role of a parent vs what they're doing to their children psychologically (probably physically too as stress can lead to diarrhoea and much else that will indirectly harm the child's development but that's for another debate).
Hate speech bans and the entire left-wing progressive group that I identify with are not usually against hate speech in a private 'fuck them' kind of manner but also kind of are against it when the victimised group is present and also when the speech is made in a very large-scale manner that can both influence hatred that leads to more hate speech and furthermore into violence via butterfly-effect AND that itself is so large-scale that the pain is causing a rift in the nation's social landscape.
banning hate speech has severely reduced the exact agony and butterfly-effect violence in all social democracies that all ban it (western europe, canada, australia and... Well okay I can't say NZ now I suppose)
https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/bullying-may-have-worse-long-term-effects-than-child-abuse/
https://www.psycom.net/effects-of-bullying
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/the-long-term-effects-of-bullying/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552909/
Comedy shows are just that and will always be a semi-exception (but you'll still never see them daring to hate-speech Muslims or Jews for different reasons, the first being more what I'm getting at). If you meant comedy shows that have clear context and warning 'we are only kidding and are rude as fuck, please don't watch if you're sensitive' that's fine and has a fair warning. If you meant making constant remarks at someone until they snap and they are the ones who end up demonised and fired, that's a whole other story. People experience agony at verbal bullying, no matter how funny the jokes are.
The pain and agony felt in the brain after a severely humiliating and ruthless joke passed about one's ethnicity, sexuality etc., is as involuntary an agony to experience as the physical pain received after a physical strike.
If you believe in true free will, you are simply deluded.
While the violence is illegal, it genuinely happens more often (much more often) the freer that people and especially people who are influential to the public, are allowed to broadcast loathing of that kind of people and this is objectively proven beyond any doubt.
It is true that the speech is strongest when it is done with the opposite: banning speech in defence of the attacked type of people while broadcasting severe hatred for them. What is untrue is that it can't still easily win out and influence many people even though people are free to speak against it.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/hate-speech-and-violence
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_hate_speech_a_precursor_to_more_serious_crimes_and_violence
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-08-22/facebook-twitter-and-violence-are-all-linked
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/06/22/jacob-mchangama/data-about-free-speech-violence
You can actually, by filling their minds with good or bad information. Very few people are both motivated and intelligent enough to push past that and even if they can, such as those born into North Korea, they have very little ability to speak over the catchy, brainwashed BS that the masses believe and want shoved into their minds, regardless.
You see, if we allow people to speak of pure loathing of a particular race, gender or lifestyle-type, we naturally will have speakers encouraging people to 'end them by force'. Then this will become something quite unlike speech and no, there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop the influence other than to ban the communication.
You named one issue with it.
I agree it is. I disagree with the amendment.
You have the two pinned precisely as what the other was.
Nikola Tesla was a fucking genius, you and I both know and respect that. If you had made the other debate about Tesla vs Sun Tzu you'd have stood a chance but I'd still have accepted.
Sun Tzu is literally a man I wish was my older brother or some shit. He's literally my kind of genius and his teachings led to a book or two written by Robert Greene that have helped me to this date to deal with bullies both domestic and school/work based and comprehend conflict and profiting from all situations or learning from my defeats that didn't kill me and analysing why I lost.
Nikola not Nicola, change it to avoid being trolled.
There is a reason why you are where you are on the leaderboard. Until you understand the difference between debating and actually finding truth, you'll remain what you are.
Debating is a sport; it somewhat resembles pure reason but it's so much more. There's tact, cunning and voter manipulation. I have been a victim of this and lost a few debates here that I objectively won.
I would never ever debate pro flat-earth or pro-Fiora because I know the difference between debating and knowing the actual truth. Some shit can't be definitively proven, some shit can't dare be said legally. Some shit is meant to be quietly known and simply let the fools who doubt it, doubt it. I don't debate to express truth, I debate to paint the truth and win. This is what Debating is, always has been and always will be. Until you learn that, you will stay where you are skill-wise as a debater and I will either stay where I am or improve; I won't get worse.
Wrong. Bsh1 is Cali, I am NY. If you get to know our politics, you'll see that this is severely true.
Actually I am Nevada more so than NY culturally but in terms of overall politics, I am more NY than many particular laws in Nevada.
I'd say I am NY>Nevada>Cali>NJ>Colorado
The rest are too unlike me to even count.
Yeah, I consider myself more a NY than Cali but second place for sure.
Lmfao.
It was not the worst debate I've done so far. Your opinion of what is my worst and best debate is as valid as your quality of thought, which is too shallow and fuzzy to remotely impact me in its output other than getting my wins down as your inability to understand my case results in your inability to vote accurately.
So, I don't really care, I am over this site and online debating in general. I literally can't get better at it, I've tested it and did spot a couple of flaws in my technique early on here but now even at my flawless logic state there's still reason to be found to abuse the voting system to get me voted down so that's when I realise the system is flawed and I have got all I can out of it. Cheers for improving my brain's ability to reason, I'm out and probably gonna end up 13th on the leaderboard as the weeks go by. That's fine by me, engaging in debates is pointless and too risky as I have come to realise and I'd probably get my rating taken down more no matter what I do as people can wilfully ignore my case and say 'incoherent babbling hurr duurrrr' and get their vote passed.
You're so terrible at what you do and the system is so flawed that I could revenge-vote Ramshutu as long as I didn't say I would revenge-vote him and even if I said it, I can say 'only joking' later on. The thing is I'm too worried about actual debating and not going down with cunts like that when you finally fix the system and deal with idiots or malignant trolls who intentionally ignore all the rebuttals one side brings and say 'incoherent babbling because i'm too brain damaged to understand it' in order to make the other sides' points hold up.
This is where I'm literally out. Like I'm getting ma get average elo thanks to three bs losses and frankly I have perfected my brains ability to reason so I don't want to stay if this is what passes for valid. Just type a wall of text and your vote is valid.
Why is ignoring my rebuttals sufficient in every fucking argument he gave Pro?
How is sng and sources sufficient?
Actually after I finish my Type1 debate aim gonna take a break from this site at least in formal debating. I want to spot what triggers retardation in voters like this and what doesn't. It's extremely random but seems to hit many voters at once like I. My debate vs MAR and vs Moeology. It is something that I havent solved yet but once I do, it will help me severely to avoid debating in the style that makes voters incapable of comprehending my flawless logic.
I countered planes but ok ignore it. In fact it's insane how many of my rebuttals were ignored in your childlike analysis.
Still wanna vote?
Do you think saying incoherent and blabbering makes you less of f a moron for not understanding my points? xD you win some you lose some, can't fathom x the voters' brains.
Shingles is virus-caused, genius.
I said 3 but meant 4 things
"isn't all four of the following"
I think you are experiencing a logical fallacy that I call venn diagram fallacy.
If sometimes symptoms of nutritional deficiency overlap with symptoms of viral diseases, this doesn't disprove the existence of viruses.
Well if you had given it 3.7 I'd be tied, clearly it was THAT bad.
I am glad supa gave my #3 a 10/10 it was a rare find I had thanks to channels I'm subcribed to and came across it.
24-25 because you decided that a song is 2.7/10 alright then. Not ashamed of this loss, first time I went too non-pop so it's hard to tell with voters as I don't know who WILL NOT vote so I can't adapt to the taste of the majority of voters. At least I have confirmed how arbitrary this is and won't engage in this type of battle again.
If we made me assert Mars over the moon, you can write k outer space and even then say the moon is real but Mars is not etc. Enabling such flat-earth angles that I already know are plausible as I believe in it.
I disagree to the third topic but objectively I can't prove that so I won't accept it.
I'll take the Mars one defending Mars. I want to be Con so you can't take the side of flat-earth and stick to the topic.
I don't care enough about braveheart and (linked to third topic and my stance) I hate Mel Gibson with a passion.
Make the topic that flat Earth isn't plausible and use the sun moon arguments etc. I'd like to explain why flat earth is plausible.
Photos where all but one are admitted to be photoshopped. Hilarious.
can you manipulate the designs they make in any way?
that ringspot virus is kind of sexy.
LOL 4b actually is a legit argument, I am actually surprised! The rest wasn't funny or impressive but that made me smirk with glee.
You are conditioned to think that. You are also conditioned to make them feel more shit for admitting they believe in it than the fact they believe in it. This is all by design; social engineering over the years.