Total posts: 4,920
-->
@Snoopy
What do you think I am referring to?Who is this referring to?
Created:
I'm against indoctrination.
Homeschooling is indoctrination and Religion at its most popular form is indoctrination. Are you against those?
https://www.brighthubeducation.com/homeschool-methodologies/87123-what-do-the-statistics-say-about-homeschooling/ states that the average public schooler gets in the 50th percentile and the average home schooler is in the 80th percentile.
None of this was sourced nor did people in the comment say it was credible. Here is what was said in the comment section:
"I'm bothered that they seem to put weight on one study by Brian D. Ray. I read his study/reserch and it is one-sided, not detailed and frankly, stupid. Really? This guy is supposed to be your God? Hmmm. ??? Maybe becuase he is a home school advocate and perhaps homeschooled himself and has a narrow view on life. Just what he feels comfortable with exploring amongst like-minded people he surrounded himself with..."
The data about what is important as in how they score in test is from 2008. It is 11 years away from the current year. This is if I agree with the findings because I have to assume they are right or wrong because they haven't sourced anything. The college test results were in 2010 but not close enough because it is still 9 years away from the current date. It goes onto speaking about price and Brian D. Ray who from the looks did a survey. Basically irrelevant data if we want something done now not 9 years ago.
So basically as you can clearly see this is not in anyway making a balanced approach to both sides instead simply cherry picks data for home-school and leaves out the drawbacks of it. Not a credible source due to the non-existence of providing sources for their claims and the person in the comment section clearly lays out the problem of how this was laid out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
When clicking on the philosophy forum tab. The tab reads "Philosophy and worldviews".
Can you change it back to "Philosophy"?
Worldviews is already discussed in philosophy because philosophy is the study of stuff whether it be from a Christian, Atheist or spiritualist. Worldview disputes occur in Atheism vs Theism debates which are under the philosophy topic instead of worldviews.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Not really but you can say that if you want.2020, regardless of whoever wins, left or right will be a significant year.
Most kids don't care that much about politics, so the leftist schools can easily indoctrinate kids to be leftist.
What do you mean? Giving them critical thinking skills and other tools in life to use as a way to deal with life? Guess you are against tools that make people rational and help with their daily lives.
Homeschool kids tend to be better educated then public school kids.
Metric of how you are determining they are "better educated"
Evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Should one person's rights be sacrificed for the potential benefit of humanity?
If you value utilitarianism then yes but if you don't probably not.
What is a person exactly?
I don't know of a distinction that isn't arbitrary since we all from existing matter that isn't sentient so we are not really special.
What is the basis of human rights?
I guess humans should have equal treatment so we make laws based on that.
Here is an interesting logical dissection of these and other questions viewed through the scope of TNG. [LINK]
Watched it. LegalEagle is cool. Basically pretty much gives the argument under the best definition of person-hood that you would have to put artificial intelligence as a person. I found a problem with the information. Star Trek fictional universe have yet to find an answer to the soul. They are assuming it exists because if it was contention-able the man would have added that for the list of requirements of being a person. Even with their knowledge of that universe they still weren't able to stop artificial intelligence from being a human.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
You are worse because your gross generalization isn't true so a liar is worse than a group of people I don't know to make a generalization based upon.
Created:
Games I like:
Metal Gear Solid 2
Nier Automata
Fallout New Vegas
Morrowind
Witcher 3
Persona 4
Dark Souls 1
WWE SmackDown! Vs Raw 2005
Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines
Batman Arkham City
Killing Floor 2
Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II
Mafia II
Night in the Woods
Furi
Games I would like to play and think would make the list are:
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
Gothic 1, 2 or 3
Grand Theft Auto III
Final Fantasy VII
VA-11 Hall-A: Cyberpunk Bartender Action
Not really in the order of what I like the most. Just games that I remember fondly.
Created:
@Greyparrot
Way for the state to flip the finger at detroit academia.
I knew you guys were against academia. Does fill in gap of why Republicans are so uneducated.
Created:
I am going to compare the polls before the 2016 to what it was after the 2016 election. If you didn't know already if you clicked on "Electoral Map Based on Polls" from the first link or this link here you would get the polling before the election. When you click here "State Winners Map" or from the link at the top you see who won.
Comparing:
WA poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
OR poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
CA poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
ID poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
NV poll had it brown. Election finished it was blue.
ID poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
UT poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
AZ poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
MT poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
WY poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
CO poll had it brown. Election finished it was blue.
NM poll had it light blue. Election finished it was blue.
ND poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
SD poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
NE poll had it red and pink. Election finished it was red.
KS poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
OK poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
TX poll had it pink. Election finished it was red.
MN poll had it light blue. Election finished it was blue.
IA poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
MO poll had it pink. Election finished it was red.
AR poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
LA poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
WI poll had it light blue. Election finished it was red.
IL poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
MS poll had it pink. Election finished it was red.
OH poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
KY poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
TN poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
AL poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
FL poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
GA poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
SC poll had it pink. Election finished it was red.
NC poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
VA poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
PA poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
NY poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
VT poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
NH poll had it brown. Election finished it was blue.
ME poll had it brown and blue. Election finished it was blue and red.
AK poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
HI poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
WV poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
After the Election
13/44 were blue
30/44 were red
1/44 were red and blue
Before the Election polls
6/44 were blue
5/44 were light blue
12/44 were brown
5/44 were pink
1/44 were red and pink
1/44 were blue and brown
14/44 were red
So basically the only place where you might have a case of polling not being accurate was in WI were the polls states it leaned democrat but went to the Republicans. Nowhere else do poll-deniers have a case specifically before the 2016 election.
Brown is a tossup. Meaning it can go either way. I think that is more commonly associated as a swing state but in this context it would be called a swing vote.
Two colors I think meant half were one color and the rest were another color.
As I have clearly shown the polls are correct. They were wrong about 1 state if we say leaning democrat means they will vote for democrat but every single other state they said it was a swing state or were completely right if we go by the assumption that leaning republican or leaning democrat means they will vote for them.
This is mainly educational for the uneducated. I was once uneducated about the polls but now I am not. Thank me later.
If you want to add nonsensical arguments or actual critiques. Go ahead. I can't stop you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Sometimes I can't help myself.You should not waste your time with the sorry user of Poly. Let her go crazy. She can dig herself an irreversable hole of being the laughing stock of this site
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I looked at the polls in the first link.States where Donald Trump was projected to win I labeled red on the map. States where Hillary Clinton was projected to win labeled blue on the map. States where Trump and Clinton were tied (when rounded to the nearest percent) I labeled gray on the map.It took me a while, but a looked at each poll and then labeled the map accordingly as I went along.
The map already existed for that. When you did add those numbers you did things wrong.
Democrats had 226 votes not 273 even if you account for light blue.
Republicans had 161 not 218 even if you account for light red.
Which mean there was 151 swing votes or tossups for grabs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I am going to compare the polls before the 2016 to what it was after the 2016 election. If you didn't know already if you clicked on "Electoral Map Based on Polls" from the first link or this link here you would get the polling before the election. When you click here "State Winners Map" or from the link at the top you see who won.
Comparing:
WA poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
OR poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
CA poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
ID poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
NV poll had it brown. Election finished it was blue.
ID poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
UT poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
AZ poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
MT poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
WY poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
CO poll had it brown. Election finished it was blue.
NM poll had it light blue. Election finished it was blue.
ND poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
SD poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
NE poll had it red and pink. Election finished it was red.
KS poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
OK poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
TX poll had it pink. Election finished it was red.
MN poll had it light blue. Election finished it was blue.
IA poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
MO poll had it pink. Election finished it was red.
AR poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
LA poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
WI poll had it light blue. Election finished it was red.
IL poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
MS poll had it pink. Election finished it was red.
OH poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
KY poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
TN poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
AL poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
FL poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
GA poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
SC poll had it pink. Election finished it was red.
NC poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
VA poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
PA poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
NY poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
VT poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
NH poll had it brown. Election finished it was blue.
ME poll had it brown and blue. Election finished it was blue and red.
AK poll had it brown. Election finished it was red.
HI poll had it blue. Election finished it was blue.
WV poll had it red. Election finished it was red.
After the Election
13/44 were blue
30/44 were red
1/44 were red and blue
Before the Election polls
6/44 were blue
5/44 were light blue
12/44 were brown
5/44 were pink
1/44 were red and pink
1/44 were blue and brown
14/44 were red
So basically the only place where you might have a case was in WI were the polls states it leaned democrat but went to the Republicans. Nowhere else do you have a case for the polls being wrong.
Brown is a tossup. Meaning it can go either way. I think that is more commonly associated as a swing state but in this context it would be called a swing vote.
Two colors I think meant half were one color and the rest were another color.
As I have clearly shown the polls are correct. They were wrong about 1 state if we say leaning democrat means they will vote for democrat but every single other state they said it was a swing state or were completely right if we go by the assumption that leaning republican or leaning democrat means they will vote for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
To prove my point, I took the most recent polling data in each state from the 2016 Election.
https://www.270towin.com/2016-polls-clinton-trump/I then put it on an electoral map.
Can you explain this to me how you done this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
You have 2 different icons for an unrated debate. When I see my debate in the debate section there is a half-colored star whereas when I see the very same debate in my debate section of my profile there is a crossed eye.
Is this something you missed?
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
If California was not part of the USA (which some Californians would love) then Trump would have won the popular vote. California is out of touch with the rest of America and marches to a different drum
Clearly shown the significance of California. Who would have known you are contradictory. Oh wait I already knew.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
Are you going to cry about being censored or has your irrational rants lead you to losing your memory? I can't tell and I don't care. Keep up with harassing people. This would entail that you must be really sad in your life outside DA. I would tear an eye but like I said I don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Trump won some states. Hillary won more.I know that Hillary won the popular vote. But some states where Trump won, he was projected to lose.
The polls were right and you didn't provide a link to who projected whatever it is you are trying to say.
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
Read it. Basically says establishment democrats don't really care about the people they care about the few that pay a hefty amount for their campaigns. That is the problem. It doesn't state even the amount of electoral votes that can be gained or the population size which can vote for the election.
Created:
Posted in:
@Polytheist-Witch
You smell Bernie's farts. That on topic enough for you loser?
Have you got something else more useful to say or are you as useless as you have clearly shown in the past and this very comment?
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
No he is living proof that a liar can take office which isn't a shocker.Lol, Trump is living proof that you can make exactly zero political stops in California and win the presidency.
California doesn't matter anymore because it has become a cringey fringe cesspool that does not represent mainstream America in the least bit. They barely speak English there.
Gross generalization.
Created:
Posted in:
And how exactly do you expect moderators to establish that I make arguments knowing that they’re wrong?
By being honest about what kind of system they have. If they say we are justifying these CoC by what we think is the best way to moderate the site but we are also open to seeing things changed if they are more effective. This statement I just made doesn't support what moderators like you support. You imply you have an objective standard yet you can't defend the objective part of it. You don't say you are open to change either from my knowledge.
By seeing if we were speaking about the topic at hand. My OP doesn't state anything about wrong think. Bad faith actors don't wrong think more so have the wrong intent. They don't want a discussion instead want to harm discourse which is why I have a problem with people like Rubin. A real life example of a bad faith actor who made his way to the right without having good arguments instead done it for the money. Work colleges vouch that and when pressed on defending the very views on his show or provide a counter to more extreme guests he is not able to. He is a bad faith actor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Evidence and by what poll?Hillary won by 2% of the popular vote, new york times projected Hillary had a 93% chance of winning
Created:
Posted in:
@Swagnarok
More nonsensical comments. Why do I even bother to read it. You don't even understand how to make a coherent argument and when I tell you. You need evidence to support your claims you don't. You don't understand my clear instructions on how to make a coherent argument but you still don't listen from my reasonable asks you decide to deflect and say I have bad communication skills. The problem here is that you are wrong and I have clearly laid it out and yet again you provide no evidence of your claims.
Indoctrination must be real problem with the right if you and others represent them. You, Greyparrot. Mopac and DBlaze all shows signs of being uneducated. You must all went to Religious schools or maybe all are drop outs or something else. That is the likely assumption for the lack of critical thinking skills any of you have. I can't help people who can't critically think and are unable to see the faults of what they say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You beleive I’m arguing in bad faith, I beleive your arguing in bad faith. We’re both convinced.Which one of us should get banned?
You don't have a consistent history of making these sorts of arguments while knowing it is wrong nor did I even accept you were making bad faith arguments. I would say you are not making a good faith effort in debunking my arguments.
To answer your question none of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
There is not a way to pick out bad faith actors who aren’t engaging in obvious spam or any of the objectively determinable prohibited conduct that is already against the rules - that is literally the whole point.Any subjective criteria that cuts deeper and would cover what you seem to want, would allow me to categorize what you’re doing right now I’m this thread as being a “bad faith actor”.
What if I remove the term bad faith actors from my wants?
Tell me the difference between a subjective criteria and an objective criteria.
Since you are not making a good faith approach in debunking my ideas. I won't either. I will pick and choose the statements you make in order to make my points better.
Created:
Posted in:
Actually, I find it refreshing that the EC allows candidates like Trump to give the middle finger to California. The rest of the country is far more important than 1 state.
Trump lost 55 electoral votes by doing that. Have yet to show that is insignificant even though they have the most amount of electoral votes of any state. This amount of post hoc rationalization is why you are irredeemable. You can't defend your previous point so you pivot to a point you think you can defend. Trump did not have a middle finger to California and you have yet to prove it. The rest of country includes other states that polling has democrats winning. Guess Trump gave the "middle finger" to them as well.
From what I saw on wikipedia, Trump visited California a grand total of zero times during the general election season.
Is that what you mean by "middle finger". That is really a st*pid strategy not taking any of the 55 electoral votes.
Smart dude there.
If you are calling me smart then I am. The polls were wrong about 2016 so I am looking at the very same polls and they forecast Trump losing. If you are calling Trump smart. He is not. You don't have to be smart to be the president. You need to win the election.
Hillary wasted valuable campaign time with 2 rallies in California...Not so bright chicki.
Is Joe Biden Hillary? Bernie certainly isn't so this information is relevant to current democratic candidates.
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
Trump won swing states like Florida by 100,000 votes. Ohio by 400,000 votes... Hillary even found a way to lose Pennsylvania by 50,000 votes
My polling shows the Republicans losing so far. You have yet to show how the polls before 2016 stated Hilary was going to win the electoral vote but got it wrong when Trump won. Until you have that you don't have a point against polling being wrong. Come back to me when you do.
These are the smelly walmart deplorables that decide who gets to be president, not California with their impressive 4.5 million vote total.
Missing out on the 55 electoral votes that democrats gain for winning California as stated on the forecasts could gain.
In fact, if you removed California from the results, Trump overwhelmingly won the popular vote. That's how insignificant it is to get the popular vote in California to becoming an elected president. California does not represent America.
4.5 million is not an insignificant number nor is the 55 electoral votes up to grab. No other states comes close with the electoral votes up for grab in California.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Personal attacks are not assessing the validity of the content, and all the examples are above are not assessing the validity or quality of the content being posted, but are directly assessing what the content is.
Why are you interpreting the validity of the content and nature of what people are arguing; it becomes inherently subjective?
I’m not talking about exclusively dumb people: I specified a lot of different points.
Do tell me the others then.
The issue is, that I can spin what you’re doing here as engaging in bad faith; because the criteria listed are so subjective they could apply to anyone. I don’t think your addressing the key point I’m making, and your really asking questions that are orthogonal to what I’m saying and not really in the context
Then I would have to adjust my argumentation to fall in with the current CoC. If lets say the moderators are not following their very own CoC I can point that out or state how I didn't break the CoC. Sure I can argue against those rules but I am your platform not on mine so you make the rules. I am simply wanting another one to be in place.
Does this mean I should be able to remove you from the topic?
Depends on the CoC. How it is applied and enforced.
Thats the problem that you are confusing when lumping in arguing in bad faith with personal atta k rules. They’re notthe same.
What is a fair way of adding a bad faith rule? Do we agree bad faith actors ought to be problem to be stopped by the site or am I the only one who thinks that?
The reason they are not the same is that I can tell if you call me a **** or a **** or a ****ing **** **** who **** ****** **** while on horseback. It’s objective. I can also tell whether you release personal information about me. Or threaten me. Or post something obviously off topic deliberately. Or hate speech. Or adult content.
What do you mean? "while on horseback" All this sounds like is you trying to argue for your subjective guidelines while simply changing the word to objective to subjective. Do you want me explain how this is the or case or do you want to reply to this before I do?
It is not objective as to whether or not what you’re saying is engaging in good faith. I don’t think your dealing with my key points, and have confused two different things, and have subtly misrepresented what I’m saying: how do we judge whether your arguing in good faith or not? Does someonelook at your arguments after a complaint, then try and determine whether what you said is valid and logical? Are they going to come to a different position if they agree with you or not? Probably. And that’s the issue.
It is neither objective when someone is called out for a personal attack or someone reveals adult content and you have yet to tell me how that is the case. If you have misrepresented what you said like with what I think is done on the we can simply ask them to explain their stance and if it isn't good enough it can be removed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
There is only one means by which a candidate can "win" the election.
What do you mean?
From this link: https://electoralvotemap.com/
"Our interactive presidential election map is currently based on the consensus of the following forecasts and polling data:"
You don't forecast how people win. You forecast what the results could be. The bullet point are too the very forecasts if you actually read my sources.
This link I was wrong about: https://www.270towin.com/
I should have said it was simply the numbers about the election but didn't pick that up when I updated the post.
Does show polling/forecasts.
Also shows polling/forecasts.
So basically I misread the first one I brought about. That was mainly an overview of what is not what can happen.
All popular votes are held with respect to the jurisdiction of a state.
Did Hillary win the popular vote? Yes are you arguing against it or are you simply stating nothing helpful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
No Hillary won the popular vote. Trump won the electoral vote. Current polling have democrats winning both the electoral and popular.Look at the state by state polls in 2016. In nearly every state, Trump did better in said individual state than the polls said he would. Some states he was projected to lose but he won in said states.
Just simply scroll down and see the "popular votes" on the right hand side and see Hillary had more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
The "popular vote" as you say, isn't a thing.
I have shown both the popular vote since these polls were not wrong about Hillary V Trump I doubt they are wrong here.
Popular vote is a thing. Hillary won that but lost the electoral. How isn't it a thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I thought it would be emerald or something so I would said just simply play it on an emulator. They have save states when you don't want to use the save system in game and reduce the time it takes in between out and inside the game. Instead of booting up the game you can simply load the state and start straight when you saved the state. Lets say you are just outside a shop where you restore the health of your Pokemon. You can simply save state. Close the window then open the window back. Load the state and you will be loading at the very position you saved the state. Removing the loading times. This can also be used as a second way to save if you are having difficulties.
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
So you admit the polls won't predict who is going to win the electoral votes of the walmart smelling deplorables in flyover country...just who is going to win the popular vote on the east and west coasts.By the way, historically every DNC coastal candidate has flopped so bad since Jimmy Carter. Hillary should have been Senator for Arkansas, not New York. Maybe then she could have gotten those smelly walmart deplorables to vote for her.
Basically insults and one point about the electoral. The electoral is the only reason why Trump won. He lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote. With this source the 2020 consensus is the Trump will lose the electoral vote:
Even this one has the democrats winning:
And this:
Which had one that had Republicans winning whereas another had democrats winning.
And this:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The polls were right about Hillary and Trump. Hillary did win the popular vote and the polls did say that. Do you not understand that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
if I said something facetious, is it an attempt at satirical mockery of a point that is inherently stupid, or is it deliberate trolling and failure to engage in the point? It would depend on whether I think the point is stupid.
Where did I say I won't allow "stupid" points? I didn't if you read my OP.
There are going to be people who troll, people who are stupid, people who don’t understand and don’t know how to argue, there’ll be people who have a screw loose and people with intellectually bankrupt positions they can’t support and are forced to defend their crass and idiotic opinions with memes and dismissive nonsense - and it’s been that way since the dawn of the internet. Each one of them think the same is true about every other, and so it’s literally not possible to satisfactorily do anythkmg about any of them without inherently preventing the free exchange of ideas and debates.
So we ought to value the "free exchange of ideas" over making sure those ideas have the platform that helps make sure those ideas are actually tested? Staying on the topic at hand can lead to the ideas being tested more than not having that rule.
I had an analogy but I have a better point to make. You don't agree with this very sentiment here. You don't allow dumb people to break the rules and code of conduct of the site with inherently prevents the free exchange of ideas and debates. This is the clearest I can be with what I just said. You can't reply back by saying you don't understand what I am saying because I have clearly laid out how you as a moderator follow the rules and code of conduct while inherently infringing upon the free exchange of ideas and debates.
Are you stopping the free exchange of porn debates and forum discussions? Yes.
Are you stopping the free exchange of personal information? Yes.
Are you stopping the free exchange of personal attacks? Yes.
So that excuse doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You have to justify your prevention of the free exchange of ideas while also making sure that very argument can't be used for my side. Good luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
i don’t think you’re really understanding the key point here. The key point I’m making is that when the decision of moderators is based exclusively on interpretation of the validity of the content and nature of what people are arguing; it becomes inherently subjective.
Tell me how this isn't arguing about the interpretation of the validity of the content:
II. Personal Attacks
"Personal attacks will not be tolerated."
Clearly arguing against the validity of someones' argument. What if my argument required personal attacks to be complete? Surely you are denying me my argument due to this rule.
4. Hate Speech
"Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech."
Clearly stating you can't argue with hate speech with the sites preferred definition.
5. Cross-Thread Contamination
"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible."
Telling people not to argue with prior-information on different sites instead disregard prior-information on different sites which is helpful in ones argument. I could call out someone by stating what they were like on DDO but I don't think I need to for you to understand my argument. At least I think I don't need it.
6. Threats
"it is not permissible to threaten another user on the basis of those accusations or complaints."
"Threats include (but are not limited to):
- Threats of legal action.
- Threats of violence (even oblique ones).
- Threats of "Doxxing" someone, particularly if the threat implies exposing the user to political, religious or other persecution.
- Threats of moderator reporting or moderator action."
Clearly showing I can't argue with threats.
B. The Just Kidding Excuse
"The “just kidding” argument is not a valid excuse for actions which can reasonably be interpreted as personal attacks."
Clearly showing I can't use humor that can be considered a personal attack. Clearly reducing the line of argument I am able to move around on.
1. Doxxing
"Doxxing is strictly prohibited."
Clearly showing I can't argue with doxxing.
4. Adult Content
"Posting adult content or links to adult content, including pornography, is strictly prohibited."
Can't use adult content for my arguments.
I'll stop here because you get the point already.
Now you might say but there are other reasons. Okay my rules also have other reasons. It would help helpful discourse while also helping making sure people argue about the topic at hand. Neither yours or my rules exclusively target one specific thing. There are many things it targets so I consider what your use of "exclusively" as a straw-man of my position which is why I didn't actually argue against it because that wasn't my position. If you actually wanted to know what reasons I had that weren't exclusively about arguments you would have read my OP as in the second and third bullet point. This clearly shows this isn't "exclusively" based on what people argue instead by me giving two reasons it shows more than just that. That's if I agree that one reason is specifically targeted depending on the argumentation which I don't you still would be wrong about the "exclusively" part.
For example, I don’t think you’re really engaging on my key argument, or fully understanding it. Would this fit the criteria for me removing you from my thread? Or classifying you as someone who is not interested in discussion?
Is speaking about the topic at hand what I am speaking about?
I am sick and tired of people adding nothing of importance to the forums I have created to specifically address something.
Yes so clarification about the topic at hand will be allowed. The "topic at hand" is the key part. If they ask questions, argue or answer. It doesn't matter. It matters more so about if it was about the topic at hand.
I could argue it both ways depending on which side I’m on. As it’s either you misunderstanding me, or me not expressing myself well.
I can argue that wasn't doxxing, posting adult content or threatened someone. What is your response to that?
Continues...
Created:
Posted in:
Did you guys know it was a Fox News poll or did you guys not even read it before giving your uneducated opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
Basically this poll has Trump losing to Biden and Bernie.
Try and talk about the subject at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I simply stated that Trump committed Fake News. The point I wanted to address was my rebuttal about Chuck being relevant in the discussion about the economy. I didn't say we ought to take away the twitter account or have him as the leader of Fake News instead it will simply showing the hypocrisy of Trump. He states others commit Fake News but he does.I was going to as I recall, probably got distracted and had the window on my device closed. I'm not sure at that point if you wanted to talk more about the economics of tariffs or whether we can and should label the twitter account of politicians "fake news", namely the expressed views of Donald Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
Where is this source? You are clearly not understanding my problem and you are exaggerating my point to what I am not even saying is a testament right here. Economists would not speak about the military because they do not understand how to defend a country. They can say the military cost X amount of money but the defense would be from a professional in the discussion of defense that the money is require to protect citizens. The burden will be on others to state a more effective way or they can ask for evidence that X amount is require to protect citizens. If no reasonable counter is given then the military will keep their funding. End of story. Guess you don't see the nuance in conversations. Not really going to help you understand it when you don't even attempt to understand it anyway.I would not be surprised at all to see Omar to agree with an economist that we should disband the military because 100% of economists agree that the military is a drain on the economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Have a standard then. If you are aren't able to make a good standard then simply remove it and have the discussion when moderators have more knowledge to properly add it in. Why isn't this discussed because bad faith actors do harm discourse?My problem, as I sort of outlined in my first point - is that who are the bad faith actors is normally subjective and depends on which side of a discussion you’re on in the case you lower the bar of what makes a bad faith actor.
We have fairly specific rules about conduct that is and isn’t allowed: the issue with these is more concerning the time it takes to be dealt with rathertham it not being dealt with appropriately - imo as a forum user.
Then have more moderators or remove moderation from the forums because the little the moderating team does is not worth moderating. It is like a centrists position to healthcare. Why can't we both have the left and right ideas of conservatives? It is because half of each doesn't make a good proposal nor does doing a half-a$$ job in the forum. In my opinion of course because if I did have information it would be disclosing private information which I am not allowed to do. That's if I have private information which I don't. Just simply removed advertisements and don't care about anything else. Since advertisements hardly ever show the forums will lack for the most part any moderation. That frees up time to moderate debates.
While I accept the frustration of facetious comments, or unhelpful discussion - the specific issue is that there is no criteria you can use that is objective and will cover only those who are arguing in bad faith. Even if you tried, the issue you would find is that it would be trivially easy to apply it to almost everyone depending on whatever whim or point of view you held at the time.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop the most problematic thing to helpful discourse. Bad faith actors.
This goes back to what I said: To paraphrase, when moderators have to determine whether the content of people’s post is valid and applicable; rather than whether their specific actions and behaviours cross an objective threshold of negatice behaviour (personal attacks, abuse, etc), it’s not possible to do that in a way that’s fair to most of the people AND not end up with a one sided, one position forum from which every opposing opinion has been removed.
Depends on the objective standard you have. This isn't a counter to my side more so you acknowledging you have a standard with moderating. I am simply asking for a difference in that standard. If you don't want to then I can't do anything about it.
Opposing opinion is already removed from site. People who want to doxx cannot. People who want to advertise cannot. People who want to threaten someone online cannot. These are opposing opinions this site rejects. This clearly shows you do prevent certain opposing opinions in certain issues but you don't think it is possible for my proposition to be fair. Even though you haven't tried it or even stated why this proposition isn't fair. Saying bad faith actors is subjective doesn't actually debunk me instead pretty much states what is true. Like with anything else in the world. It is all subjective as well. That isn't an argument against mine it is simply saying we perceive the world using our eyes and I see the word bad faith actors. Yeah no sh*t we perceive the world through our eyes and in other ways but how does that actually debunk my point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
Trump is using tariffs in a different way than past Tariffs are used. He used it on Mexico as a threat, which is the first time any President has used them to negotiate an immigration problem. And he is using it on China to end the intellectual property theft, as well as evening out the playing field in other aspects.
You are making a distinction without difference. Your saying Trump tariffs are different but tariffs are still tariffs. So basically economist still take the position tariffs are bad and economist in the source I provided didn't see enough of a difference to say these are good tariffs.
You explained the difference between murdering people and the death penalty, which I moved it around and called it killing someone, which is the whole misleading aspect of my comparison, they don't mean the same thing, yet you think that they do, which is why you have fallen for the article, and why you believe Trump is an evil person because you don't see the way the article is misleading. I can't explain it any more than I already have. You are a lost cause.
Where did you mention killing someone? Oh wait you didn't. You are making this up as you are going on while I am realizing what you are saying better than you are. Murder is an unlawful act of killing someone. Death penalty is the law killing someone. This is a distinction with a difference yet you are unable to show how Trump tariffs are enough of a distinction to tariffs to say their is a difference. Was the name all you can come up with as a difference? I have yet to see any evidence. Like you said "And they call Trump voters uneducated," which is true given the way you formulate an argument and you don't support it with evidence.
You state the difference is like the death penalty and murder but are unable to show how the article make a same comparison. I wonder why. Until you can actually tell me how it is the same comparison it is a false equivocation.
Let me give you another example of a misleading article that I read.There was an article that blamed Trump for the interest rates hiking, which at 19 years old, you would know nothing about. Anyway, they implied that the interest rates going up is a bad thing, when in actuality, it is not. It is a sign of a very strong economy and things are going well for the time being, so the Fed decides to hike the rates up in order to balance multiple things out. The editor made it seem to people that do not understand this, which would be people like you, that Americans will now have to spend more money on interest, all because Trump doesn't know what he is doing, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Irrelevant and does not actually help me understand your problem. You just wasted an entire paragraph to simply not adding helpful to the discussion.
BTW, Chuck Schumer is a United States Senator and the Senate Minority leader, and it is his job to care about these things.... He knows more about the country than any regular old economist does. I disagree with him on most of his agenda, but this one, smart people can agree on. You would rather us go to war on China, or impose sanctions, which also can lead to war. Tariffs on the other hand probably won't lead to war, which is very smart for Trump to take this action to avoid lives being lost. It also may backfire, but we shall see.
A lawyer knows more about the economy than an economist does? Okay. Guess I could say I have heard it all but there is still a lot more d*mb sh*t you can say. Isn't it funny the very thing you agree with him also happens to be the thing he agrees with you? I am implying from this is that you already agreed with Trump and used Chuck as your confirmation bias. Since you are a Republican and people do say Republicans are uneducated here is a link about confirmation bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
War with China? Spoken like a true Republican. Always trying to find the next global conflict to be involved in only to for it to be based on "humanitarian" which just so happens to be profitable for also the US to be apart of. Makes me wonder why they don't invade North Korea. Oh wait because they are not profitable. This clear example shows the US don't issue war for "humanitarian" reason it is based on profit and doubtful you would disagree but if you do. I'll add another d*mb sh*t thing you have said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Okay at least you cleared that up. Is there a reason why you didn't reply to my Chuck Schumer comment? Off-topic but since those are not rules I can ask whatever I want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
My post which was 12 was addressing D-Day but that aspect of it being a holiday. Did you miss that? It was relevant to D-Day because it is the context of the holiday.Posts currently numbered 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the D-Day thread present an obvious example of spam. They are totally unrelated to war, history, veterans, holidays etc... They did not even stem from something related to anything in the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
What are you going on about Mr. Omar? I'm merely pointing out the fact that the article you cited is misleading. It is not proof of anything.
You didn't prove it was misleading or your original claim it was biased. I await an argument.
Yes, tariffs can hurt the economy, all economists will agree on that, that is established. But do they agree with what Trump is doing, and do they have all the facts, is the question? We don't need an article written about a generalized statement, which the article that you attached says it is right in the body of it. Articles like these are the reason people don't like Trump, because they mislead the public into thinking what he is doing is detriment to the country. And they call Trump voters uneducated, and drinking the kool aid.
Yes you are uneducated when you don't know how to make a coherent argument. Don't know about kool aid. The problem here is that yet again you are claiming something as in it is misleading even though you haven't explained how it is the case. You have basically made the same argument twice. I await that argument.
You cited this article to say that Trump is wrong on imposing taxes, yet, someone else cited an article where Trump's arch nemises, who has opposed him in every possible policy, actually agrees with him, and then you ask... Who is he?
I stated this:
What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
Snoopy said after:
Um, he's a guy who voiced his view on President Trump's policy, and you disagree with it?
I replied back:
I just searched him up. The Wiki has him as a senator and has a degree in law. So how does he know what an economist would know if he is a professional when it comes to law not when it comes to the economy?
So basically you are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say "who is he?" I said "What does this have to do with the topic at hand?". I furthered justified my point by saying "So how does he know what an economist would know if he is a professional when it comes to law not when it comes to the economy?". If you don't understand how Chuck Schumer giving economic advice is not helpful. I can't help you.
I don't need evidence to prove that this article is misleading, just read it again.
You made the claim it was misleading yet you can't demonstrate it. I wonder why. If you did quote yourself.
That is like writing an article about how 100% of people believe that killing people is wrong. Then taking that article as proof that 100% of people think Capital Punishment is wrong. Do you see the comparison?
False equivalency. Murder is an unlawful act of killing whereas capital punishment is the government issuing death penalty for certain unlawful acts. These two things are different whereas I was speaking about tariffs that was it. Trump is also issuing tariffs. Trump is not doing something different if he did it wouldn't be called tariffs. If you think there are different kind of tariffs do tell and show me proof Trump is using this different kind of tariff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I still liked it but then realized GTA 4 existed.5 was a disappointment
Created: