Jump to content

aluminiumtrioxid

Members
  • Posts

    1482
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by aluminiumtrioxid

  1.  

     

    please keep you observation on what is data and what is anecdote. The credibility of news sources and content in in the eye of the beholder.

     

     

    SUCH POSTMODERN NEO-MARXISM REEEEEEEEEE

     

    :lol:  OK, hypothetical question. I just posted an article that categorically states Donald Trump accepted a huge back channel bribe from Saudi Arabia to not make a big deal over that reporter. But the article was from Mother Jones. Do you believe it? Or that Hillary Clinton not only ordered the hit on Vince Foster, she actually shot him herself then put the pistol in his dead hand. But the source is The Blaze. Do you believe it?

     

     

     

    My belief or lack thereof is going to be directly proportional to the evidence presented in either case and not be particularly influenced by whatever reputation these publications are supposed to have (which I am not aware of, because the political leanings of niche publications in the USA are tremendously irrelevant to my life).

     

    You can't just handwave the question of whether a news story is objectively true or not away with "oh but who cares, people will believe whatever they wanted to believe in the first place". That way lies madness.

  2.  

    Are you literally retarded? "We worked every single day of our 30 year marriage" in no way implies "we did not work before we got married". I already knew that you didn't know the difference between necessity and sufficiency, but this astonishing failure of elementary logic is still pretty baffling.

    I think you might be, at least you have severe reading comprehension problems. Read my posts again, slowly. It may hurt your head, but try.

     

     

     

    "no u"

     

    top level comeback, truly worthy of an intellectual of your weight class

     

    Literally your post: "it is hard to believe that they would've married at age 40 and started working with no previous experience"

    The original: "My wife and I... worked every single day of our 30 year old marriage"

     

    I know this might be a difficult leap of logic for you, but try to imagine: if somebody says that they worked every single day for 30 years... that is a statement about those 30 years and carries no information about what came before. It is an entirely valid interpretation of the same text that they started working in their 20s, have been in the workforce for 20 years, then met and married, and worked for another 30 years during their marriage. Magical, innit?

    • Like 1
  3.  

     

    "Now I'm 71" - that escalated quickly. How old he was when his wife died, how old was he when he stopped working? If he worked 30 years of marriage it seem he started at 41 if the story takes place at the same time, which seems odd. So I assume the wife died somewhere in her 50's since the 30 years together and the husband would be roughly the same age. This means we skipped circa 20 years in the story. Why?

     

    "how could somebody possibly marry late in life? that's just not a thing that happens, that is impossible"

     

     

    Yeah. They married at 40 and started working without any previous experience

     

     

    Are you literally retarded? "We worked every single day of our 30 year marriage" in no way implies "we did not work before we got married". I already knew that you didn't know the difference between necessity and sufficiency, but this astonishing failure of elementary logic is still pretty baffling.

  4. "Now I'm 71" - that escalated quickly. How old he was when his wife died, how old was he when he stopped working? If he worked 30 years of marriage it seem he started at 41 if the story takes place at the same time, which seems odd. So I assume the wife died somewhere in her 50's since the 30 years together and the husband would be roughly the same age. This means we skipped circa 20 years in the story. Why?

     

    "how could somebody possibly marry late in life? that's just not a thing that happens, that is impossible"

  5. Barack Obama is giving a speech in Illinois bemoaning the divisive nature of our politics and how Trump inflaming our worst passions. Now THAT is irony. After he ran a ad that said and I quote "Every time a Republican is elected another black church burns".

     

     

    Source? Google turns up nothing.

  6. I'm pretty partial to Eisenhower, since he was really the last President who seemed to understand what the role of the military should be in our society.

     

     

     

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” 

    ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

     

     

    Holy **** that is a good quote.

    • Like 1
  7. Jeez, you guys sell out so hard just to be snarky that we cant ever really discuss anything.

     

    lol

     

    "<X> diddled my <Y> <Z+10> years ago, I swear. Get em, Twitter!"  This is the world we live in.

     

     

    The prevailing opinion round these parts is that these accusations are approximately 358% absolute truth? *nodnod*

     

     

    Don't bother replying, I already got an adult answer from majestic. ;)

    • Like 1
  8. Well, it's the internet and sadly that means everything within the realm of google or youtube is true. Even worse, if you hear/read something bad about someone you don't like then it's automatically true so people won't do research unless it's from a regular biased source.

     

    reality has a well-known liberal bias

    • Like 2
  9. Alex Jones and his channel InfoWars was banned by YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify on the same day.

    This is just outrageous attempt to make Jones an unperson ("1984" reference) and a litmus paper of checking how far those companies can go in censoring views they don't like. 

    After shadowbanning conservatives on Twitter, which Congress will address it's just another attempt to eradicate conservatives from public debate.

    What are your thoughts?

     

     

    First Amendment Experts Warn Facebook Banning InfoWars Could Set Completely Reasonable Precedent For Free Speech

     

     

    Acknowledging the widespread repercussions from the act of corporate censorship, first amendment experts warned Monday that Facebook’s decision to ban InfoWars could set a completely reasonable precedent for free speech. “If we allow giant media platforms to single out individual users for harassing the families of murdered kindergarteners, it could lead to a nightmare scenario of measured and well-thought-out public discourse,” said Georgetown law professor Charles F. Abernathy, cautioning that it was sometimes very easy for private organizations to draw a line between constitutionally protected free speech and the slanderous ravings of a bloated lunatic hawking snake oil supplements. “What we see here really could be the beginning of a slippery slope towards a horrific ordeal in which any citizen who violates hate speech policies or blatantly spreads lies that cause other individuals to receive death threats will immediately be discredited and, perhaps, even asked to host their demonstrably false content on a website that they actually own.” 

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...