Total posts: 4,920
-->
@drafterman
Is that being looked into?1. No
2. Willows is not currently banned.
Have you asked ethang5 why Willows will make a second account when his original account is still active?
My only interest is if they are the same users then one of the accounts needs to be disabled to comply with alternate account rules.
Don't you already check people's IPs. What data could ethang5 give in order to convince you otherwise? If it is PM then wouldn't that mean ethang5 will be banned for sharing that information or maybe you will ban him for even accepting that before receiving that information. Don't know how you enforce that.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Did you not see Define spam?
I'll rephrase. You are choosing what to speak against. When you are doing that you don't realize you are not talking about the important questions like how do you define spam.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Okay... And?
So the CoC does not have anything against ethang5 calling out users for being a banned user and saying they have evidence but not giving it?
Created:
-->
@drafterman
This is pedantic and I don't why you just can't scroll up but whatever.
Post #35
Remember he was banned before (as Willows) for the same behavior. We are now under a different CoC, so it may be true that his is not violating our current CoC.
Calling Salixes Willows without evidence. He should also know that you check this stuff so he is pretty much lying.
Post #38
Salixes is Willows.I've known he was Willows for a while, and said nothing till he voluntarily admitted to me that he was.
Doubling down. Says he knows but doesn't show the information. This is could be seen as misleading moderators on information plus doubling down on an accusations.
Contrary to popular belief
Why add this? I have in no way spread conspiracy theories nor made any comparison that you are literally everywhere.
the moderators do not monitor every single user's posts. So when you say, "what ethang is doing" you are going to have to be more specific/explicit.
Am I supposed to take this seriously? I never asked you to look at every single post. I said look at ethang 5's posts. It is heavily implied that it is his posts in this thread since I brought it up in this thread yet you say this?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Define spam.
Literally choosing what you want to speak about yet glance so much more important topics.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Is there going to be any repercussions to what ethang5 is doing or should I stop asking?
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
All I could go by is what you said which was Salixes was doing it and your reasoning was what he posted a lot in a day. Shame you didn't actually tell me your definition of spam even when I counted the amount of posts by Salixes and Mafia posts. Now if this isn't your definition of spam give one since you didn't give one. Now it is my fault that I don't know what spam is even though drafterman and Virutoso don't consider it spam? Well done persuading them on how it is spam oh wait you haven't and they still haven't budged from that position.It is difficult for me to disprove this accusation since mafia is not being spammed. You seem to imply that it is, which makes me doubt that you are taking the topic seriously. You know what spam is don't you?
I just don't like spam in general. Why should I?
I don't believe you. Mafia is spammed in the way you were using it with Salixes but guess you had no problem there is a 4 post difference in a span of a day or maybe dozens in a span of a day equal to 7 not 4. Do tell me where you said this.
Lol? Honestly can't tell if this is a joke given the level of logic in the rest of your post. If it isn't a joke then Google the word 'dozen'.
Just typed it and found the number 12. Do tell me how you got 12 in a day when he only posted 7 times? I just checked again and found out I counted wrong. He actually only posted 5 times in a span of 1 day whereas Mafia has been spammed 4 times. Really makes me wonder just how little research you've done in this instead didn't even bother to judge it fairly.
Dozen is 12. Salixes made 5 posts yet you said he posted a dozen times. Mafia was posted 4 times in a span of a day yet I don't see you complaining about it.
Created:
-->
@David
@drafterman
@Speedrace
I would like to add that one person who does this is doubling down without evidence, just I know the guy.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I think the two reasons why you care about Salixes' forum post is that Mafia is not as mentioned in the newest topics section and you don't like what Salixes' is posting. I can't really find anyone who does, Maybe Stephen, but that is beside the point. If Mafia was being spammed I doubt you would care because you enjoy that kind of "spam".
About a dozen threads with one line OPs made by the same person in the religion forum in a space of about 24 hours.
Dozen I think is thousands but I don't see thousands in 24 hours. This is of course exaggeration but why exaggerate if your point was good enough for the moderators to warrant a change in the CoC?
Just looking at his topic list and saw 7 were posted in a span of a day.
Just looking at the Mafia section oh wait Forum games section we find 4 Mafia posts were posted in a day.
I guess there is a 3 topic difference but I doubt if Mafia had 7 in total you wouldn't be annoyed about that because you enjoy Mafia and I am guessing more than 1 person are collectively "spamming" Mafia related stuff.
I honestly think this behavior is tied to the "newest topics" feature (similar to the way that dr franklin style spam is tied to the 'post count' feature) but okay.
No evidence to support this instead you just made an accusation.
Frankie... As DARTs resident spam expert do you think that the series of OPs in question constitutes spam? Why or why not?
I am guessing this is an attempt to get outside support and you chose Dr.Franklin? Probably the best pick but given the thing you are talking about I doubt a spammer would persuade the moderators.
Point two: The CoC can be changed.
No he said "no one has done this before so we have to update it".
Basically it is something new therefore we should update the CoC. Different from can. You are literally making his call to action weaker.
Created:
-->
@David
@drafterman
Can frequent naming users as banned users be banned? The people who do call Salixes Willows know you do check for this stuff but still decide to call people banned users. It will make Salixes time here less pleasant when they are calling him a person that he doesn't know of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay. Well my answer to that would be yes. I see no justification for the increased financial costs of segregation, not to mention the obvious moral concerns.
I don't think he will care about your morality since he would say something like this and that is probably the main reason he is opposed to it. I am bunching his feelings and morality together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Nukes in an already nuked America, okay?He has hilarious. Super anti-communist robot that hurled nukes. It was a very epic battle for the purifier.
The battle was literally an escort mission. It was barely a challenge since at that point you should have enough gear to kill people easily not to mention having VATS.
Fog made it hard to find your way around and the frequencies at times were infuriating.
Liked it because it was a challenge that I didn't find it in the Mojave Wasteland. Radios to kill you if you stay near it too close. Fog to stop act as a risk and reward mechanism. If you go through it you will take damage but if you make it out alive you will either find loot or a shortcut.
Lonesome Road had really good lore/story purposes. Gameplay value was decent.
Ulysses was so boring to listen to and the lore only expanded from the one brief encounter you have with the courier manager or whatever he was back in Primm. His name was Johnson Nash.
The weapons were underwhelming because of Old World Blues weapons and how little it compared to the Lonesome Road DLC. It literally had a red glare gun which does so little damage compared to the missile launcher. Literally a 100 damage difference. Red Glare, Missile Launcher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You are saying that integration means educating more people but that is obviously false.
How does integrate mean not adding in more and no your later response isn't exactly answering that?
Let's pay for one school system and set up all the infrastructure for it then put 250 whites into itThen pay for another seprate school system and all its infrastructure and put 100 blacks into it.Then pay for another seprate school system and all its infrastructure and put 50 Asians into it.Then pay for another seprate school system and all its infrastructure and put 50 Arabs into itThen pay for another seprate school system and all its infrastructure and put 50 Indians into it.
I want to see these as real-life examples unless these are shown through as private schools. Public schools are already built and would most likely be reflection of the races around the area.
I am suggesting that you may not have thought too hard before writting that.
I guess I can agree to that.
My rephrasing would be If I agree there are differences not biologically but before they enter the classroom is it worth integrating people of other races?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Liam Neeson is your father! Finding him was a better story than being some random courier.
A courier can do what he likes. You have a set path yet people still rarely stay on track about the main quest instead do side quest. It is the same problem with Fallout 4. Why are you helping settlements/ people in Megaton when you should be looking for your father?
Sure a courier could find the man that shot him but do they really want to? There isn't really a choice for the Fallout 3 character since the only real hurdles to progression of finding your father is of course main quests but not side quests. Players chose to do the side quests instead of focusing on finding their father.
Had Liberty Prime in Fallout 3.
Literally only a big robot. All you did was escort it.
Old World Blues was best DLC.
Old World Blues for the all round content.
Dead Money for something new and I liked the Begin Again song.
Honest Hearts for Joshua Graham and the two guns. Everything else was meh.
Lonesome Road for the finale as if I even cared about this barely mentioned story in the first place and I was for sure bored out of my mind listening to Ulysses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
0% of post 19 has anything to do with education segregation. It is just a tangent about the "Social saftey net" and "Taxable Americans"
The first part was about adding in other people into a school. This would mean more people in a classroom or maybe extra classroom which would need a teacher and the other stuff. If you are talking about non-whites literally starting in a mostly white school then it probably no real expense added in. I think the one I could think of is a language barrier if they are quite young due to their parents not speaking English.
The tanget you spoke of is like seeing stuff outside of just education.
So I guess if you want to rephrase something you could start by just explaining why you think that having one school system for all races would require more resources than having seperate school systems for each.
Adding people in not through the traditional way as in applying and joining instead like some sort of government program would require more teachers and space.
If you mean different races are simply applying for a school and going in the same way as whites then there would most likely be no issue other than the really rare one I did speak about which probably isn't a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Please quote whatever it is and I'll rephrase it.The topic of the conversation is education segregation. I am not exaggerating in the least when I say I have no idea what you are talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@irontoaster
Don't know why people like Zelda apart from nostalgia. Bought Majora's Mask a while back and thought it would be enough of a departure for me to like it but it wasn't. You start off talking to people, getting introduced to how the game works with dungeons then you talk to some more people and then more dungeons. The main story was barely addressed since you are too busy finding masks on right times. The side-quests I found to be engaging somewhat but due to my dislike of the time system and how little there is I can't exactly appreciate it even though I did like it.
I used notsalgia as a reason mainly because I played Ocarina of Time and remembered enjoying it. Basically ran around had fun then literally was lost. I think it was before entering Lord Jabu Jabu's Belly when I couldn't find what to do. Later on I found out you needed to place a fish in order to continue on but I didn't find any clues to point me to that direction. I think that is the main problem for me if I don't understand what to do then I can't progress. Even when I played it later on I got stuck in the forest temple not realizing where to go. After this I had to deal with the annoying water temple. It literally requires a thing which I dislike which is literally interact with everything after an event occurs. I dislike this if there isn't any fun barrier between this like interesting characters. The water temple is one such place where you have to raise or lower the water level. I didn't realize I had to go to x room at x water level which meant I was completely confused on what silver keys I missed and literally quit given it wouldn't be fun literally repeating the entire water temple in the hopes of finding that one silver key that I missed.
TL;DR
Basically Zelda games go through the typical talk and dungeons and I find that to be boring given the lack of depth in characters due to the lack of resources on the console plus later releases didn't actually add lot more. This is rambly and because I am going off memory. I think I have a negative slant to the Zelda series but still found it enjoyable like when I woke up Talon with a chicken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
New Vegas is better than 3 and I might go as far as just play New Vegas because how much better it is. Variety of factions, better DLC, better characters and a better storyline.If you want a great story-driven game, try Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas. Don't be alarmed that Bethesda made it, this was back in their golden age. Obsidian made New Vegas. Probably both top 5 games I ever played.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lets say white people are equal to 1. Lets say blacks are 1. Lets say Arabs are 1 and Asians are 1. Just by adding in more races there is more people. There will be an increases but I doubt like the transaction would be worse for America. Social safety net for immigrants = Taxable Americans, providing a product or service to Americans and more people part of the democracy.I mean, does it really require more resources to maintain one school for all races or does it actually require more resources to have one school for the whites, one for the blacks, one for the Arabs, one for the Asians, etc.?
The rest of what you say makes sense but to say that integration "costs" resources sounds a bit absurd. The actual savings would vastly outweigh any beauocratic costs.
Oh yeah I was looking at one part of the transaction. I basically said it would cost time for people get treated for cancer neglecting to mention the potential positives of said outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Segregationist
I guess innate implies biological differences or something that is going happen. I would disagree and say the differences are mainly in other factors. It is pretty easy to influence people at a young age to think a certain way and there hasn't been data that white southerners are more competent at a young age. Kinda weird the example I use because this involves children plus segregation. It is the A Class Divided experiment which found out it is easy to change a person's behavior to go as far as bullying people based on the color of their eyes while also lower self-confidence and worsen academic performance.I feel like Negroes and the white Southerner have innately different learning styles, and that integration hurts us both.
If I agree there are differences not biologically but before they enter the classroom is it worth spending time and resources more specifically integrating people? To that I say it depends on what you value. I guess the author values some sort of white community because of a perceived positive which I don't think can be traced to anything concrete mainly feeling. To me I would say it is pretty shitty to exclude people that had worse lives than you just because you can. I don't even need to accept it on those grounds since I think engaging with other cultures helps add stuff. I like noodles and if Asia was simply rejected to immigrate and we weren't trading I wouldn't be able to eat noodles. You could say well you wouldn't really feel a sense of loss about something you have never experienced, to that I say true but only really negatives can be made on a what if and even then I would have to agree since we can't in anyway test what would occur if we changed the past.
Another direction would be if you were black you would be pretty annoyed that you had or have a crappy life so why do you accept it? I think the answer would be you are not black but I think you would agree that there lives on averages are worse than whites.
Don't think you will read this but whatever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm not entirely clear how they do their math. They appear to translate people's votes into state delegates, then use the state delegates to determine the actual delegates that matter. It appears to be a bit convoluted.
Guess the formula is this:
"For four or more delegates, the threshold is 15%. For three delegates, the threshold is the total number of voters, divided by 6, roughly 16.66%. For two delegates, the threshold is 25%. For one delegate, there is no threshold, and the delegate is elected by a majority vote of eligible voters in attendance, following the first round of alignment.)[13][14"
I don't understand even reading this so guess do you have a source that has worked it and found out by using this they are wrong or are they using a different formula?
it isn't Chris' data. That is the data released by the person in charge of that caucus site. This is the data that was given to the democratic party, they then released different data.
Okay this is the caucus site data. Can you verify the source that Chris gave as accurate or am I supposed to believe it to be the true? I don't ask the same for the DNC because they are an official body not a single person. This is important because drama impacts a company more than an individual.
if they fix all of the hundreds of problems? sure, i guess. but they aren't going to do that.
This official link I gave earlier didn't seem to have the errors that were pointed in the Tweet. I skimmed Patrick again and he had 0 first expression and final.
But didn't explain exactly what all those errors were. Are you saying they are lying they found errors? Or that they don't know what errors are?
I am saying they didn't link to those errors. What they did do was basically show the errors that did occur in a form of a table where votes were given no vote candidates. Basically showing what the errors looked like without actually linking them.
We can move on if you want. Have you tried this link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.amp.html
We can move on if that doesn't work.
Here you go. Basically, if the people at the caucus site did the math wrong and signed off on incorrect numbers, they will not fix it. They will stand by the numbers that are demonstrably wrong.
The link does not work. Guess Chicago Tribune just doesn't want to work for me. :(
so you don't believe them that they found the errors?
They never linked it so no but they did highlight what the errors looked like. If you looked at the link they did not list the 100 errors.
Here is a link to the request from sanders. Pages 3-9 detail the specific examples they were reporting.
This is from Bernie's team right? You do understand I can't exactly take this as evidence mainly since it is aimed to support Bernie not give a view outside of it. The DNC might dislike Bernie but I do trust they would maintain their own system more than to change it just for Bernie.
I would say if the findings are true then they messed up but I can't really accept what I consider pro-Bernie propaganda. I don't think they would've re-canvased if Bernie won and still there was errors and I wouldn't accept findings from Pete's sources unless an external source not running for office verified something akin to that so basically I wouldn't accept Pete's sources either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Hopefully enough people realize how important it is.And that’s the risk people are willing to take.
Apples to oranges comparison again.
No you said you don't need that. I am not you so I don't really know what you need so I guessed. I guess correctly because you never said you didn't need police services instead attack it based on being a bad comparison. What do you need anyway?
Why would they be claiming that without some sort of evidence.
If they had evidence it wasn't presented in the link. Please just scroll and find the blue colors and see none of them direct to the 100 errors.
No network has called Iowa. Each network has their own number crunchers and non of them have called it. It’s a number thing that multiple networks have reported.
Don't know what you are talking about. Maybe change words and hope that I understand.
The main claim is that the result is not 100% rn so you can’t really say Pete won. It’s your prerogative to not believe them. But different organizations have reached the same conclusion based on the numbers.
The report has already been completed. The errors that HistoryBuff linked were addressed. That Tweet was released on the 5th of this month and in that time they have fixed the error if there was an error. I think it is pretty clear that Pete won since people haven't found errors with the completed reporting. People have a problem with the delegate count. It is up for the relevant officials I think the DNC to publicly announce how they delegate delegates. If you want to see the one I haven't found an error with it is this one: official link
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The counts for the delegates are considerably off.
How are the delegates normally distributed? Link would be nice.
what do you mean? the results the local official announced are different than the results that were released as official. That is a very obvious red flag.
How are you verifying Chris' data to say it is accurate?
I don't link to twitter much. Hopefully this works. But these are just the obvious errors that people on twitter found.
Thank you :)
Just looked at the official link the twitter user was mentioning and it was fixed. If that person was giving reliable information at the time then it was an error. If they fixed the problem do you still have a problem?
If the new york times can find over 100 errors in a day, there are serious problems with the numbers.
With the link you gave they provided hypothetical errors not links to the errors.
They are apparently also legally not allowed to fix any errors that occurred
Link?
what are you talking about? The new york times found over 100 errors. The tweet showed them making 2 errors. Why are you continuing to insist errors didn't happen?
If you could read the NYT article you would realize they didn't link to the error merely showed what the errors looked like.
In just those 25 sites, they show pete getting 3 too many delegates and sanders getting 2 less than he should have.
Do you have data on how the delegates are distributed if not why are saying Pete had 3 too many?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Okay. Well when you find yourself ill without the money to pay for it I am sure you will be wanting public healthcare but guess not now.I think I know what’s best for me than the govt 🤷♂️.
That’s not something I need. Terrible analogy.
Guess you don't need a police force keeping you in check and others.
Such a shame he couldn’t.
This was the first link he gave. I have already addressed this. They do not know the methodology, they are going by some sort of error system that might be correct. Without that information I can't accept it since how do they know it is right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So you’re ok with forcing people to pay for something they don’t want or need?
Everyone needs healthcare because people eventually get sick. It is been demonstrated across the developed countries of how effective the public option is. I reject even answering the loaded question.
Plus the govt shouldn’t be deciding whether I need something or not..
The government decides:
- Whether you can drink and drive
There is plenty of things the government does excluding whether you need it or not. This is payed by you through taxes. You need to pay your taxes or you will go to jail. By paying taxes you accept that you can't drink and drive. That is the government stopping you from doing something that you have accepted by paying for the police services.
Not true. Over a 100 precincts didn’t match up and since the margin is so small it’s more than plausible that Bernie will come out on top.
Found no data supporting the claim. HistoryBuff has failed to do so currently I'll wait to see if you can do it if you want.
He won now
Yep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
as i said, i don't have a subscription to the times so I can't quote the article itself. But the article is saying there are hundreds of errors.
I read the article. Do you want to find another article since your not going accept what I am saying? I read it and they were using hypothetical tables. The only link they gave was to the results not to where the supposed errors they used to create the hypothetical tables.
I'm not sure I understand. He got more votes because he is more popular.
Why do you accept that Bernie won more votes but not that he lost on delegates? Your earlier reply didn't really answer the question.
Try this one, they are discussing that the supervisor for a location tweeted out the results of that location. But the "official" results that were posted were wrong. They got delegates wrong giving some sanders delegates to Duval patrick and some warren delegates to Steyer.
Claim 1: Supervisor tweet results
It is in the link.
Claim 2: Official results were different
Okay but what proof does Chris Schwartz give other than his word that his findings are more accurate?
Claim 3: Sanders delegates were given to Duval patrick, Warren and Steyer
Is this Phil's tweets? I can't read it. Do you have a link to his tweets?
no one knows. Until Sanders forced them to release the additional information, people only had the final results to work off of. They could have been rigging/screwing up this information for a long time and no one would know.
If someone is making a cake and you say this has a lot of strawberries in it. I ask you to ask the baker about the strawberries. You said you have but they didn't reply. Is me saying well I am not going to believe you until I get word that the cake has strawberries valid?
We know for a fact that there were dozens if not hundreds of errors in the data. That is not disputed.
Not a single one of your links support this. Unless the second link you gave me was but the 1st and 3rd one are not. The 1st one is an article about supposed errors using hypothetical tables. The third one was literally a tweet. No mention of the methodology so we have is well his word his findings are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
my point is that the tallies for the purposes with delegates are horrendously flawed.
Something being horrendously flawed doesn't discount Pete's victory. These are two different things.
Laws can be bad but under the law this person is jailed. Do you understand?
why would we use any other metric?
Hasn't Caucus' always been a shitshow? Your saying it was based on popular votes before. I don't think it was.
"In these cases, it is not obvious whether the state delegates or the final alignment results were reported inaccurately."
So you don't actually know there are errors?
They did not in anyway explain the errors instead they are making guesses on how many delegates people should have. This is a bad article. Doesn't in anyway show how it is riddled with inconsistencies instead guesses what the Iowa caucus' are and then says it is consistent. Iowa or the DNC have not released how they divey out delegates so this is guess work unless they did and I would gladly see how they divey out delegates if you do have the information.
Doesn't work for me :(
There were examples of delegates given to the wrong candidates.
Do you know how delegates are given out?
Lots of examples of more people apparently voting in the 2nd round than the 1st, which is supposed to be impossible.
The first link doesn't show that. I'm guessing it is the second link. Do you have another link that is similar to the second one?
The first link is the NYT source which I think is their example collection sheets not actual ones.
It is possible they fucked up vote counts too, but there is no reason to believe that pete got more votes than Sanders.
Do you have the reasons that Sanders had more votes than Pete?
I can't find the source i had at the moment, but there was one case where on the 2nd round they counted the people who had moved to sanders in the 2nd round as voting for Steyer instead of sanders.
Do tell me if you find it :)
it means that the only metric by which pete "won" was massively screwed up. The metric by which we have more accurate data, ie raw votes, says sanders won. If we have 1 fairly reliable metric and 1 obviously inaccurate metric, why would you choose to use the inaccurate one?
Do you have any evidence that previous Caucus' were not like this or were they the same?
The only reason to do that is to try to crown Pete the winner.
With the available information you gave me I don't see how you got this. I find this to be a conspiracy theory do you disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I guess you care about individual choice more than safety? Okay. I value the other.I wholeheartedly disagree. Obamacare was a disaster that penalized individual choice
A recount is happening in Iowa so Pete technically hasn’t won. And Bernie is up in NH by an average of 7-8 points.
A recount only means they are counting the same votes again. Very unlikely Bernie will be on top of that.
Oh yeah he is up in NH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Obama did well with healthcare and he was a Democrat.
Democrats hire people for a job and they did bad. I would say it the Democrats fault for trusting an innovation in delivering a caucus but I would say there is still some amount of blame given to the company. I don't really know how to divey the blame so I would blame both.
Pete did win Iowa and Bernie is currently no winning New Hampshire so...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
this is a joke right?
No.
Sanders got thousands more votes. The tallies are riddled with errors, and most went against sanders. The new york times wrote an article about how they found over 100 errors in the data.
Hillary had more votes in 2016 yet she still lost. Since I have rebutted that claim I would you like to provide proof of the tallies riddled with errors?
We have no idea who got the most delegates yet because we don't have accurate calculations. What we do know is that sanders got the most votes in both the 1st and 2nd rounds.
If there are inaccuracies in who had the delegates why isn't their errors in the number of votes?
No one can possibly say they know who got the most delegates in Iowa because the results are so obviously flawed.
It being flawed doesn't mean Pete lost.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
People just want to drum up drama or fake controversy or just cause a fuss or have a laugh or whatever.
Truuuuuuu
If people were actually serious about having a presidency there would be a presidency. People would have tied their shoelaces and put their pants on and held an election and elected a president. But no one seems actually interested in doing the things necessary to establish a presidency.
Uber tru
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
I asked for an example of the paradox of tolerance and you failed to give it. Your response instead is to incite a religious argument.
Religious argument? I literally pointed the hypocrisy of a person calling a structure moot when their entire life is based on something moot. Does it not read on your profile page: Religion "Orthodoxy" or maybe you don't understand your worldview is publicly available.
Abstractions are pointless if they are irrelevant
Irrelevant depends on the what you deem to be so. To you I am guessing if it doesn't further the cause of my belief it isn't useful. I can literally point to abstractions then you would just say it is irrelevant. Do explain what is irrelevant or you know add in even more phrases requiring further clarification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Projection. The delusion is strong with this one.
Are you liking your own comment? Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Really? That's your defense? To dodge the question at hand and resort to starting a debate about religious beliefs (or lack there of)?
Literally described my point without explaining what is wrong with it and expecting me to carry on as if you wanted to have a conversation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
My point is not moot. This coming from a person who believes in God who can't give real-life examples of his existence.Give me an example or else your point is moot
Do you want to backpedal calling my point moot when your entire life is based on something actually moot?
Or I'll wait for a real-life example of God. This was ironic of course because I don't think you are capable of meeting that condition since you the people who you follow can't meet it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I don't think some people can be checked through rational argument. Whether it be their basis whether they know it or not is feelings driven. It is okay to be feelings driven but in a conversation which is supposed to rational then I don't think it is okay. Mainly because their ability to change or put up a reasonable defense will be crap.I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
I don't really know about philosophers all that much which is why I stuck to people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I'm sorry this is typical behavior from me whereas you have literally roided up in this thread. Please stop projecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Imagine saying no PM exists
Lol
then warning about displaying contents of a PM.
He does take an official role on the site so... lol
By the way, the COC mentioned an exception of displaying mod PMs
Didn't he say this? Lol.
This is so funny. It is like you didn't even bother reading the sentence you quoted.
Are you okay? I guess earlier comment is correct. Not the soccer mom one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Where did you get this from?But i agree with that first quote... it is better to expose intolerant ideas and see where it lands among everyone
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Yeah the application is different. People are not tolerant of things which lead to harm they would like to prevent.I guess somewhat. It doesn't seem very difficult to rassle to me though; You know, to the point where there's a paradox. We generally tolerate things so long as they don't case problems. Once there are problems then it becomes a policy issue where a cost/benefits pros/cons analysis is done. Or, at least that's how I look at things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
I don't think that type of tolerance has political relevance.
I think it has with the 2nd amendment. Whether people accept it or not free speech is not protected in the US in all cases. Just like tolerance it can only go so far.
I mean, what I see often is people attacking political correctness, and often the attack made is an appeal to hypocrisy argument.
bmdrocks literally appeal to God. If someone actually brings up political correctness as an issue I think it is safe to say they either are ignorant of the issues they currently face or literally have that as their important issues. If this isn't the case then they are literally wasting anyone's time by bringing up something that isn't important. Yep I do see the whataboutism but that can be rejected on factual grounds as in what about Hillary sold nuclear stuff to Russia? There is no evidence so it is up to the other person to find something that eludes me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Don’t have the time for what?
Dart Presidency
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Why even start this if you knew you didn't have the time?I work full time and go to school so I certainly wouldn’t have the time to administer an election in a timely fashion.
This site is dying. This thread has gotten significantly more posts than anything else recently. It needs a jolt of excitement, and a leader who can carry that excitement further
Another tired line. Yet another point for me to say that you wanted this to be an official role which is why you are not talking about developments instead try to keep this going in an attempt for something new to happen. Did I ever tell you the definition insanity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
None of my posts here mention Trump. Stop eating crayons for one second and figure out what the fuck somebody is saying before responding, Okay short bus?
Your a conservative. Please tell me how you don't worship your idol Trump. Eating crayons? What are you a soccer mom or has your brain stop developing for a while?
Nobody is berating anybody. There are numerous people on the site with actual proven real life leadership. It makes more sense to give leadership positions to them than to people who nobody trusts with such roles once they get to know them in the real world. Please learn to read more carefully Zoo lover.
Lying about berating somebody then berating me? Lol who would've thought you just can't help yourself but be a liar.
Anyone wondering why I called him zoo lover, or how I know he loves zoos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN4dOU_1hoA
Imagine explaining a joke and thinking people will find it funny. Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Guess your not for freedom. You want public individuals to infringe on others' freedoms.Guess you are not for freedom. You want private individuals to infringe on others' freedoms.
Lol
You can't admit freedom leads to other people abusing that freedom instead make up stuff.
Can't find it.
Therefore, there is more freedom in general than there would be if you didn't impose that law.
By saying "more freedom" you have literally stated the flaw of your argument. You either have freedom or you don't. You are not free because they are rules stopping people from being free. Saying more freedom is that you acknowledge there things restricting your freedom but you choose not to understand your not completely free which is the entire point of freedom.
I said "fabricated". Means "invent" or "create". Why do you keep asking me to look up basic vocabulary words?
Yes rights were created. How in anyway can you disprove this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
The ideas don't matter more so the structure.What specific ideas do you not want to show tolerance for?
A rule is antithetical to freedom. That is pretty much it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
I wasn't using that definition. I was using the one when tolerance is without limit.When people speak of tolerance in political discourse it's often in reference to the tolerance of ethnic minorities (e.g. the "Museum of Tolerance") rather than tolerance in general. It's not paradoxical to advocate for tolerance of ethnic minorities while simultaneously being intolerant of racism and bigotry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It's the law of self-contradiction. The only absolute is there are no absolutes. Which logically brings us to the conclusion that - absolutes do exist.
Thank you. At least someone understands.
Created: