Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SexWarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 151  Next >
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Physical Proof...
« on: Today at 11:59:34 AM »
What can explain the fact that there are different shadows around the world at different times?
Different how?

In addition, doesn't the fact that the mast of a ship appears first disprove flat earth?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Freakin' Roofways
« on: May 24, 2017, 02:21:26 PM »
At least this doesn't involve parking your car on top of the solar panels and doesn't claim to break thermodynamics by producing enough electricity to be useful and light up a fuckton of bright LEDs and heat your driveway so it never freezes over again.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 24, 2017, 01:29:04 PM »
Okay, first of all, and I'm going to go a bit off-topic here - you're not being true to yourself here. You're willing to set aside your moral reservations to analyze Trump's lewd comments and defend them as not being as incriminating as many people thought, but you'll sit back and act like a tu quoque argument aimed at Hillary's husband somehow implicates Hillary herself? I know you too well for this. Admit it, you don't think it's fair to criticize Hillary for Bill's behavior. You pride yourself on your rationalism far too much to let your political preferences override it.
You're completely right, except it was never my intention to claim that Trump's retaliation there was sound or in any way justifiable. Rama's pretty much nailed it - all I meant to convey was that the retaliation worked, not that it was morally right. For the record, both "grab 'em by the pussy" and "lol Bill is a rapist y'all" incidents are pure sensationalism that should have no place in public debate.

Second of all, at least this gave Trump time to respond, to fight back, to recover from a scandal that many believed at the time to be fatal to his campaign. Releasing the tape just one or two days before the election, letting people vote while the tape was still sinking in and Trump was still reeling in response, would have been a far better strategy for manipulating the vote, something that the media absolutely would have known.
I honestly think that's a sign of incompetence rather than any moral superiority.

A second batch of DNC emails were released the day before the election, and the Podesta emails (which I had been thinking of mainly, but mixed them up with the DNC emails in my mind, sorry), were released in installments every day until the election
Fair enough, I can accept that that was likely a strategic move on WikiLeaks' part. I would still be interested in learning when the e-mails were obtained and thus how long they actually "sat on" the data.

But even though I'm not as convinced as I initially was, I still think my original point stands: Both sides resorted to unethical reporting in an attempt at swaying the vote. That appears to just be normal in American politics. I'm genuinely uncertain why whether or not this sort of behaviour is okay varies depending on who's doing it. For example, CNN was trying to use the very same leaks to bolster their own agenda, telling people that it's okay when reporters look at leaks, but not okay when the everyday Joe does.

Everyone wants to control the narrative. And now that the "bad guys" seemingly managed it, it's suddenly a bad thing. I don't get it. Either we hold people to ethical standards in reporting and journalism or we don't. We can't have it both ways.

Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it :-*

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 23, 2017, 09:15:31 AM »
It's harmful because it's manipulative. There's a world of difference between a media outlet publishing the news as it arrives and a media outlet carefully hoarding information until it's close to an election, then strategically releasing it in a schedule designed to browbeat the public into electing one particular candidate over another with maximum efficiency.
Do you think the mainstream media don't normally strategise their coverage of politics? That seems to fly in the face of the fact that most American media are extremely partisan. They all carefully select what to report and when, don't they?

Can you imagine if the media had sat on the "Grab them by the pussy" video until one or two days before the election, counting on the shock value to cost Trump the vote? You and Rushy would have furiously protested, and rightfully so.
Sorry, but I disagree in multiple ways:

I recall protesting that one regardless of the timing, because it bore no substance, in my opinion. To me, it was sensationalist drivel. Saying that you can get rapey with woman when you're rich and famous is not evidence that he did get rapey. I'm consistently a fan of due process - I generally won't accept that Trump (or anyone else!) is guilty of anything until the accusation has been properly dealt with. And, in this case, I believe no one even levelled an accusation.

Also, it was a tape from many years ago that was conveniently released just before a debate. The timing was obviously deliberate. It ended up backfiring because Trump turned it around on Bill Clinton (by presenting people actually willing to accuse him).

Also, the "Grab them by the pussy" story ran in October 2016. The DNC leaks were published in July 2016. Of these two, which one was timed closer to the actual election (November 2016)? Honestly, the more I look into it, the more it sounds like they did sit on the story until just before the election. I don't know when the DNC attack took place (as opposed to when the data was published), so I can't comment on that one.

EDIT: Looking at the stolen e-mails, the most recent ones were from 25th May 2016. Assuming the actual data mining took place at that time, that gives us a 2-month turnaround, which is not unreasonable given the amount of data.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 22, 2017, 10:08:59 PM »
ok let's not use The Onion as a news source though

edit: Looking at media that isn't The Onion, it looks like we'll have to wait for some elaboration

Neither the White House nor the White House Correspondents Association immediately returned Business Insider's request for comment about whether InfoWars has applied for or received a permanent White House press credential.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 22, 2017, 09:55:19 PM »
well fuck

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 22, 2017, 10:12:22 AM »
for one thing, it absolutely matters that a foreign power stole private information from a political party and leaked it during the height of an election cycle.  that you think russia did this as a favor to the american people is laughable.
I'm curious about this. Let's assume that the information disclosed to the American people was true and complete. So far, it seems to be the consensus that this is the case. How are you going to paint disclosing accurate information as something that's harmful to anyone other than DNC elites?

for another, the dnc/podesta leaks are the agitprop.  you fell for it.  those emails didn't reveal shit other than that hillary clinton was a well-connected politician.  but they came packaged with a bunch of spooky headlines like THIS EMAIL PROVES DNC CONTROLS THE MEDIA attached to an email about sending out press releases or whatever, and a bunch of folks bought it.
Hey, Gary, you're doing that thing where you take a fringe group and try to paint it as the mainstream.

fwiw i agree that the blame falls squarely on hillary's shoulders.  she spent years responding to partisan politics with more partisan politics, and now she's reaped what she sowed.  i don't think these tactics would work on just any democratic nominee.  probably wouldn't have worked on bernie or uncle joe.  they worked on hillary because people already don't trust her, including other democrats.
It wouldn't work on Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden because they (probably) didn't spend their entire lives being corrupt assholes.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: New here
« on: May 21, 2017, 08:42:24 PM »
Ooh, pick me!  Pick me!
Hey, look, it's another guy who claims to be in the navy because it suits him in the conversation. We get those so rarely, it's refreshing!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 21, 2017, 11:23:46 AM »
Well, I just assumed that you were tying this into the same argument you've been making for several pages
If you think I've been making one argument for several pages, then I have failed to explain myself sufficiently. If you tell me what you didn't understand, I'll do my best to clarify my thoughts.

but if your whole point was that there are crazy people on the internet making up wild conspiracy theories, that too many people take seriously, well, thanks for reminding us of something we all already knew, I guess
More or less; but you give people too much credit. For example, we've just found out that Saddam is a meme-conspiracy theorist, and garygreen at least has some sympathy towards the meme-conspiracy. Challenging this idiocy is important.

I think it's worth noting that these are fringe beliefs that expressly have nothing to do with what the mainstream media is reporting,  nonetheless.
I disagree, there is a connection between the two. The meme-conspiracy drives demand for Russia stories, and the mainstream media has to deliver. And, conversely, legitimate Russia stories can serve as a gateway to the meme-conspiracy. Now, we can't blame mainstream media for simply catering to demand, but squashing the meme-conspiracy would return some balance to media coverage.

I'll pass on addressing your "wow you're so irrelevant!!!!" ramble in too much detail. Sorry that you didn't like my point, hun.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 20, 2017, 05:53:05 PM »
Sure. Look, I'm not happy with what happened with the DNC, and I don't want to see the issue "go away."
So I take it you're unhappy with the media's insistence on ignoring it, and the strategies they employ to divert people's attention, yes?

I was responding to Rushy's claim that the Russian drama was invented to draw attention away from the DNC scandal, which is nonsensical.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 20, 2017, 05:06:21 PM »
Breaking news there are wackjobs on the internet omg
Yes, and some of them are very prominent journalists who end up propagating the meme-conspiracy to individuals like Saddam

But it's a bit intellectually dishonest to prop this article up as an example of mainstream media being out of control when clearly that is not what the article is talking about, don't you think?
And where the fuck did you get that from "the meme-conspiracy is much more retarded than I gave it credit for"?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: New here
« on: May 20, 2017, 10:27:57 AM »
Hey, look, another thread where gecko uses a lot of words to say "I don't like FE :( :( :("

Does this not fall under low-content posting, bearing in mind the sheer volume of his posts to the exact same effect? Surely his "message" has already been heard, and repeating the same lies over and over does not introduce anything to the site?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 20, 2017, 09:09:49 AM »
Of course the matter would be pressed further, because it would be of enormous importance to Russian-American relations. But this time it would focus on Russia, not Trump, because implicating a failed presidential candidate is of far less interest than implicating the actual president - just like implicating Hillary for any DNC shenanigans now is of far less interest than implicating her if she had won the election.
Would you agree that treating something as serious but not a top priority is different from trying to completely ignore something and hoping it goes away?

I vote based on my political beliefs, not on what I think of the party's leadership. And you know perfectly well that I didn't vote against Trump because of the alleged Russian connection.
So you'd vote for a known corrupt candidate if he said the things you like to hear? That seems to be the name of the game in American politics these days, and look where that got you. This time, I'm talking about the state of both parties.

In other news, according to the left-wing rag called Vox, the meme-conspiracy is much more retarded than I gave it credit for:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 10:23:55 PM »
Why the hell would anybody waste their time worrying about Hillary? She's not the president, Trump is. It's not a conspiracy that people are more concerned with what the President of the United States is up to than his defeated opponent, who no longer holds any office at all.
So, let us for a moment assume that Trump lost. Bernie's in office (let's face it, a hypothetical scenario in which Hillary wins is just too much), but the meme-conspiracy has already been started. The meme-conspiracy theorists believe that Russia tried to install Trump and failed.

Do you:
  • Ignore it because it no longer matters; after all, the Russian meddling wasn't such a big deal, and we should focus on the president instead
  • Press the matter further because Russian meddling is serious business and the American people clearly care and also it is very important and the Soviets did the same thing before and oh no
Choose wisely!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 08:40:55 PM »
The Economist's commentary on the meme-conspiracy trying to deflect from real issues is pretty much spot-on.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 07:18:12 PM »
Welp, Rushy put this more succinctly than I ever could.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 06:57:30 PM »
Which is what I said, everyone can see that Russia influenced the election to some degree.  No conspiracy there.
Then you and I are in agreement. Now we just need to get Saddam, the meme-conspiracy Democrats, and some of the American media on our side.

What has also been reported is that the Trump campaign had 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians, which is a no no.  Perhaps they were innocuous, perhaps not, but it is something that should be put to rest one way or the other.
Agreed, which is why I support an independent investigation. I do not support fearmongering, spurious accusations, and sabotaging the government because "oh no Russia".

All you're saying here is that you personally don't care, which is something that you've been saying a lot over the past few months.
That is not even remotely close to what I'm saying, or anything I have ever said here.

Surely you must have noticed by now that the media, the U.S. government, and the American people don't share your general lack of concern?
No - it's just a subset of very vocal Democrats pretending they're relevant. As garygreen rightly pointed out, it's useless to act as if they were representative of the country as a whole. They do deserve condemnation and ridicule, but that's it.

Constantly using your own apathy as a measure for whether or not something deserves attention is not going to lead anywhere productive.
You have a very strange idea of what apathy is. I'm expressing resentment towards Democrats such as you who are trying to destabilise the country because they're butthurt about a political outcome. It's just about the opposite of apathy.

You're greatly exaggerating the supposed outlandishness of the current situation.
Oh, and here I thought I'm the apathetic one. Apparently now I care too much. Can you at least make up your mind about what kind of wrong I am?

If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it.
Right, so you're completely open about suspecting a conspiracy. I'm glad we've established that.

That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.
It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction. To assume guilt without any evidence is utter madness, and to support the minority party attempting to completely paralyse the government under that excuse is more damaging than even the worst-case scenario of the meme-conspiracy.

It would be far more retarded to promptly dismiss it the way you're doing.
But I'm not doing that at all. I said multiple times by now that I think it makes sense to investigate the matter. What I oppose is the Democratic Party and its media outlets attempting to drive your country into the ground in a sad attempt to reclaim power.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 05:30:53 PM »

yep totally retarded russia would never try to influence our elections or disrupt our political process.  they definitely haven't been using these same tactics for decades.

also what rama said.  the reasonable argument is that russia did what russia does and tried to disrupt our political process.  it worked.  some folks on trump's campaign team may have been knowingly complicit in some of those activities.  we should find out if that's true or not.
There is also the theory that Russia influenced the election, which is much more reasonable. It's pretty obvious they tried to do that just from Putin's endorsements, whether or not anything more clandestine happened is speculative to us proles that have no access the l33t intel.
Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

So, yes, one can make a reasonable claim that Russia tried to influence the election, that Macedonian NEETs tried to influence the election, that Fox News tried to influence the election, that CNN did it, or even that garygreen did it. The reason why I don't find that notable is that while these claims are likely completely true, they're also simply business as usual.

That's also why the media narrative doesn't focus on it - it's simply not news. Hence the constant implications of collusion, treason, and covert actions that dominate the discussion.

So yeah, if you don't believe in the meme-conspiracy and instead think that media and hostile governments did what media and hostile governments always do: good on you, you happen not to be patently retarded. But it doesn't do anything to justify the paranoia and disruption to the political process that the Democrats are introducing entirely by themselves.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2017, 02:23:00 PM »
yeah i'm still not into the "reasonable arguments become less reasonable when you consider that unreasonable arguments also exist" thing.
There is no reasonable argument here. There are two conspiracy theories: One that Russia illegally controlled the American election, and one that Trump is a super-secret traitor. I choose to laugh about the latter because it's funnier, but both are patently retarded.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 151  Next >