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.
systematic oppression of millions of people of color.Yeah, we're not very concerned about made-up shit that people keep claiming over and over without producing a shred of evidence. Go figure.
I'd like not to reunify.Yes, Thork, we've heard you the last x times you've said it. Do understand that we're going with what the majority wants here. And no, we're not counting your voice multiple times just because you keep repeating it.
(and I've proposed an alternative to pizaa but he rejected it)That's not strictly true. Nonetheless, Parsifal's suggestion seems appropriate.
Okay, do tell me how my formulation accuses me of making of the fallacy. Thanks.Nah. If you want to educate yourself, you will. I gave you all the sources you need. I'm far too busy to deal with your poorly-executed trolls. You're welcome.
Surely you're not claiming that there is no true Scotsman (no sane pilot), are you?Please familiarise yourself with the no true Scotsman fallacy. The way you formulated your question, you're accusing yourself of having committed the fallacy. It does appear like you're trying to suggest that Vauxhall is saying that no true Scotsman (no sane pilot) would ever perform this flight.
I just got a new laptop, so its unlikely I have anything untoward on there.Actually, it's quite likely.
I can readily use Rowbotham's definition of "zetetic".I suppose we'll have to wait for Rowbotham to chime in, then, since you're clearly not interested in using the word in the same sense as everyone else currently does.
"Zetetics deserve better".What, exactly, puts you in the position to determine the social status of people from a group you can't even define?
I never claimed that rejecting SM makes one a "pure zeteticist". I don't even know what one is.
Sorry about that. I've got a few more questions to ask. Should I start a new thread or post them on this one?Generally, I'd recommend separate threads. As you may have already seen (courtesy of ClockTower), threads here can easily get sidetracked, and thus we may miss things if we try lumping everything in one place. It just helps the flow of conversation.
Tom Bishop and pizzaplanet have been vocal on the issue as well.For clarity, I was vocal only in objecting your dislike of the term "conspiracy theory", largely due to your repeated assertion that a word can only have one meaning. At no point did I mention zeteticism vs theories. We ended that thread with me requesting that you form your views coherently and you refusing to do so.
Spain
RomeI take it geography is not one of your strong subjects.
Now for real. Distance from A and B (for example 400km). For car it will be... 400km. But if you believe in GPS - measure this distance in plane. It will be much longer. Why? If earth is flat then distance should be nearly equal. Why it doesn't? Because plane high - which is just radius of CIRCLE - is longer. Simple proof of curvation of earthAn interesting hypothesis. Let's put it to a simple test.
I have no interest in discussing this subject with you.Okay, then.
If you say it as a joke and don't expect it to be taken as a threat, you aren't a misunderstood troll. You're just an idiot.So you took this as a threat, then?
Hey, guys, I'm totally gonna blow up a mosque tomorrow. Please note: the former statement is false and I have no intention of blowing up mosques.
Who said anything about actual massacres?You:
I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!"
I mean, it certainly is a rude thing to say, but I would find it incredibly odd if a person's first thoughts about a massacre is "well that was an awfully rude thing to do!">trying to equate insensitive jokes about massacres to actual massacres
I think the conclusion to be drawn here is that the English don't understand freedom. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.It's just that we don't yet have the cahnstitutional right to go to jail for nothing. Give us time, with the Tories in power we'll get there eventually.
It is serious business because it is a business hosting the chat. Business tends to be the most serious business of all.This website is also hosted by a business. Also, given that the business was completely uninvolved in the case, I'm not quite sure why you'd even try to make this point in the first place.
In America you don't go to prison for being rude. That's completely ridiculous. If we send someone to prison for making stupid terroristic threats, that just means we have idiots in our justice system. It's not that big a deal, to be honest. But jailing someone for being rude is a bit orwellian, don't you think?I'm still firmly convinced that the difference is entirely superficial. You can present either of these cases as "technically bad but not actually bad" - you've been focusing on portraying the Texas kid as "making stupid terroristic threats" (despite the fact that he did no such thing). Meanwhile, the British media focused on portraying the other cases as inciting racial hatred.
4chan (where you get banned now, anyway!)Irrelevant - getting banned is not going to jail.
an extremely popular social website (Twitter) or an extremely popular game (LoL)Yes, I'm sure saying something to an audience of four people (nine if it was in /all chat) is srs business.