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 - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 334  Next >
1
Technology & Information / Re: Steam Deck
« on: August 09, 2022, 08:00:33 AM »
Which model did you get?
512GB. It should be getting here any day now!!1!

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Buy Illegal Abortion
« on: August 08, 2022, 07:12:27 AM »
Fixed the title for U guyzzzz.
SARCASM!!!!
If you post like this once more in PR&S or other upper fora, it's off to the shadow realm with you.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Old Politicians
« on: August 04, 2022, 11:43:58 PM »
Maybe you just went to a really shitty school?
It doesn't take that much effort to find an American sporting a "BACK-TO-BACK WORLD WAR WINNERS!!1!!!" t-shirt with a bald eagle carrying 5 guns in the background. They sell them at WalMart, and cheaply.

Perhaps you just live in an extremely sheltered part of the country? As a litmus test - how surprised were you by Trump's 2016 election?

4
Technology & Information / Re: Steam Deck
« on: August 04, 2022, 09:46:27 AM »
My preorder just became available. I doubt I'll be using it much, but I'm curious enough to order one. I'll let you know how it goes.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: August 01, 2022, 12:25:04 AM »
It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.
If you cannot figure out why providing no content other than an IMDB link to Amazon Women on the Moon is not in line with a well-spirited debate, then you are beyond help and should be ejected immediately. If you do understand why it's not OK, then you've got your final chance to behave.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
« on: July 31, 2022, 11:24:15 PM »
In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon!
If you can't figure out how to post in the upper, don't post in the upper.

9
Putting my moderator hat on for a moment: there isn't an obvious correct course of action. We have 2 conflicting arguments here:
  • Saddam's usual manufactured outrage
  • Tom's bizzare argument

Neither is made from the position of good faith, and neither should be taken seriously. However, continuing that line of questioning is not helpful to the discussion, and at this point it only serves to be unproductive. So, my suggestion and polite request is that both sides drop this line of inquiry and focus on something more productive.

Tom - it seems to me that you've made your point, and that the sum total of people's responses to it has been exhausted. It seems that some people are finding the subject of mass muder and suicide to be sensitive, so could you please them do the courtesy of dropping it?
Others - please could you make it easier to drop the subject by not fuelling it further?

I hope we can all reach a consensus on this. There is no other solution here that would keep everyone happy, and any forceful action from the mods would set an uncomfortable precedent for the future. Let's just move on, okay?

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What is the Gospel?
« on: July 16, 2022, 06:55:42 PM »
So yes, it was obviously written by humans but the Christian belief is that it was inspired by God.
How would you, personally, describe this "inspiration"? Is it a Qu'ranic kinda deal where the supposed deity dictated it word for word? Or is it something more relaxed? To what extent do you think humans may have corrupted the intended message?

To be clear, I'm really asking for your personal take here (and the personal takes of anyone else who feels like sharing). I already know the "right" answer for at least some denominations of Christianity, but I also don't really care what they think.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What is the Gospel?
« on: July 16, 2022, 01:15:43 PM »
It doesn’t. That’s humans you’re thinking of
You've lost me. Who, in your opinion, wrote the Bible?

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 08, 2022, 02:15:55 PM »
Ignoring the "By 'press' BoJo meant something else than the contextually obvious meaning of 'press'" argument for a moment: it's actually quite likely that he didn't notice the press around him. Don't forget - this is the guy that excused himself out of an interview, entered a walk-in fridge, and closed the door behind him. It's also the guy who grabbed someone's phone and put it in his pocket because he didn't want to address the picture he was being shown on said phone. Politics aside, his awareness of his own surroundings is clearly not always all there.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: July 08, 2022, 08:51:37 AM »
I'm not adverse to that idea, but the key thing is it being free.
Yes. Anything else would just result in repeating the problem.

But I've yet to be convinced that there is a problem to solve here.
Personally, I don't know how you'd be able to establish whether the problem is widespread. I know people say voter fraud is not a widespread issue, but it genuinely stumps me how you could conclude that.

The UK just sends you a piece of paper that tells you where to turn up to vote. You don't even need to bring it with you, it's just there for information. I got one of these for people who no longer lived at my address for almost every general election, and I've moved several times in my time here. This means that I, personally, could have voted in most elections by just walking in and being like "why yes, I am Name Lastname and my address is this and that".

How do you catch me? How do I get included in the statistics that tell us this is totally, definitely not a problem? The entire system is designed to make this analysis nigh-impossible.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: July 08, 2022, 08:03:10 AM »
So how would such a person vote?  Or is voting reserved for people who aren't fucked over by life?
This problem has been solved by most countries that require ID to vote. You set up a free and mandatory national ID card scheme.

These are unpopular in Anglophone countries, because they somehow convinced themselves that this would impact their privacy, or that being given a piece of plastic violates their freedom. I guess it's down to the Democrats to convince voters otherwise.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 06, 2022, 03:54:02 PM »
Isn’t the BBC a fairly accurate and mainstream news source?
Granted, it's a notable exception that I only have occasional issues with.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 06, 2022, 03:18:14 PM »
The Daily Mail...I'm not disputing they're a horrible rag and it's lamentable that they're the biggest selling paper over here. No argument about The Sun either. But I said before that some sources are better than others. My point is some people believe that all mainstream sources are full of lies simply because they're mainstream.
Of course not. There is nothing about them being mainstream that automatically makes them full of lies. There is no direct causation here. However, it just so happens that the mainstream-est of media are utterly full of lies. The media that haven't completely gone down the gutter are hardly mainstream. Some of them are notable, but that's where realising that the Guardian (not a perfect newspaper, but at least somewhat rooted in reality) has 10% of the circulation of any of the Big Bads comes into play.

Counterpoint, no he doesn't.
But he says something about things that actually happened, so he's basically telling the truth. 🤷‍♂️

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 06, 2022, 12:40:24 PM »
Why do you keep repeating this? I clarified multiple times.
As I said immediately after your quote ends, your "clarification" is an obvious attempt at copping out. If you want to take what you said back and choose your words more carefully in the future, that's fine. Until then, you suffer the social consequences of your own actions, frustrating as you may find them.

I suspect it's the latter.
Evidently. Apparently a dishonest take on something that happened satisfies your criteria for being "basically true". As long as it says "something about" a thing that happened, it's "basically true". And that, boys and girls, is how we got Trump - a man who usually says things that are "basically true".

Moreover, you conveniently happen to have the least insane newspaper of the three, so you choose not to look at the other two. I don't know why I bother reasoning with you. You never evaluate, you just cling to whatever makes you feel right.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 06, 2022, 09:45:03 AM »
Holy shit will you stop with this ridiculous hyperbole! All I've said is I disagree that they lie about everything all the time. That doesn't mean I think they are bastions of truth.
That's not all you've said, no. Perhaps that's all you meant, and I'm happy to accept that you're stepping down, but what you said was:

Quote
It's not a controversial statement but it's not a correct statement either. I mean, an increasing number of people think that - and that's what Trump has capitalised on and amplified.
Most of what the MSM write is basically true.

This, to me, is such an insane statement that I don't even know where to begin. I sincerely suspect it's been a while since you've engaged with mainstream media. Could I encourage you to do so and report your findings (or keep them to yourself - I don't really care if you admit you were wrong, as long as you realise it)? I'm even happy to cover your costs, not that they'll be high.

Go and buy a copy of the 3 most circulated newspapers in the UK: The Sun, Daily Mail, and Metro. Have a read through them and tell me whether what they print falls within your definition of "basically true". I suspect that you will either agree with me that you were wrong, or we will realise that our ideas of what counts as "basically true" are extremely incompatible. What the MSM write is not "basically true". More commonly, it falls into the bracket of "so unhinged and incoherent that the concepts of right or wrong barely even apply".

I also suspect that when you think "MSM", you might be thinking of something like The Guardian - whose circulation is 10% that of The Sun if we're being generous. As you said, it's possible to find media that agree with anyone (including ones relatively level-headed people). They just happen not to be mainstream by any definition of the term.

How can you rail against my somewhat flippant claim that "all" conspiracy theorists...because it's too absolute
That's not what I'm railing against at all. I'm simply pointing out that you cannot be made happy, because you want to complain about how dumb conspiracy theorists are. When people are aligned in their conclusions - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. When people are not aligned - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. Sure, you gave some half-arsed excuse about how you would be happy if people weren't aligned but you personally received updates on their attempts to align. I hope we can agree that it doesn't merit a serious response. You cannot be made happy, because you've already decided that you're going to disagree with those people, regardless of what they do. And that's dumb.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 334  Next >