*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #700 on: February 04, 2022, 03:07:04 AM »
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect. I don't see how this goes very far to prove honk's claim that "nothing they say is reliable" and that "any given Conservapedia article will be full of horseshit". In fact, since that's all you had an issue with, it does the opposite.

Quote from: honk
I'm not saying that a position being argued on Conservapedia automatically means that the opposite is true

So you admit that a Conservapedia article can have truth on it. Since you admit that an article can have truth on it there is a fundamental flaw with dismissing all content on this public platform of communication without bothering to assess the specific claims as they come in. How ridiculous of you.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 03:55:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #701 on: February 04, 2022, 03:46:12 AM »
You’ve really got to be joking.

No, he's completely serious. For sure.  ::)
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #702 on: February 04, 2022, 04:03:47 AM »
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #703 on: February 04, 2022, 08:45:23 AM »
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.

I'd like to submit that supporting Trump leads to obesity.
Evidence:
Trump eats unhealthy food.
Trump is visibly obese.
Trump's supporters admire his decisions, which must therefore include his diet and exercise decisions.
Therefore they like being unhealthy and obese.

In 2016 obesity was 39.8% in adults.
In 2018 obesity was 42.4% in adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db288.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm

So while Trump was in office, obesity increased. 
Its clear: Trump makes his supporters fat.  Vote Biden to avoid obesity
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #704 on: February 04, 2022, 08:51:55 AM »
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.

I'd like to submit that supporting Trump leads to obesity.
Evidence:
Trump eats unhealthy food.
Trump is visibly obese.
Trump's supporters admire his decisions, which must therefore include his diet and exercise decisions.
Therefore they like being unhealthy and obese.

In 2016 obesity was 39.8% in adults.
In 2018 obesity was 42.4% in adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db288.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm

So while Trump was in office, obesity increased. 
Its clear: Trump makes his supporters fat.  Vote Biden to avoid obesity

No, Dave. The game is to boldly present something as fact with no evidence whatsoever, then demand proof that it's not the case. You put thought into it so you failed.  :(
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #705 on: February 04, 2022, 09:32:49 AM »
Quote from: stack
I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct.

You posted 53 words from an article with over 4,000 words. You only found fault with those ones, which you suspect, but don't bother at all to provide evidence for, is incorrect.

I’ll let the first two paragraphs about chess speak for itself. Funny how that was your example.

But ok, if we’re now playing by your rules, it seems that voting for Joe Biden fends off obesity, unlike voting for other candidates. It also rids one of the unhealthy addiction to porn and televised football games.

Now provide some evidence that this is incorrect.

I'd like to submit that supporting Trump leads to obesity.
Evidence:
Trump eats unhealthy food.
Trump is visibly obese.
Trump's supporters admire his decisions, which must therefore include his diet and exercise decisions.
Therefore they like being unhealthy and obese.

In 2016 obesity was 39.8% in adults.
In 2018 obesity was 42.4% in adults.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db288.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm

So while Trump was in office, obesity increased. 
Its clear: Trump makes his supporters fat.  Vote Biden to avoid obesity

No, Dave. The game is to boldly present something as fact with no evidence whatsoever, then demand proof that it's not the case. You put thought into it so you failed.  :(

Damnit!   >o<
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #706 on: February 04, 2022, 10:02:37 AM »
So parents who are prejudiced to not want their children to be around convicted child molesters are more likely to be wrong? How does that work?
That isn't prejudice. If they've been convicted then they've already been judged and found to be guilty.
So not wanting your children to be around them is eminently sensible :)
I'll add "prejudice" to the list of things you don't understand - if it helps there's a clue in the word itself, it's "pre-judging" someone.
And that makes you more likely to be wrong :). As your own source says, prejudice and bias are synonymous in common usage.

And I note you are continuing to ignore the point here which is your hypocricy.
You have previously dismissed sources on the basis that you claim they are biased.
Yet here you are posting a biased source but because the bias confirms your own you are now claiming that the bias doesn't matter.
Silly you.
:)
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #707 on: February 13, 2022, 11:29:24 AM »
I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap.
OK. Well, two of us have read it and we agree that this specific claim was factually correct, if possibly misused. If you're gonna take the "well I don't HAVE TO read it" route, then I'll just assume you have no meaningful response and move on.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #708 on: February 13, 2022, 01:30:36 PM »
So parents who are prejudiced to not want their children to be around convicted child molesters are more likely to be wrong? How does that work?
That isn't prejudice. If they've been convicted then they've already been judged and found to be guilty.

No. You are proposing that people should be judged for life. Assuming that someone who stole something once will steal again is a form of prejudice.

Many people who have completed their sentence don't think that they are guilty anymore. For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation. Many people argue that when you are convicted and have been sentenced you have theoretically "done your time" and have served your punishment, have passed any rehabilitation from the state, and should be given a second chance in getting jobs, etc.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2022, 01:38:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #709 on: February 13, 2022, 02:10:30 PM »
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.

You are misunderstanding how the justice system works.  Serving your sentence does not wipe away a guilty plea or conviction.  You do not suddenly become innocent of your past crimes after your sentence is up.  It would take a pardon or a higher court invalidating your conviction can do that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #710 on: February 13, 2022, 02:29:30 PM »
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.

You are misunderstanding how the justice system works.  Serving your sentence does not wipe away a guilty plea or conviction.  You do not suddenly become innocent of your past crimes after your sentence is up.  It would take a pardon or a higher court invalidating your conviction can do that.

No, you don't become innocent of the crime committed, but many people believe that if you go through your punishment and go through counseling, etc. as required by the state, you are considered to be rehabilitated and that it shouldn't follow you for the rest of your life in getting second chances for jobs, etc.

Judging someone who stole something once and preventing them from getting a job because you assume that they will steal again is clearly a form of prejudice.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #711 on: February 13, 2022, 02:39:05 PM »
For most things the state doesn't even think that people remain guilty after completing their time and rehabilitation.

You are misunderstanding how the justice system works.  Serving your sentence does not wipe away a guilty plea or conviction.  You do not suddenly become innocent of your past crimes after your sentence is up.  It would take a pardon or a higher court invalidating your conviction can do that.

No, you don't become innocent of the crime committed

That's all I was trying to point out. 

Rama Set

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #712 on: February 13, 2022, 03:36:49 PM »
Republicans would probably never have a president again if they didn’t prejudice against convicted felons. FL, for example, disenfranchised 10% of their voting population in 2016; a group that is overwhelmingly black and democrat.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #713 on: February 13, 2022, 03:44:32 PM »
Judging someone who stole something once and preventing them from getting a job because you assume that they will steal again is clearly a form of prejudice.

... a form of prejudice which was (and maybe still is) practiced in a number of states.

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #714 on: February 13, 2022, 04:29:29 PM »
I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap.
OK. Well, two of us have read it and we agree that this specific claim was factually correct, if possibly misused. If you're gonna take the "well I don't HAVE TO read it" route, then I'll just assume you have no meaningful response and move on.

If there's a good argument to be made that The Hill is in fact politically liberal, then you and/or Tom would have been better off posting that argument rather than just a link to Conservapedia. Like I said, it's simply disingenuous to pretend that website's reputation means nothing and shouldn't be taken into account. I can't stop you from pompously declaring victory and "moving on," but you're the one who's arguing that a link to Conservapedia should apparently be taken seriously, and no pithy remarks from you are going to change how silly that is.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2022, 02:05:11 AM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #715 on: February 15, 2022, 12:09:22 PM »
If there's a good argument to be made that The Hill is in fact politically liberal, then you and/or Tom would have been better off posting that argument rather than just a link to Conservapedia.
I agree, and the adults in the room already went over that.

Like I said, it's simply disingenuous to pretend that website's reputation means nothing and shouldn't be taken into account.
Serendipitously, that's exactly the argument Tom was making. You just forgot to read it.

I can't stop you from pompously declaring victory and "moving on,"
Of course you can - you can simply address the argument, which has now been made several times without referring to Conservapedia. You screaming about how much you hate some website is irrelevant.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #716 on: February 16, 2022, 05:06:45 AM »
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itself and more in responding to the circlejerk from you and Rama about how obviously I was dumb and off-base to simply mock a Conservapedia article being linked to in an Internet discussion, and that even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said! I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not. You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productive, because it doesn't explain why each of the article's specific arguments fail to hold up. But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong. Conservapedia is a bullshit website, and so I called bullshit when it was cited. No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Rama Set

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #717 on: February 16, 2022, 05:38:24 AM »
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itself and more in responding to the circlejerk from you and Rama about how obviously I was dumb and off-base to simply mock a Conservapedia article being linked to in an Internet discussion, and that even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said! I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not. You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productive, because it doesn't explain why each of the article's specific arguments fail to hold up. But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong. Conservapedia is a bullshit website, and so I called bullshit when it was cited. No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.

I understand you feel victimized but don’t drag me in to this.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #718 on: February 16, 2022, 09:56:14 AM »
At this point, I'm less interested in the argument itself
Well, of course you are. After all, if you had a meaningful response, you'd have already provided it. Instead, you're going to bawl about how righteous and just you are, because that's how you handle difficult situations.

even if one were to dispute Tom's point, that of course shouldn't be interpreted as support for the stupid thing I said!
Literally everyone is disputing Tom's point. Read the thread my dude, it'll help you form relevant responses.

I'm not going to let the notion that mockingly expressing disbelief that someone is linking a Conservapedia article in an Internet discussion is a dumb thing to say stand unchallenged, because I know that it's not.
Okay - how are you going to challenge it? Will you just repeatedly say "I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS!!!1!!!", or are you going to, like, actually present a position?

You could say that it's an incomplete response, or one that isn't particularly productive
Ding ding ding!

But that doesn't mean that it's dumb or wrong.
Indeed - it just happens to also be dumb and wrong in this specific case, for reasons we went over in great detail. You're welcome to address those, by the way, though you'll have to read them first.

No logical fallacy, no breakdown in reasoning, just an entirely justified ad hominem attack.
lol

Though you're right on one point - since you presented no reasoning, it's unlikely that there was any breakdown in it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #719 on: February 17, 2022, 04:14:40 AM »
You're right, Pete, I should have read your most recent posts, and then I would have understood what you were getting at earlier. I didn't interpret Tom's initial post the same way you did. Rather than see it as something along the lines of "Hey, here's an excellent argument indicating that The Hill has a liberal bias. I found it on Conservapedia, so here's the link," I saw it as "Check out this article making a comprehensive case for The Hill having a liberal bias. Here's just one example of what they have to say!" I can't prove that was what he meant, but it does seem like that was the case from how he responded to us - not by directing our attention towards the specific argument, but by defending Conservapedia and arguing that its conservative stance doesn't make it wrong or unreliable. Rama seemed to also have interpreted the post this way, which would explain why he chose to debunk every argument the article provided, not just the one Tom screenshotted, as well as why your back-and-forth with him went on as long as it did - he was talking about the article as a whole, while you were talking about one specific claim.

I fully agree with you that criticizing the original source of an argument when the merits of the argument are what's being discussed isn't very productive. But if the source itself essentially is the argument, and is just linked in its entirety to argue a certain position, then I think it's entirely fair to point and laugh when the source is a meme on the level of Conservapedia. Not the most productive thing to say, but still something that's entirely relevant. If you don't agree with me on that, then I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I can't see myself changing my opinion.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2022, 05:53:27 AM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y