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 - Rama Set

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 301  Next >
41
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 03:05:29 AM »
Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016.
Hmm, were the numbers of Democrats that brought Trump's election into question actually comparable to what's happening now?

I don’t think it’s comparable. I bet you’d be hard pressed to find any election in any western democracy where 50% of the losers refuse to concede defeat two years later. It’s truly ominous.

Quote
I was under the impression that it was mostly a few desperate journos, the same type that made up batshit stories about his piss fetish or whatever. And now it's difficult to research the subject because anything to do with Trump and election legitimacy brings up the wrong election.

Anecdotally, most everyone I knew tossed out the word “collusion” at some point for a short time, but it died down pretty quick.

Quote
I'm curious and I'll keep digging, but in the meantime if you have any data, I'd love to see it.

I found which explores the “winner effect” and has links to some other sources.

Quote
Also, Republicans being sceptical wouldn't be too surprising. It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

What confidence did independents have and what percentage of the population are they? In advance, I’ll declare that most American’s declaring themselves independent are usually just cloaking their true political allegiance in the same way that people claim they don’t have biases. I don’t buy that they aren’t just republicans who are afraid to own up to their beliefs. Regardless, I’m interested to know what they polled like.

42
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 02:08:52 AM »

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.
Is it? Obviously I have a strong places-that-aren't-the-USA bias, but that seems largely unprecedented for western-style democracies. Do you have any examples of this happening elsewhere in similar systems?

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016. 2020 feels extraordinary because unlike 2016, the suspicion hasn’t abated even with pretty thorough debunking of every claim of fraud.

43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 13, 2022, 01:37:05 AM »
Most Republicans still believe that the election was stolen
What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.

44
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 12, 2022, 07:24:27 PM »

45
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 12, 2022, 04:04:15 PM »
Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Quote from: stack
Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too.

His book was largely about China and not about Trump. It's not a book about Trump. Your assertion that discussion about Chinese authoritarianism is not about the background of his work falls flat.

Look at these ludicrous excuses you continue to generate. It is pretty pathetic that you cant come up with one excuse and need a continuous series of them. First it's because of this, then it's because of that, then another thing. Face plant fail.

He has been rehashing the same point over and over.  This clearly was not an entire interview designed to bash Trump, and Ai Wei Wei clearly said that Trump wasn't an authoritarian because he doesn't have systemic support.  I know you only comprehend a world of stark black and white, but that isn't what the world is actually like. 

Now perhaps we can turn away from your butthurt feelings on PBS and turn back to the topic of Trump?  Tell us what you think of Trump recommending vaccines?  Is he part of the sheep?  If not, why is his support different than others?  If yes, why are you comfortable supporting him in light of strident condemnation of the vaccine?

46
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 12, 2022, 03:05:53 PM »

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 11, 2022, 06:17:07 AM »
 >o<G
It would have been good for PBS if he had ranted about Trump like they wanted him too. Unfortunately that narrative was not expressed and it was an embarrassing fail for them.

It's also pretty embarrassing how there are a range of excuses here ranging from the length it was discussed to where it was discussed in the video, to maybe the video was manipulated by a republican.

Did you know Trump is a dyed in the wool vaccine advocate?

48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:32:21 PM »
Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

Not as embarrassing as being a Trump supporter who also hates vaccines.

49
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 10, 2022, 12:07:17 PM »
Washington Post is literally telling people how to cope.

“People have feelings, lol” -Tom Bishop

50
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 01:26:17 AM »
Imagine hating vaccines, but loving Trump who loves vaccines.

52
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 08, 2022, 09:48:50 PM »
rip cyber ninjas

Weird. I could have sworn people pushing the Big Lie said Cyber Ninjas was a trustworthy and transparent company.

53
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 07, 2022, 05:49:57 PM »
She makes a good point

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/oh-my-fucking-god-get-the-fucking-vaccine-already-you-fucking-fucks

All that proves is that the vaccine can bring on debilitating bouts of Tourette's. What a foul mouthed woman.

Do the bad words offend you, snowflake?

54
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 07, 2022, 01:28:11 PM »
Prescription Shirt for the vax and booster junkies

Like Trump.

55
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification
« on: January 05, 2022, 06:40:01 PM »
Wasn’t exactly sure where to put this, but a big day for Irish culture:

https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/irish-language-european-union
Indeed. I mentioned this in another thread as well. I'm glad to see the language revival be making such strides, although there is obviously still a long way to go.

Canada is starting along the path of reviving some first nation’s languages. I hope it goes well, but we did so much to eradicate native speakers that it is a steep hill to climb.

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Irish reunification
« on: January 05, 2022, 06:10:10 PM »
Wasn’t exactly sure where to put this, but a big day for Irish culture:

https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/irish-language-european-union

57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 04, 2022, 03:08:06 AM »
Which deadly virus is making the rounds?
I think you know.
I'm not aware of any virus killing otherwise healthy people. Maybe you've been gas lit by the media or something?

Ignorance isn’t an excuse.

58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: December 30, 2021, 09:15:18 PM »
This is relevant, why? How much stock did you put in Bush condemning Trump?

59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: December 30, 2021, 04:31:18 PM »
It is more as if I went to an actual lawyer for a legal opinion and you keep shouting that your cousin knows legal stuff and he could do the same or better as someone with a Juris Doctorate and that the lawyer is a quack.

Just... no.

It’s almost as if you aren’t interested in addressing the substance of anything but as AATW said, cherry-picking someone who agrees with you. It’s a dead giveaway that you describe the Washington Post as a “cousin who knows legal stuff”.

Quote
In the video this lawyer states that he makes a living from suing pharmaceutical companies. It's not just any lawyer, it's a specialist to the niche field. That put him far above any non-lawyer who doesn't know the intricacies of the law. You may as well be claiming that a homeless person is your source, as you don't have anything comparable.

What about Castillo, the Pfizer representative who makes a living off of this? It’s incredible that you are so biased that you are willing to ignore these things.

Quote
This is just like the time you claimed that a comedian had better credentials than someone with a PhD and was an authority on economic and mathematical questions.  ::)

They weren’t an authority on mathematical questions, how did you decide that? Let me guess, a source you agree with declared them that?

60
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: December 30, 2021, 11:46:02 AM »
Lawyers say lots of things. So you found a lawyer that disagrees with the Washington Post assessment. So what?

The person who wrote the article you posted is not a lawyer. The source I presented is a lawyer. You are one lawyer short of answering a legal question.

You are one fallacy heavy of a real arguement.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 301  Next >