I've never come across another human who was healthy, educated, and had just their basic needs met but didn't want to work. Do you know people like this? Do you work? Do you not have your basic needs met?
On the contrary, I've come across a lot of people who didn't want to work and none of them had all of those things. I've also seen them obtain those things over time AND end up wanting to work.
Many want luxury
Many want to help people
Many want to fulfill a purpose
Some want all three but I've never seen one who didn't want any of those things. Thousands of people and I can't think of a single exception.
Please tell me what evidence you have of the contrary. Maybe my life experience is all just a wild fluke.
That is what is called "anecdotal evidence". Even if it was true, your personal experiences are not statistically relevant. You are basing your argument on assumptions, not facts and evidence. All these entitlements not only create dependency (the opposite of independence), they also remove the primary motivations people have to better themselves and work harder. Plenty of people are perfectly satisfied having their basic needs met, and if those are handed out freely, what motivation do they have to ever do more? Why would people who are working really hard to make it keep working so hard if they can just give up at any moment knowing the government safety net is there to take care of them? What happens to the ability of society to produce all the resources and services we need to survive when everyone starts checking out and relying on these entitlements? Most importantly what kind of power and influence is created over the population by the government with such a large dependent class? You are arguing from a position of Pathos, not a position of Logos. |
|
|
|
Education, good health, guarnteed living wage, and a clean environment are all things that make people WANT to work and you are arguing that the result of these things is a population that won't want to work. Its such a weird argument to make logically.
And on what evidence exactly are you basing your conclusion that these entitlements will result in people wanting to work? If people have all of their basic needs covered free of charge, what incentive do they have to better themselves or work? |
|
|
|
Maybe we should wait until the kid is old enough to commit suicide before we recognizing their gender. Then we can take their claim seriously.
Or maybe we should give these kids hormonal therapy to balance their hormone levels, a known cause of gender dysphoria and depression, a therapy with high rates of success. Nah, why do that when you can use them as political tools and permanently mutilate them instead? Medical treatments that make healthy happy children are transphobic! |
|
|
|
There are an infinite number of potential explanations, but lets just start with one. How about a combination of nature and nurture being the cause? Happy now? You were in fact using a false choice fallacy. OH NOES! DON'T REFUSE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ARGUMENT! I don't know how I would cope if you don't bother supporting your own argument! Is this supposed to motivate me some how, you refusing to make your own points? Duuuuuuuuuumb. The conclusion of the studies might be discussed but not the facts described. And the facts described are enough to prove that environment > genetics. This is you making the argument of a conclusion in the nature vs nurture debate, you are just to ignorant to realize what your own arguments consist of. Speaking of reading, you can't even read and understand your own words. Please read the definition of nature vs nurture: "The nature versus nurture debate involves whether human behavior is determined by the environment, either prenatal or during a person's life, or by a person's genes. " It talks about individual behavior. I talk about social and economical status. In other terms, nature vs nurture is about how one acts, I'm talking about what one obtains after his actions. Hence your whole critics is based on an argument I never made. Please think about the difference between the two then come back. Lol, yeah ok... I just didn't get the detailed nuances of your arguments... it is certainly not the case that you made a half baked argument then forgot you made it 3 seconds later, pretended you didn't make it, and are now pretending you are just too deep for me to understand to cover up for your own self contradiction. Nah... BTW the distinction is irrelevant anyway. Ahahahahah
The distinction between action and result of action is irrelevant.
Sure. You're one dumb shit for sure!
You are the one who is making arguments then claiming in the very next reply that you never made the argument, but I am the stupid one eh? The nature vs nurture debate includes "action as well as result of action", but keep pretending your arguments are just too deep for me to understand. You guys are beating a dead horse. No one is advocating the repeat of 20th century "communism" which is the only thing you have made an argument against. Continuously arguing against things that aren't being argued for is the definition of strawmanning. This whole thread is strawmen. This is just another way of rephrasing the "but it wasn't true Communism" logical fallacy. You don't get to summarily exclude all the horrible failures of Communism in the past and just say "nah don't worry, it is not THAT Communism, this Communism is different! I can't define how it is different in any way whatsoever, but it is different I swear!" |
|
|
|
You keep saying it is not about his opinions over and over again, and then source nothing but his opinions. Just saying it is not about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. You aren't substantiating anything, just making empty claims.
You keep saying it is about his opinions over and over again. Just saying it is about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. Some people's subjective experience in this case is that there are opinions and some that there are lies. Some believe the claims are empty. Others do not. Great use of logic. The only problem is the burden of proof is on you not me. The subjectivity is exactly what you are exploiting to CLAIM he is lying in an effort to punish him for his opinions. You don't give a shit about this community or the fidelity of the trust system, you put your need to punish ideas that upset you above all of it. The trust system is just another tool for you to exploit. |
|
|
|
Wasn't it Iran that released the footage first? That's something someone who did something bad wouldn't do. Especially with this one since they'd know they'll be the first one to be blamed.
Remember USS Maine?
Iran is being put under lots of pressure by USA and I feel it’s a dangerous situation for the gulf region, if USA decides to retaliate without concrete proof. Saudi Arabia has also blamed Iran for the attack, and has hinted that it could take actions if needed to protect their interests. Does anyone here think that USA and Saudi can attack Iran vessels to teach them a lesson, won’t it destabilise peace in the gulf region?. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48648788https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/15/iran-us-divisions-deepen-over-gulf-of-oman-oil-tankers-attackAs if it isn't unstable enough. I don't think the US would risk an all-out war with Iran. It's already stretched out pretty thinly and there are actors (like China) that would happily help it fail. No, but Israel sure would love it. Also, their new buddies in China would probably love it to. It is after all hard to win a multiple front war. |
|
|
|
As much as i dont agree with the LGBT community, people using this piece of news to say, this is their mentality and all of them are like this are stupid, clearly not all of them are this crazy. Literally no one here or in the article said that. Don't project your own ideas onto others then wag your finger at them, it is a very bad habit of yours. 50% of the comments of the article mate, you tried to sound intelligent but you fucked up this time. ''These monsters are perfect examples of the LGBTQ mentality'' ''It's official - LGBT's worship Satan.'' OOOoh, I see now I am responsible for the comment section (not that I would know what is in it anyway considering I have scripts blocked). I am sure you couldn't possibly apply your standard to literally any topic with an uncensored comment section. What I said is a fact, you have fun stretching and projecting. |
|
|
|
snip If you didn't see it, here's theymos' official take on "Type-1" (yellow) flags: Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
- Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
- Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.
The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.
This is why I don't feel bad about supporting this flag. Was on the fence about it for a while. I wouldn't open one like this myself, but in this case, I do support it. People see what they want to see. I quoted it earlier, but theymos uses long words sometimes. After another outburst of Ibian racist stuff on WO thread: Anyway, what a shitshow I just read through.
snip~
I disagree with Ibian's opinions on race and religion last night, and always, and with the other little trolls that came out being all raycis and shit. But I don't raise newbie warning flags against them because they don't have documented dishonesty throughout their posts as shown in the op, this thread and the previous one referred to. They aren't showing any dishonesty. If someone doesn't believe that roach is dishonest or that that is a 'red flag' from the links, fine, it's a subjective flag, vote against or abstain. It's not about roach's opinions or mine. Other people are shown in those links to think him dishonest, well before this flag. If someone can't bear the subjective balance within theymos' description and further guidelines on newbie flags, @him not me. You keep saying it is not about his opinions over and over again, and then source nothing but his opinions. Just saying it is not about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. You aren't substantiating anything, just making empty claims. |
|
|
|
As much as i dont agree with the LGBT community, people using this piece of news to say, this is their mentality and all of them are like this are stupid, clearly not all of them are this crazy. Literally no one here or in the article said that. Don't project your own ideas onto others then wag your finger at them, it is a very bad habit of yours. |
|
|
|
If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented.
You have been clear that you wont accept it citing: "I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him" as a basis for your stance on the "non-research and bash em for giving input" approach; not everyone in the world is college educated, and most people who come out of college don't have a real "education". They have a certificate. So again I will repeat: You are not out to prove his argument for him, he made his argument. You are dismissing it out of lazyness. Plain and simple. Its clearly in your replies, so own up to it. I bet if it was a claim that was similarly unsubstantiated that supported your stance; you would be diligent to verify it; had someone said it was false or brushed off what you consider to be truth. But this paragraph is purely speculation. See where this is going yet? Or am I gonna have to hear the same thing repeated again ignoring what I have pointed out more than once? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ZDgz8MO1MLol. Ok. That's not a "citing", it is a graph with no citation. Sure he made an argument, a totally unsubstantiated one. You are quite confused. Sorry but you have everything ass backwards. Also I think you have problems reading because he was the one claiming to have a college degree, I think such arguments are nonsense (appeal to authority) unless it applies to the field he is arguing. I am dismissing it because this is the standard lazy way this individual makes arguments all the time. If he doesn't care enough to show me where the information came from I don't care enough to bother to look it up because he doesn't believe in his argument enough to provide a source. I do in fact source my arguments, especially when asked. Feel free to check out my post history. Sourcing information is considered very basic levels of requirements in debate. I realize it goes no where, just like Socialism, which is why I am giving it exactly as much energy as it deserves. You have fun being confused an indignant though. Here, have some actual citations: https://www.techsling.com/2017/10/citationreferencing-important-education/https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/05/16/why-cite/https://librarybestbets.fairfield.edu/c.php?g=496653&p=3399372 |
|
|
|
As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.
You wouldn't be researching his point for him; he made his point. You would be researching for your own benefit; not his benefit. Don't pass the buck off on others... and don't cloud that situation when it's a clear cut as this short paragraph. This is why I specifically chose the troll I used as my example. With minimal effort, most of those people can be identified with a basic background in general american history... but most people who read that specific one; do nothing to verify any of it and speak against it because of their beliefs; and instantly dismiss it's message with no regard to logic and discourse. (in my own experience) I understand its not easy to research; but don't put someone down without verifying anything first; you have no basis to prove him wrong (by your own words). Take the effort to be able talk to someone that way; with substantiating facts that are relevant. Don't be so quick to dismiss things that are contrary to your beliefs. They may be fact. Refusing to accept statement and treating it as if it isn't fact without first having substantiated that stance.. is not a good thing. It creates chaos.If you will notice I never claimed it was wrong. Also it is considered standard in any research or debate that the one making an argument has the burden of proof of anything they present, which includes the requirement of a reference. There is not even a name of the organization that produced it FFS. Sorry, but I don't just blindly believe pretty graphs. This is a continual pattern with him being unable to source his material. I have no trouble doing research, but as I stated I am not spending my time to prove his argument for him, and him refusing to source, especially as a teacher, is intellectually lazy and would not be acceptable practice in any grade school. Regarding the bold part, sorry that is literally the exact opposite of acceptable practice in any academic setting. This is how people determine fact, not by assuming information is substantiated just because it is presented. |
|
|
|
|
As anyone who knows anything about statistics knows, it is very easy to jack with charts and graphs to make them look more impressive than they really are. This chart appears to be one of those cases, but the problem is there is no source, and it is not my job to waste my time researching his point for him. Coins4commies clams to be a teacher, and the fact that he still doesn't know how to source and reference but is "educating" others is quite disturbing.
|
|
|
|
There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.
It's a graphic with direct informations. Can't you read a graphic? Sources are needed to check informations, not to understand them. And it's funny how you talk a lot about my education while not considering the fact that I might, just might, have a good one. In science. Some times you guys make it so easy its not even worth responding. Its like getting into a boxing match with a baby. If you win so what, you beat up a baby, if you lose you got beat up by a baby. Just because you got a piece of paper from some institution doesn't make you educated. Considering you can't even define a source, I am not going to hold my breath on your "good one, In science." Besides you have already played the Ethos card, I know you are an engineer, and that is somewhat terrifying. Hopefully you are engineering things that won't kill people when they inevitably collapse. |
|
|
|
|
LOL @ the utopians still thinking Bernie has a chance. Bernie HAD a chance, but he bent over and let Killery hijack it from him without so much as a peep. As a result a large portion of his base rejected him in favor of Trump. Even most utopians know our president needs to have a spine...
|
|
|
|
...snip...I can tell by his one post here roach is far more intelligent than any of you posting here...snip
Who cares? I got mediocre school grades, dropped out of college. I run two businesses & have done far better in life than pretty much all of the people that I went to school with. Most of them went to university & ended up being fucking teachers or something. Being good academically counts for close to nothing in real life. Most of the uber intelligent people at school couldn’t close a business deal to save their lives, they end up working for somebody else & being their bitch for 40 years. As for bitcoin, r0ach has 0 & sold very low (a dumb decision). Most of us here before 2015 have a fairly significant amount of coin. Being intelligent, putting together long, grammatically correct paragraphs on a forum doesn’t get you anywhere in life. Give me real life experience, hard work & taking a chance on yourself in life over a school diploma any day. I don't really give a fuck how you rank yourself in relation to others, this is all irrelevant. This is 100% clear to me know this is about punishing this user for wrongthink. If one person loses their right to free speech, we all do. The trust system is not for punishing wrongthink. |
|
|
|
So unless you get a flag, no amount of negative trust you get will make your trust turn to negative/red? right. That doesnt seem right to me. Because this opens the door for merit abusers to abuse merit, get tagged negative, and still be get put into signature campaigns because there trust isnt red. Unless signature campaigns specify no negative feedback. Eh. answered my own question
but.
I don't think its "fair" that you have to get a flag in order for your account to be marked red.
Buddy, if we are talking about what is fair, you would have been red long ago. I can't even remember how many second chances you have got and here you are crying about things not being strict enough. Maybe count your blessings instead of training to be the next internet police. Let the campaign managers worry about it. |
|
|
|
I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.
You got precise figures and dates on a measured graphic. You don't need source, you need to see if you can find your own contradicting source. But it's not like you could as you don't seem to be able to use Google. There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
