|
The two party system isn't broken, it should be preserved for a very good reason. It was designed to cause constant conflict so that politicians would spend most of their time fighting each other, and less time cooperating to fuck the general population. Furthermore introducing a third party would allow the votes from the two main parties to be divided enough to create the potential for an extremist minority to take control. Just look at what a disaster the multiparty system has been in various parts of Europe.
|
|
|
|
And how do you explain the quarantined towns and cities in China and now Italy. As you said we have hundreds of thousands dying of the flu world-wide every year and yet - we never quarantine cities. Why now? Why for this corona virus and not others? Are you saying that government officials and the Italian CDC are panicking and acting irrationally? I'm taking the other perspective - that this coronavirus is really bad sh!t and, if anything, the governments are underplaying it so as to not collapse the world economy. You have to ask China and Italy. Hong Kong did have protests with 3 deaths, the Corvid-19 SARS-Cov-2 virus in the city claimed 2 lives. China did sent its workers back to work this week. The New Mexico Department of Health is telling the state's residents that it's more important to be concerned about the flu than the virus receiving attention globally. 90 flu-related deaths where report in North Carolina so far this season. Total number of deaths in Oklahoma from the flu so far is 36. There is no reported death from SARS-Cov-2 virus in US. You are wrong a every turn. Please stop talking it is embarrassing. https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/us-confirms-first-american-coronavirus-death/vp-BBZN1Kf |
|
|
|
Nationalism is not equivalent to racism. This argument is horse shit. You are against globalism right? Pretty much the only force resisting globalism is nationalism.
of course it is, the langauge only doesn't create enough sovereignty for nationalistic capitalists, look at ukraine, they all spoke russian and nationalistic capitalism increased the amount of langauges in europe, completely pointless. it starts with nationalism, and the more extreme it gets it then starts asociating nationality with race, this is how the whole system is running and this is how it put europe into 2 world wars. what do you want to do when nations start competing against each other for financial gains, and labour? in that case they start being racist. If nationalism goes to the point of equating the nation with race and the concept of racial superiority then it has gone too far. But leftism with its quest for egalitarianism also goes to far: the french revolution the russian revolution the chinese revolution. All of them wanted to get rid of "old ideas", "old culture", "old language." All lead to ever more out of control purity tests. And we see that once again today. Equality of outcome over everything else. And you're concerned about racism? Look to the fuking left and its identitarian policies to see racism gone rampant. I would even go as far as to say associating race with nationalism is not necessarily wrong or racist. There is not anything wrong with wanting to preserve ones culture. The modern Japanese I would say are a positive example of this. The USA is by no means racially homogeneous so it doesn't qualify. The problem starts when it becomes about racial supremacy. Nationalism itself is the only thing protecting the world from global totalitarianism. Nations are like bulkheads in a ship. If one fails they are isolated and the globe can still float even though one compartment is flooded. If we were under globalism, failure would be global, and allow us all to sink into totalitarianism. |
|
|
|
That means VOD has a line of peoples to send apologies to.
[...] If they post here for an apology, like I am, I will give it to them. [...] (note: QS is also calling me a pedophile, but he has since apologized.)
I'd really appreciate it Vod. Me too Vod. I should note I never called you a pedophile, not that it would make it a problem for you to do that to me. |
|
|
|
|
Nationalism is not equivalent to racism. This argument is horse shit. You are against globalism right? Pretty much the only force resisting globalism is nationalism.
|
|
|
|
You seem to be straying from any logical argument now and just projecting at this point.
1) User doesn't like the tags they have been given by other users 2) User proposes changes to the way tags are handed out 3) User benefits if/when they are no longer tagged in a manner they don't approve of Seems to follow logically to me. Are you saying that doesn't sound self-serving? 1) I hit you in the face for no reason. 2) You propose I stop hitting you in the face. 3) You benefit from not being hit in the face. Is your proposal self serving? I would say so. Is that wrong or dishonest? Seems like a stretch at best. In summary you are literally using the fact that I am being attacked to discredit my objections to it. You know what that is called? Circular logic.If I proposed you stop hitting me in the face via the guise of a forum post proposing best practice for hitting people in the face objectively and providing a list of users I thought might be well-suited to judging when it's correct to hit people in the face, rather than simply just coming out and saying it? Kinda, yeah. Cool story bro. You are just talking out of your ass now. Noble effort though. I will work on honing my ESP skills so I can object to being abused via the trust system before it happens next time. |
|
|
|
You seem to be straying from any logical argument now and just projecting at this point.
1) User doesn't like the tags they have been given by other users 2) User proposes changes to the way tags are handed out 3) User benefits if/when they are no longer tagged in a manner they don't approve of Seems to follow logically to me. Are you saying that doesn't sound self-serving? 1) I hit you in the face for no reason. 2) You propose I stop hitting you in the face. 3) You benefit from not being hit in the face. Is your proposal self serving? I would say so. Is that wrong or dishonest? Seems like a stretch at best. In summary you are literally using the fact that I am being attacked to discredit my objections to it. You know what that is called? Circular logic. |
|
|
|
None of the people objecting here want to have an honest debate about the topic, that is the problem. This is just more control freak behavior in an attempt to dictate my behavior to me as they habitually do worse things on a daily basis, or defend others who do. I could cater to every one of their demands and they would just invent fake issues.
So it's all about you? Do you honestly believe they would be more receptive to the idea if another user had been the one to propose it? The way I see it, unless it's coming directly from theymos, few users are likely to alter their usage of tagging based on something a forum user is advocating. Particularly when it seems to be an act of self-interest that would directly benefit the user proposing it. You said it yourself: they have already done it before, and they will continue doing it until their ability to abuse these ambiguous standards is removed. That's the angle here. You want to influence their behaviour in how they act towards you. I think people see it for what it is, which is why they're giving you a hard time about it. Why would you expect an honest debate when you can't be honest about your goal? I see. I propose a set of objective standards. Several users roll out various accusations, and I defend myself against them, and I am "making it about me". Almost none of people arguing with me want to have a legitimate discussion, so it doesn't matter what I say because they won't be convinced anyway. This is more about everyone else observing than the ones directly attacking. I am absolutely being honest. Are you suggesting now because I would benefit from not having the trust system abused against me, that I am being dishonest? You seem to be straying from any logical argument now and just projecting at this point. |
|
|
|
It seems right now s China, South Korea, Italy and Iran. Where virus is in the wild spreading as it pleases it. This sounds like worse can be in Iran. But it can basically now go anywhere. I become very pessimistic again this weekend. It looked good when China infected numbers started to decline. Now looks very bad.
The "decline" has pretty much been proven to be manipulation of the numbers at this point. "China's 'Fake' Coronavirus Numbers Exposed: Doctor In Hunan Confirms 50 New Cases, Only One Reported" https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/chinas-fake-coronavirus-numbers-exposed-doctor-hunan-confirms-50-new-cases-only-one |
|
|
|
I'm crashing - been working all night on the new site.
Techy, if you are serious, think about a neutral third party who can mediate discussions. I don't believe you are capable of having a conversation without wordplay. :/
Right. My wordplay. That explains why you can never make any quotes to back up any of your frivolous claims. Oh I would absolutely LOVE that Vod. Now who would you suggest that is neutral? Unfortunately I don't think anyone truly neutral wants to be within 4000 feet of you based on your irrational and vindictive behavior. |
|
|
|
I excluded you because you excluded me for defending myself against false accusations. You have absolutely no basis for the belief that that was my motivation for excluding you from my trust list. Pure assumption. It wasn't. (I actually know my motivation for my actions). you are more worried about silencing people with legitimate grievances to avoid conflict than what is right. A completely baseless assumption, with no supporting evidence, to justify a trust or exclusion negative action: exactly what you criticize others for doing. Yes, I am sure it was just a total coincidence you excluded me and Vod at the same time drawing a false equivalence between him making baseless accusations against me and me defending myself against him.
Good that you're sure of that. That makes your "false equivalence" point a redundant fantasy, along with your previous assumptions. So am I free to choose my exclusions as I please or not? It seems you like having this right for yourself, and of course no explanation is needed. Yet here you are condemning me for exercising the rights I have within the system and demanding explanations.
Very convenient you are trying to blur the line between exclusions and abusive negative ratings so you can demand an explanation and evidence for yourself for not a rating but an exclusion. I haven't demanded, condemned or blurred anything here. You do entirely what you please, but if that includes projecting your agenda onto me, then I will respond. I posted here because I was told you have put me on some list, purportedly for violating existing forum trust protocol, an accusation that I completely reject. You also imply that I am part of some sort of conspiring, power tripping forum gang. Absolutely fuck off with that one too. This is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty that lead me to exclude you and put you on that list.
This made me LOL. Intellectual dishonesty....talk about pot and kettle. I didn't say you shouldn't respond. The problem is the conflict in logic demonstrated in your response. You don't need to be conspiring to be part of an aimless mob, it is human nature to just mindlessly follow the group. "You were told" huh? By who I wonder? Please, do quote where I accused you of "violating existing forum trust protocol". You were saying something about projection? |
|
|
|
Your wish we could discuss this logically was another lie - you want to play word games. Lock this thread and stop antagonizing me for no reason, bozo.  Great discussion as usual Vod. |
|
|
|
What lie Vod? Please quote. Also, you left a negative already for the same thing. By your own logic you should remove your previous negative rating. Vod 2020-02-04 Reference " Mentally ill stalker who will post private messages then lie about it as revenge for ignoring him. Avoid. " Have you asked for help yet? Click on the Reference link! ^^ How does my logic state I need to remove a red rating if I place a neutral one? This thread is just pointless antagonism from you. You just admitted there is no victim, which is why you said the rating was neutral. You just literally admitted there is no reason for it to be a negative rating to justify your neutral rating, but here you are justifying it anyway with your double speak. I know you have trouble substantiating any of your claims Vod, but a reference is not a quote. Quote any lies I made. If it happened that shouldn't be hard should it? Of course it never happened, so quoting this supposed lie is quite impossible isn't it? |
|
|
|
Let me summarize. There is no victim, even if there was, it wasn't you. The single PM I posed was in response to public statements characterizing me as having sent abusive PMs, which was untrue, and why I posted the message. The message was insignificant except for the fact it demonstrated the polite tone of the discussion. The user in question cares so little in fact they still have me in their trust list. They don't feel what I did was untrustworthy.
Then they don't deserve to be in the guild, because according to you, posting private messages is wrong. You posted a private message without permission, and then you lied about it then, and just again now. There was no victim, and that is why the trust is neutral. What lie Vod? Please quote. Also, you left a negative already for the same thing. By your own logic you should remove your previous negative rating. Vod 2020-02-04 Reference " Mentally ill stalker who will post private messages then lie about it as revenge for ignoring him. Avoid. " |
|
|
|
Kill off the people and animals and you will kill off Coronavirus... sooner or later.
Hundreds Of Animals Drop Dead In China After Being Poisoned By Virus DisinfectantThat appears to be what the Chinese Communist Party is doing all across the country. Over the last month, videos of people in full hazmat suits with giant tanks of chemicals strapped on their backs walking around public areas and spraying giant clouds of chemicals have become common.
What's inside the tanks? Well, nobody's really sure. But CNBC's Eunice Yoon noted recently that everywhere she goes in Beijing, she smells bleach and disinfectant.
The only thing is, the virus has still managed to spread via many other methods (including potentially through sewer systems, as researchers revealed on Saturday that they had isolated a strain of the virus from an infected patient's urine). And in the mean time, the government is exposing the public to massive quantities of potentially dangerous chemicals.  Apparently the "disinfectant" they are spraying is likely just the same formula they were already spraying in the past regularly to exterminate pests like rodents. Of course what you want with a respiratory infection outbreak is to be spraying aerosolized poisons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtlNI-lJTgE |
|
|
|
Let me summarize. There is no victim, even if there was, it wasn't you. The single PM I posed was in response to public statements characterizing me as having sent abusive PMs, which was untrue, and why I posted the message. The message was insignificant except for the fact it demonstrated the polite tone of the discussion. The user in question cares so little in fact they still have me in their trust list. They don't feel what I did was untrustworthy. The words you are taking out of context and completely mischaracterizing were in relation to an exchange of value with a user who was very clearly out of line. There is a difference between PMs of a casual manner, and ones between a buyer and a seller. Of course, you know all of this, but that doesn't stop you from struggling to find any excuse to use the trust system as your personal toy to serve as a tool of retribution. |
|
|
|
More pointless antagonism from Vod. Obviously retribution for demonstrating he is in fact a liar here. Also kind of pointless as he has already negative rated me for this, something the person most potentially effected by it doesn't care about to the point that they still include me in their trust list. Of course that doesn't stop Vod from scraping the bottom of the barrel desperately seeking excuses to abuse the trust system to serve his petty vendettas. Vod 2020-02-23 Reference ""...by posting my private messages multiple times without permission, I would say not trusting him with any personal information is perfectly reaonable." Techy also posts private messages without permission and agrees that not trusting him with any personal information is reasonable. See Reference." |
|
|
|
|
I don't know if it has been suggested before, but I was thinking, perhaps there could be two types of merit used. The system as it is, and in addition a "lower trust" type of merit that has no impact on the forums trust systems, but allows users to rank up and unlock various forum privileges. This could help solve some of the issues with newbs not getting enough attention from merit sources, and allow for a more liberal application of secondary low trust merit sources without severely compromising the integrity of the system as a whole. This would also have the added benefit of familiarizing newbs with merit use while also removing most of the risk of abuse, as even if it was abused the impact would be negligible. It would also serve as a way to expose and root out gaming the system at a very early stage by building demonstrable ties between account farming and abuse networks.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
