Re: Green New Deal/Yellow Vest Split

[mOgliE]

Yeah except its really not future technology in spite of your relativism and demands he must be speaking of the very specific type of model you were thinking of in your head but only later mentioned when called out on it then and insisted this could be the only way.

So bad faith it is then.

It is kind of hard to use the government in the same way... when the government is no where near the same thing so. Cool story bro. Maybe you can tell me more about my own country while you tell me more about how those protests are "scaling down" in yours eh?

Don't misunderstand me, pointing at the cowardice and stupidity of American patriots doesn't exempt my own people from those traits. At least we're trying a bit.

And I guess the "scaling down" was ironical even though I've provided numbers for the last 6 weeks coming from a pro-yellow vest union showing that yes it's scaling down. Coming from 360k protesters down to 240k while losing about 20k protesters every week IS scaling down. I can't really be more explicite than saying 240<360 you know?

Yes you've just heard the dumbest idea you'll hear in a long time. Not worth reading the stupid thing. See, somehow in the USA green libtards are all anti-nuclear, which one of the few redeeming things about France, is that France is pro-nuclear.

Well nuclear helped the country a lot. Nuclear is the reason why France is still a great power both warfare (nuclear submarines and atomic bomb) and civil (relative energetic independance). So nuclear is quite loved here.

Still anyone with a brain understands it's not a long term solution and most "good" candidates (by good I mean not bankers) have parts of their programs dedicated to nuclear crash. But all of them include more fundings towards next generation of nuclear plants cause that's a fucking amazing source of energy. First country to get fusion will be the king of the world.

Here, they'll lie and duck and dodge about the matter, but it's basically just plain true to say Green == anti-nuclear. Side note: I always have suspected that was due to back door funding of our Dems from Saudi oil interests, since it was rational that to the extent America went off nuclear, we went on oil ( eg Saudi oil).

Aren't Saudi oil money fueiling all parties in USA?

[TECSHARE]

Yeah except its really not future technology in spite of your relativism and demands he must be speaking of the very specific type of model you were thinking of in your head but only later mentioned when called out on it then and insisted this could be the only way.

So bad faith it is then.

It is kind of hard to use the government in the same way... when the government is no where near the same thing so. Cool story bro. Maybe you can tell me more about my own country while you tell me more about how those protests are "scaling down" in yours eh?

Don't misunderstand me, pointing at the cowardice and stupidity of American patriots doesn't exempt my own people from those traits. At least we're trying a bit.

And I guess the "scaling down" was ironical even though I've provided numbers for the last 6 weeks coming from a pro-yellow vest union showing that yes it's scaling down. Coming from 360k protesters down to 240k while losing about 20k protesters every week IS scaling down. I can't really be more explicite than saying 240<360 you know?

Bad faith because you refuse to admit your error? Speaking of errors, perhaps you know a lot less than you think you do considering you still are trying to say the protests in France have been scaling down for weeks. You don't even know what is going on in your own nation, let alone ours.

[mOgliE]

Bad faith because you refuse to admit your error? Speaking of errors, perhaps you know a lot less than you think you do considering you still are trying to say the protests in France have been scaling down for weeks. You don't even know what is going on in your own nation, let alone ours.

I hereby declare you king of dummies and bad faith.

Unless you manage to explain how 240>360 of course.

Funny how as soon as you're proven wrong with very basic facts (like just the declining number of protestors) you immediately go for empty talks.

[Spendulus]

....
Aren't Saudi oil money fueiling all parties in USA?

To an extent, but the firm anti-nuclear stand over decades of the American left not being rooted in any rational basis, one should look elsewhere for it's causation.

[mOgliE]

To an extent, but the firm anti-nuclear stand over decades of the American left not being rooted in any rational basis, one should look elsewhere for it's causation.

Having an anti nuclear stand is pretty rational. Nuclear isn't safe, isn't long term, doesn't allow a country to be self-sufficient (Uranium doesn't grow on trees in your garden), is efficient in energy production but leaves a HUGE debt to next generations in forms of contaminated waste...

We need to get rid of the current nuclear. That's both obvious and rational.

[TECSHARE]

Bad faith because you refuse to admit your error? Speaking of errors, perhaps you know a lot less than you think you do considering you still are trying to say the protests in France have been scaling down for weeks. You don't even know what is going on in your own nation, let alone ours.

I hereby declare you king of dummies and bad faith.

Unless you manage to explain how 240>360 of course.

Funny how as soon as you're proven wrong with very basic facts (like just the declining number of protestors) you immediately go for empty talks.

"facts" = the TV told me so

[mOgliE]

"facts" = the TV told me so

facts = the number given by a French police union PRO yellow vests.

Your proofs that I'm wrong being? Your intimate conviction?
How cute <3

[TECSHARE]

"facts" = the TV told me so

facts = the number given by a French police union PRO yellow vests.

Your proofs that I'm wrong being? Your intimate conviction?
How cute <3

Yeah the police have no interest to lie right? You are a dope.

[mOgliE]

Yeah the police have no interest to lie right? You are a dope.

What don't you understand in "police union pro yellow vest"?
Is there a word here too hard for you?

You really can't admit you're wrong on anything can you?
I provided a clear claim. A clear source supporting such claim. Best possible source as it's both police (so ground accuracy as they are HERE) and pro yellow vests (yeah believe it or not some policemen aren't pure assholes obeying government and kneeling down, some actually want to protect citizens).

You have nothing against that, not a single number.
But you just continue claiming I'm saying shit.

Well case closed. Kiss.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah the police have no interest to lie right? You are a dope.

What don't you understand in "police union pro yellow vest"?
Is there a word here too hard for you?

You really can't admit you're wrong on anything can you?
I provided a clear claim. A clear source supporting such claim. Best possible source as it's both police (so ground accuracy as they are HERE) and pro yellow vests (yeah believe it or not some policemen aren't pure assholes obeying government and kneeling down, some actually want to protect citizens).

You have nothing against that, not a single number.
But you just continue claiming I'm saying shit.

Well case closed. Kiss.

Well shit, they say they are pro yellow vest, so it must be true right? Just like they say numbers those must also be true? What proof do THEY have? How about this number. 769,932. Prove me wrong. Oh right making unsubstantiated claims is easy!

Why would the police have direct incentive to convince people the protests are shrinking so everyone goes home? CONSPIRACY THEORY! You are a tool, you just don't have the capacity to realize it.

[mOgliE]

Well shit, they say they are pro yellow vest, so it must be true right? Just like they say numbers those must also be true? What proof do THEY have? How about this number. 769,932. Prove me wrong. Oh right making unsubstantiated claims is easy!

Why would the police have direct incentive to convince people the protests are shrinking so everyone goes home? CONSPIRACY THEORY! You are a tool, you just don't have the capacity to realize it.

SO if a union specifically calling for yellow vests support isn't a good source for you, what would be?

[TECSHARE]

Well shit, they say they are pro yellow vest, so it must be true right? Just like they say numbers those must also be true? What proof do THEY have? How about this number. 769,932. Prove me wrong. Oh right making unsubstantiated claims is easy!

Why would the police have direct incentive to convince people the protests are shrinking so everyone goes home? CONSPIRACY THEORY! You are a tool, you just don't have the capacity to realize it.

SO if a union specifically calling for yellow vests support isn't a good source for you, what would be?

Not my problem. You are the one claiming it is shrinking. The burden of proof is yours.

[mOgliE]

Not my problem. You are the one claiming it is shrinking. The burden of proof is yours.

And here we go on the classical duo of the conspiracist:
-burden of proof is on you
-I don't accept your proof because it could be wrong

So you can never prove anything ever.

I'll jsut keep this post to give it back to you next time you try to claim anything.

[TECSHARE]

Not my problem. You are the one claiming it is shrinking. The burden of proof is yours.

And here we go on the classical duo of the conspiracist:
-burden of proof is on you
-I don't accept your proof because it could be wrong

So you can never prove anything ever.

I'll jsut keep this post to give it back to you next time you try to claim anything.

Yeah everyone knows you can trust cops not to lie right? The burden of proof is on you. I told you why your numbers which are based on an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, are not reliable. Your "proof" is not proof of anything. That does not mean it can't be proven, you just have no idea how to.

[mOgliE]

Yeah everyone knows you can trust cops not to lie right? The burden of proof is on you. I told you why your numbers which are based on an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, are not reliable. Your "proof" is not proof of anything. That does not mean it can't be proven, you just have no idea how to.

As anything can be biased, anyone can lie, and anything can be falsified, no proof can ever be acceptable under such statement.

Here are more sources but I guess you can always just say that they are not acceptable as you refuse sources countradicting you without any reason:

https://www.lci.fr/social/gilets-jaunes-l-evolution-de-la-mobilisation-2110032.html

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2018/12/06/01016-20181206ARTFIG00247-gilets-jaunes-le-conflit-en-chiffres.php

https://fr.statista.com/infographie/16622/mobilisation-gilets-jaune-nombre-de-manifestants/

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/transports/gilets-jaunes/desintox-gilets-jaunes-un-nombre-de-manifestants-toujours-flou_3046541.html

[TECSHARE]

Yeah everyone knows you can trust cops not to lie right? The burden of proof is on you. I told you why your numbers which are based on an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, are not reliable. Your "proof" is not proof of anything. That does not mean it can't be proven, you just have no idea how to.

As anything can be biased, anyone can lie, and anything can be falsified, no proof can ever be acceptable under such statement.

Here are more sources but I guess you can always just say that they are not acceptable as you refuse sources countradicting you without any reason:

https://www.lci.fr/social/gilets-jaunes-l-evolution-de-la-mobilisation-2110032.html

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2018/12/06/01016-20181206ARTFIG00247-gilets-jaunes-le-conflit-en-chiffres.php

https://fr.statista.com/infographie/16622/mobilisation-gilets-jaune-nombre-de-manifestants/

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/transports/gilets-jaunes/desintox-gilets-jaunes-un-nombre-de-manifestants-toujours-flou_3046541.html

Your problem is you keep looking for authority figures to determine what the facts are for you instead of making a determination based on logic for yourself.

Your first source again just makes an unsourced and unexplained claim. Your second source seems to be clearly insinuating official numbers are contrary to the reality on the ground, so I would say that source even agrees with me.

Your third source again links government provided numbers, and why would the government want to understate these numbers right?

In that source is also linked this: http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2019/01/12/01002-20190112ARTFIG00126-de-l-acte-i-a-l-acte-ix-la-mobilisation-des-gilets-jaunes-en-chiffres.php

Oh look at that they very clearly echo my sentiment that the official government numbers really should not be trusted because they have direct incentive to understate them.

Finally your last source actually totally agrees with my sentiment. So in summary, thanks for proving yourself wrong with your own sources. You didn't even read them did you? Anything else please take it to the appropriate thread.

[mOgliE]

Finally your last source actually totally agrees with my sentiment. So in summary, thanks for proving yourself wrong with your own sources. You didn't even read them did you?

You're amazing TECSHARE. You're truly amazing.
You're the perfect example of why censorship is important xD
Anyway you probably misunderstood the sources but I can't blaim you as they're all in French and I can't expect you to read a random foreign language.

[TECSHARE]

Finally your last source actually totally agrees with my sentiment. So in summary, thanks for proving yourself wrong with your own sources. You didn't even read them did you?

You're amazing TECSHARE. You're truly amazing.
You're the perfect example of why censorship is important xD
Anyway you probably misunderstood the sources but I can't blaim you as they're all in French and I can't expect you to read a random foreign language.

And you are the perfect example of why censorship exists. You think you are more informed than you are, and when some one contradicts your only recourse is to keep them from speaking. It is a lot easier to feel like you are right with no one left to question you isn't it?

[mOgliE]

And you are the perfect example of why censorship exists. You think you are more informed than you are, and when some one contradicts your only recourse is to keep them from speaking. It is a lot easier to feel like you are right with no one left to question you isn't it?

It's more about how it's impossible to share a common space of discussion with someone willing to devote so much energy in being so illogical.

How is it possible to discuss with anyone when there is someone in the room agressively explaining why everyone is wrong, why we're retarded, refusing any source he deems unworthy (even though he has no reason to) and having such a huge double standard between what others need to do to be considered as "logical" or "right" and what he needs to do?