EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5831
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
It isn't even that much to read, though I'll admit that I'm not the best judge of that. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:40 biology]major wrote: No reasonable person expects to read that mountain of text, we aren't here to propose our master's thesis, this is a video game forum. If I wanted to educate myself on NATO, I would rather read a primary source/textbook, personally. Seeing the petty revival of old arguments for the sake of proving one right and the other wrong is just as childish. Let it go bros. I find myself to be quite reasonable. I read the whole thing, and im reviewing the sources right now to save some and add them to my "to read". Morning commutes lend themselves quite well to this sort of thing. If anything it is unreasonable to dismiss something you havent bothered to read and discredit the effort put in by someone regardless of the platform. Just about as unreasonable as pretending that Comeys revelations are "earth shattering bombshells that will rock the election" for that matter. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:36 farvacola wrote: And LegalLord waves the white flag, as expected. Way to wuss out, though I'm sure someone can join you in short order as they too tacitly admit that they don't actually read the posts they comment on. Kwizach even provided the counterpoint to every tired forum debate escape hatch you listed. Not quite. While I appreciate you heckling from the sidelines while adding jack shit to the conversation as you usually do, I read his post and I could certainly respond to each of his points - if I was inclined to read/skim/etc the multiple books he cited in full to explain in what sense their interpretation of the events is flawed, to write up a similarly sourced reply, and to deal with his usual stupidity when that happens (I've talked about this many times before). This post he wrote came four weeks after mine, and his is thrice as long - how long do you expect that to take? And my experience has shown me that this isn't really a poster worth having any discussion with. But I know that you have nothing to add yourself, and that you just enjoy being a low-content cheerleader, so my response to you specifically is: bitch please. On November 01 2016 01:40 biology]major wrote: No reasonable person expects to read that mountain of text, we aren't here to propose our master's thesis, this is a video game forum. If I wanted to educate myself on NATO, I would rather read a primary source/textbook, personally. Seeing the petty revival of old arguments for the sake of proving one right and the other wrong is just as childish. Let it go bros. Well actually to undermine that point, I did read it all  . But to put it simply, it's cut from the same cloth as every other kwizach post I've ever read: looks well-sourced and beautiful, gains the adoration of every person who is fully inclined to believe him by default, but when you peel it back layer-by-layer proves to be quite representative of why I never really want to respond to anything he says. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: If I had to guess, less than 5% of kwizach's monstrous post is actually on point in addressing LegalLord's main contention that NATO is somewhat outdated in its current form. Of course he shouldn't respond. While I can very much appreciate a lawyer's unwillingness to spend time reading extraneous stuff, I didn't have to guess because I actually read his post. It literally addresses LegalLord's points item by item, though I can see why someone may think differently if they boil down his message into "NATO is somewhat outdated in its current form." Even if that is LegalLord's actual point, it's worthlessly lukewarm anyhow. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:46 zlefin wrote: I read through it; and it most looks like the normal some of legallord's contentions being proven wrong. Admittedly it's rather overwrought for the purpose. But it's well known that legal has some biases that tend to show in how he talks about things. Maybe but you can say the exact same thing for almost everyone that posts in this thread. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
political opinions get entrenched because of path dependent confirmation-reinforcement loops, and when the only media out there is a variety of cranks, it is no surprising that this kind of electorate is what you get. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:46 zlefin wrote: I read through it; and it most looks like the normal some of legallord's contentions being proven wrong. Admittedly it's rather overwrought for the purpose. But it's well known that legal has some biases that tend to show in how he talks about things. No shit I have some biases - everyone does. I'll reference my previous posts on kwizach as a poster to explain what's wrong with it though - and xDaunt's too. A point-by-point rebuttal of his post would take a hell of a long time, and would be appreciated by all of nobody. As with many others, I don't bother having a discussion that I don't enjoy having. But if the individual points are relevant to an actual discussion being had in the future, I will absolutely give a thorough response. Just not to kwizach. On November 01 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: If I had to guess, less than 5% of kwizach's monstrous post is actually on point in addressing LegalLord's main contention that NATO is somewhat outdated in its current form. Of course he shouldn't respond. A third of it is playing his usual semantic games. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:43 Rebs wrote: I find myself to be quite reasonable. I read the whole thing, and im reviewing the sources right now to save some and add them to my "to read". Morning commutes lend themselves quite well to this sort of thing. If anything it is unreasonable to dismiss something you havent bothered to read and discredit the effort put in by someone regardless of the platform. Just about as unreasonable as pretending that Comeys revelations are "earth shattering bombshells that will rock the election" for that matter. Clinton Supporter thinks its a big deal No one wants to deal with Clinton's bullshit scandals for the next 4 years, and even less want the government to invest resources into this rabbit hole that isn't going to end. We don't need to wait too long to see the effects though, so just sit tight. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:47 farvacola wrote: While I can very much appreciate a lawyer's unwillingness to spend time reading extraneous stuff, I didn't have to guess because I actually read his post. It literally addresses LegalLord's points item by item, though I can see why someone may think differently if they boil down his message into "NATO is somewhat outdated in its current form." Even if that is LegalLord's actual point, it's worthlessly lukewarm anyhow. I actually did read LegalLord's original posts and kwizach's post (rip billable half hour), so I understand both posts and their contexts. And if you think that LegalLord's point is "worthlessly lukewarm," how can you not find striking the sheer ridiculousness kwizach's post? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:52 biology]major wrote: Clinton Supporter thinks its a big deal No one wants to deal with Clinton's bullshit scandals for the next 4 years, and even less want the government to invest resources into this rabbit hole that isn't going to end. We don't need to wait too long to see the effects though, so just sit tight. Clearly you are unfamiliar with many Republicans in congress. Heres Exhibit A + Show Spoiler + http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Trey-Gowdy1.jpg Also I find it somewhat hilarious that you got so easily baited by an afterthought and only addressed that when I was really just criticizing the fact that you shouldnt dismiss someones work by virtue of TLDR... | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:53 xDaunt wrote: I actually did read LegalLord's original posts and kwizach's post (rip billable half hour), so I understand both posts and their contexts. And if you think that LegalLord's point is "worthlessly lukewarm," how can you not find striking the sheer ridiculousness kwizach's post? Favacola replied within 10 minutes of kwizach's post "good read" now i could be wrong and he read it all in detail within 10 minutes and forgive me if im wrong but in reality it was probably more like he looked at kwizach's name, noticed he was disagreeing with legallord and went yep thats enough for me "great writeup mate". It is the usual patting on the back / circle jerking or whatever you want to call it that has been revelant in this thread since the beginning, i mean its kind of expected when one end of the spectrum is more represented than the other but man wouldn't it be nice to have actual honest objective rational debates once in a while. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On November 01 2016 02:01 Reaps wrote: Favacola replied within 10 minutes of kwizach's post "good read" now i could be wrong and he read it all in detail within 10 minutes and forgive me if im wrong but in reality it was probably more like he looked at kwizach's name, noticed he was disagreeing with legallord and went yep thats enough for me "great writeup mate". It is the usual patting on the back / circle jerking or whatever you want to call it that has been revelant in this thread since the beginning, i mean its kind of expected when one end of the spectrum is more represented than the other but man wouldn't it be nice to have actual honest objective rational debates once in a while. Those discussions take place regularly here, perhaps you should read more often. Might help with your speed too. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 01 2016 02:02 farvacola wrote: Those discussions take place regularly here, perhaps you should read more often. Might help with your speed too. Yes, those discussions regularly do take place, but I find it highly curious that you think that kwizach's post is one of them. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 01 2016 01:56 Rebs wrote: Clearly you are unfamiliar with many Republicans in congress. Heres Exhibit A + Show Spoiler + http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Trey-Gowdy1.jpg Also I find it somewhat hilarious that you got so easily baited by an afterthought and only addressed that when I was really just criticizing the fact that you shouldnt dismiss someones work by virtue of TLDR... It's because I don't see a resolution in that point, so I avoided it. If I wanted to read some 10,000 words regarding NATO, I would go to a textbook or other valid source, not a TL poster. On top of that, this poster who aims to "educate" ruins his own positions and credibility by including random prior instances of name calling/grievances. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On November 01 2016 02:06 biology]major wrote: It's because I don't see a resolution in that point, so I avoided it. If I wanted to read some 10,000 words regarding NATO, I would go to a textbook or other valid source, not a TL poster. On top of that, this poster who aims to "educate" ruins his own positions and credibility by including random prior instances of name calling/grievances. The lack of resolution is evident because you cant possibly have a reasonable position. "Im not going to read because TLDR and I dont like you." is not really a solid position to disagree You can choose to ignore it and not make a comment. But I find it baffling to comment and chastise someone for something you didnt even bother to read. Its not hard. There plenty of people who do it all the time. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 01 2016 02:14 Rebs wrote: The lack of resolution is evident because you cant possibly have a reasonable position. "Im not going to read because TLDR and I dont like you." is not really a solid position to disagree You can choose to ignore it and not make a comment. But I find it baffling to comment and chastise someone for something you didnt even bother to read. Its not hard. There plenty of people who do it all the time. Where was this sane reasoning when O'keefe released his videos? "not gonna watch, that guy is a hack", not very different from my position, "not gonna read, too long, poster has personal motives and biases, not worth my time". | ||
| ||
