Sign In

chyron8472

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
23-Aug-2010
Last activity
19-Jan-2018
Posts
2330

Post History

Post
#1156515
Topic
The Place to Go for Emotional Support
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

In other news, I’ve suddenly fallen pretty hard for a guy. He’s probably straight, but even if he isn’t, any relationship I pursue with him would result in my execution and subsequent trip to hell. I continue to daydream nonetheless, and hope God has mercy on my soul whenever I do die.

What?

Okay, as a Christian myself, I don’t see having such feelings for, or a relationship with, a guy means you’re going to hell. Seriously. Many conservatives or evangelicals are really judgy about that, but they need to check themselves because the Bible says plenty about loving each other and not being quick to judge. Certainly it does say homosexuality is wrong, but it says a truckload of things are wrong—things that people do wrong all the time every single day. Which is why we need a Savior because we can’t fix it ourselves.

Sorry for my soapbox. But really, I don’t see you going to hell for that.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156514
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

So your problem isn’t the speech itself, it’s people’s reaction to it.

Yes. And maybe not “people”, but more the media I guess.

Would help next time if you say that right away.

Well okay then. Point taken.

Post
#1156508
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I would be more interested in her speech if people actually talked about the content of her speech and what we can do to improve ourselves and the country. What I’m not interested in is people drooling about her for days and being all “Oprah for President!” Eh. That’s not what I got from hearing her speech.

It was an uplifting and hopeful speech, but people don’t talk about it or what it means or what to do about it. They talk about her being President?

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156506
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

You classify accusing him of being unable to put himself in the shoes of anyone who is not white and not male, because he wasn’t hot on her speech, as discussion?

Post
#1156498
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

ray_afraid said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?

Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?

Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes who does not share your opinion and not be critical of them?

When the plain truth is spoken loud n’ clear to an audience of that size it should be applauded no matter how well you thought it was delivered.

Sure. It was good. Really good. Cue applause. No sarcasm.
And move on down the road.

It was a nice speech, but I feel it’s generated all this hype in the news in recent days about Oprah herself, with people talking about her at length, and I’m just not feeling it.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156495
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?

Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?

Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else who does not share your opinion and to not be critical of them?

if you are going to get upset every time you reply to frink, maybe try not replying.

I’m not upset. Just let Warbler have his opinion, is what I’m saying.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156491
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Is it really this hard for you guys to put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment? Someone who isn’t the majority in this country, be it numerical majority (white) or power majority (male)?

Why is it a requirement to get all fired up about this speech? That if one doesn’t get fired up about it, that automatically indicates that one must be unable to remotely identify with others?

Why is it so hard for you to put yourself in the shoes of someone else who does not share your opinion?

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156251
Topic
In what way I should watch a Star Wars Marathon?
Time

dahmage said:

TV’s Frink said:

rainbow battle kid said:

Black Angel

I don’t what this is but I highly doubt it.

its a very strange little film that was released in the UK before ESB (from my recollection, i am not checking wikipedia to be sure right now, yhwx or chyron can do that)

Will do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Angel_(1980_film)

Black Angel is a 1980 British short film that was shown before the theatrical release of The Empire Strikes Back in certain locales. It was the directorial debut of Star Wars art director Roger Christian. […] In June 2015, it was announced that Christian was working on a feature film adaptation of Black Angel, which would be in part funded on crowd-funding site, Indiegogo.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156238
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Oprah stands way more of a chance than Lincoln Chaffee.

Perhaps.

If Oprah stands zero chance, how could she stand more chance than Lincoln Chaffee?

You don’t see the problem with your arguments here?

The problem is you equate the use of of the phrase “no chance” in common conversation as equal to “zero probability” in practical statistics. You assume a hyperbolic statement is not hyperbolic, and so you refute it as though it isn’t, and in a way that rudely belittles my opinions in general.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156221
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

But seriously, discussion about Oprah’s chances annoys me somewhat because I really don’t see how the voter base could be interested in her becoming President.

Post
#1156220
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your position. Which is wrong. But ok.

I said STOP ATTACKING ME.

Invalidating peoples’ opinions won’t make you any friends. Stop treating me like this. Stop attacking me and telling me I’m wrong. Just stop. You’re being rude and childish.

And don’t you dare condescend to me just because I use a media server or watch cartoons.

How am I attacking you?

You are being condescending, invalidating and rude.

The MLP and Plex stuff is making a point.

It makes the point that you think I’m an idiot, because past events show you don’t think spending hours configuring Plex, or talking to people on the Plex forums about using Plex, is a worthwhile use of anyone’s time; and you think I’m creepy for enjoying watching a particular cartoon aimed at my daughter, especially since you don’t enjoy it. You think your opinion is better than mine.

You don’t know politics, polling, or probability very well, as evidenced by your posts.

You can let me have my opinion that Oprah doesn’t stand a chance without attacking me. You don’t have to turn it into a debate over statistics. You don’t have to say my opinion takes a Trumpian view or accuse me of only being willing to talk to an echo chamber. You can be polite to people on these forums.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156207
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

What is the point of debating if you can’t tell people they’re wrong?

It’s the attitude. He’s not just telling me I’m wrong. He’s making me to be an idiot. As though his opinion is somehow superior to mine. As though my position in feeling that Oprah has no chance is stupid because her chance is not technically zero percent.

Debate can occur without invalidation and condescension.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156201
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your position. Which is wrong. But ok.

I said STOP ATTACKING ME.

Invalidating peoples’ opinions won’t make you any friends. Stop treating me like this. Stop attacking me and telling me I’m wrong. Just stop. You’re being rude and childish.

And don’t you dare condescend to me just because I use a media server or watch cartoons.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156196
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Frank your Majesty said:

So you’re not trusting polls because they predicted only a 30% chance for Trump’s victory, yet you’re saying a 35% chance for Oprah in the polls is equivalent to no chance at all?

He takes a Trumpian view of statistics, which is to only believe the ones that support his narrative. The rest are alternative factual polls.

Would you stop attacking me, please.

Post
#1156194
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

So you’re not trusting polls because they predicted only a 30% chance for Trump’s victory, yet you’re saying a 35% chance for Oprah in the polls is equivalent to no chance at all?

I’m saying this talk about her is just talk. It’s too early to know anything for sure at this point, so polling is bound to be wildly inaccurate.

I don’t think talking about Oprah’s chances is barely even worth discussing, because I don’t see how she could possibly be carried on more than her celebrity. Not to mention the myriad of factors working against her.

Post
#1156184
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

35% chance of winning is 65% chance of losing.

Do you honestly want her to run? To win? Why do you care about her running? I didn’t even know you liked Oprah.

Oh my god.

You clearly don’t understand polling or statistics or probability,

I understand. I understand that making a binary statement, like “she has no chance”, is a valid statement in general conversation. I’m not posting statistics. I’m just talking. I don’t think she has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.

and my correcting you on them has nothing to do with what I want or care about.

It has more to do with rudely arguing with and invalidating someone on the internet?

Post
#1156182
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

To say she can’t possibly win is silly. Anyone with 100% name recognition and tons of money has the possibility to win. I wouldn’t think she’s the favorite but of course she’d have a chance.

On 538’s podcast yesterday they reranked their likely Dem nominees for 2020 based on this Orpah “news.” Nate Silver placed her 5th, ahead of Doug Jones and Bernie Sanders.

Sorry but I trust Nate Silver more than you.

5th likeliest is not the same as winning.

Well yeah Ric, but 5th likeliest is also not the same as 5th place. Irrelevant point.

My point is Oprah running is irrelevant. It’s inconsequential. Just something new for the media to talk about.

You think she’d have no chance at all. You’re wrong.

I am allowed to think that. I can be binary about her chances if I so choose.

And it is not your job to refute me for saying so. Why don’t you try being nice around here to people who disagree with you for a change.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1156180
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

35% chance of winning is 65% chance of losing.

Do you honestly want her to run? To win? Why do you care about her running? I didn’t even know you liked Oprah.

Post
#1156175
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

To say she can’t possibly win is silly. Anyone with 100% name recognition and tons of money has the possibility to win. I wouldn’t think she’s the favorite but of course she’d have a chance.

On 538’s podcast yesterday they reranked their likely Dem nominees for 2020 based on this Orpah “news.” Nate Silver placed her 5th, ahead of Doug Jones and Bernie Sanders.

Sorry but I trust Nate Silver more than you.

5th likeliest is not the same as winning.

Well yeah Ric, but 5th likeliest is also not the same as 5th place. Irrelevant point.

My point is Oprah running is irrelevant. It’s inconsequential. Just something new for the media to talk about.

This post has been edited.

To the top