NK has always been trying to meet with US leaders. Trump is just the first to legitimize the Kim regime with an offer to meet.
Purely symbolic, but credit where it’s due.
It’s all over the internet in his own words if you care to listen to Peterson speak, which is incredibly boring, but if you can stomach it give it a shot.
Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .
By the way, what happened to this?
It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.
Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.
Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.
This makes absolutely no sense.
I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.
Well why not just say that?
Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.
That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.
Frink is no less adept at not just saying things, preferring sarcasm and interjections that miss the point.
I don’t like to debate the debate. In the debate itself my posts were all very direct. You making post after post about Jay not engaging with you didn’t merit the same seriousness.
The funny thing is that I was actually engaging him in most of those posts about him not engaging me, not you.
So what? This is a public forum.
Your post made it seem like I wasn’t engaged with him and was just posting repeatedly to no response.
i pronounce ric olie as “rick olly (as in oliver)”
I mean, that’s how it’s pronounced, so…
JEDIT: You pronounce “oliver” as “ollyver”?
I realize I’m probably the only one old enough to remember this, but in my defense, it was already in after-school reruns when I was a little kid.
I remember it, but in my defense I remember it from Nick at Nite…which still marks me as old given what they show now.
Now Nick at Nite shows That 70s Show and Friends.
Trump hates national security:
moviefreakedmind said:
It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.You’re confusing facts and arguments.
Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.
That’s your argument. But he may be weighing facts differently and considering facts that you aren’t. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of conceding a fact and saying, yeah, but there are these other facts, considerations, context, etc.
No it isn’t. He is wrong on this. He says that Christian morality and a Christian worldview is a necessity for people to not rape and murder and steal, but crime rates are universally lower in secular states compared to religious states. This is true all throughout the developed world. Peterson’s argument in this case is anti-fact. It is. He’s 100% wrong, and to claim that he’s just got some context or different way of weighing facts is just giving credibility to a position that is at odds with reality.
Have you ever once made a post where you just clearly state your position? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do it. This is a serious question by the way
That can’t actually be a serious question that is not rhetorical. Why would you expect anyone to say “no” if asked this question?
It’s in part rhetorical, but I am genuinely curious.
Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .
By the way, what happened to this?
It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.
Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.
Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.
This makes absolutely no sense.
I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.
Well why not just say that?
Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.
That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.
Frink is no less adept at not just saying things, preferring sarcasm and interjections that miss the point.
I don’t like to debate the debate. In the debate itself my posts were all very direct. You making post after post about Jay not engaging with you didn’t merit the same seriousness.
The funny thing is that I was actually engaging him in most of those posts about him not engaging me, not you.
Have you ever once made a post where you just clearly state your position? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do it. This is a serious question by the way, I really don’t I’ve ever seen you put forth your position in a straightforward manner.
Yep. The media was eager to give Trump credit for something and of course it was premature.
If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.
There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct.
Obviously it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with. Agreeing to disagree means you’re just putting a pin in something, and not conceding anything.
It depends on the subject. I agreed to disagree on Peterson’s justification of sexual harassment, for example.
For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect.
Again, it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with, but it sounds like you’re totally resistant to debate if you feel certain of something - i.e. debating you would be like talking to a wall.
I’m resistant to debating things that aren’t up for debate. Like debating a flat-Earther.
You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.
Of course, but not when they’re inconsistent with reality.
It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.
You’re confusing facts and arguments.
Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.
Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .
By the way, what happened to this?
It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.
Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.
Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.
This makes absolutely no sense.
I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.
Well why not just say that?
Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.
That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.
skim this video of one of his self-described “devotees” and looks at the comments
The first rule of Youtube is: never read the comments.
Seriously, they’re almost always vile if the Youtuber doesn’t curate them.
They aren’t trolls. They’re thousands of comments from Jordan Peterson worshippers talking about how they need to live their lives like Peterson tells them to. Or just listen to the devotee in the video as he rambles about how Peterson could see into his soul and how he hung on every word Peterson said. This is a well-received video with over half a million views and it’s got almost unanimous approval from its viewership. This isn’t a random cherrypicked selection of his cult following.
By the way, if anyone is curious about the disgusting cult developing around Jordan Peterson, feel free to skim this video of one of his self-described “devotees” and looks at the comments, where you will find nothing but sickening deification.
If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.
There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct. For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect. It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.
Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .
By the way, what happened to this?
It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.
Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.
Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.
This makes absolutely no sense.
I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.
Well why not just say that? I wasn’t being a wall, by the way. I admit that most of the time I probably am a wall, but in that conversation I wasn’t being one.
Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .
By the way, what happened to this?
It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.
Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.
Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.
This makes absolutely no sense.
He said he meant think of Jawas.
Anybody who thinks that this wall is going to get built is delusional at this point.
A decade ago I would have agreed Big Wall is delusional, now it’s just unlikely.
Nope. Trump is never going to build this wall. Believing that he will is not compatible with reality.
Anybody who thinks that this wall is going to get built is delusional at this point.
Yeah, that’s probably their main desire, but they definitely want to continue monopolizing the industry regardless. Even if Fox didn’t have stakes in Marvel and Star Wars, Disney would’ve made an offer I’m sure.
MAGA moron trolls the Santa Fe shooting with a gun.
Is there something in the ground water? Loony is lucky he wasn’t shot or at least arrested. This makes about as much sense as walking into a bank wearing a mask right after it’s been robbed. Not that you should ever wear a mask inside a bank for any reason.
Here’s the dirty little secret: the MAGA crowd is just by and large dumber than average folks. Sorry, someone’s gotta say it. I guess Trump himself already kind of did. “I love the poorly educated!”
Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .
By the way, what happened to this?
It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.
Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.
I’m well aware, but there’s nothing I can do about it other than try to hold onto myself when I’m feeling reasonable and hopefully be somehow remind myself that I’m reasonable when I’m being unreasonable, but that’s the problem: each version of myself thinks my other self is the crazy one.
I rarely do, no one ever wants to. Plus it’s always uncertain whether or not I will totally hate that person at any given moment. I can go from thinking the world of a person to thinking that person is conspiring to harm me somehow in literally a matter of seconds.