OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 19Comments 2,782Joined 1 yr. ago
Yeah, that's even more debate pervertry, with a side of narcissism. "Um, acktually, I don't want to debate, I just want everyone to agree with me 🤓"
I'm fascinated by this worldview in which we can suffiently ascertain the workings of an animal's mind by observing their behavior when it comes to trying to avoid feeling pain, but not when it comes to trying to avoid dying.
That is, assuming that's your genuine position and you're not just playing games.
and, yea, i didn’t click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.
"Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person's evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense."
Yeah, no. You were talking out of your ass, realized you were talking out of your ass, but then didn't let up when you did. You're even still pushing the offense now, by making this thread to complain about it. You don't escalate an issue like this when you've got that much egg on your face. The other person was 100% correct, the fact that there was a minor flaw in the evidence presented by the person you initially responded to does not give you license to ignore other evidence, and it certainly doesn't give you license to ignore other evidence and then go on the offensive. You are extremely out of line and acting like a narcissist.
I'm not antivegan, but I am anti-consumer activism
Just because animals cry out and try to run away when you hurt or try to kill them doesn't mean they feel pain or want to live
What a disengenous asshat. I can't stand these people who are all like, "My only problem with your cause is I don't think you're persuing it the right way," but then they very obviously disagree with the cause and are just saying that shit because they aren't willing to defend their actual positions.
Yes, but the difference is that they were right. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Saying "Go fuck yourself" can be perfectly called for and justified in certain contexts, but extremely uncalled for in others. They had basis to say that, because you were fucking wrong. You did not, because you were fucking wrong.
From what I'm seeing, there's a consistent pattern of behavior of trying to hide behind language, civility, and tone while being disingenuous as fuck and acting in bad faith.
Imagine an argument over a vaccines where the pro-vaccine person has a bunch of evidence in their favor and the antivaxxer keeps bringing up a flaw in one specific paper that the other person isn't even relying on. The pro-vaccine person would be perfectly justified in getting frustrated, accusing the other person of lying or operating in bad faith, etc. But if the antivaxxer did the same - even if they parroted the exact same language - they would be completely unjustified and out of line, even moreso than they already were. So no, you don't get to hide behind this "it was a direct quote" excuse, because you're the one who was out of line. You don't have the right to hurl accusations back at people when they're right and you don't have a leg to stand on.
You gave zero information to go off of but judging from what I saw from the comments, YDI.
You said about the other person:
You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.
But you were dead wrong about the point being discussed, you kept insisting that their evidence was outdated when they were referring evidence beyond the paper you were talking about. If anything, the other person was remarkably patient with you, and if you were decent you'd own up to having egg on your face and apologize to them. Instead, you reported them for correctly calling out your BS, and are now here whining about a two hour ban.
Personally, I find your whole thing of staying within the letter of "civility" while going "I'm not touching you" and talking down to everyone incredibly annoying, worse than if you just told people to go fuck themselves. If it were up to me I'd issue a permaban, but I don't think we have an abbreviation here for "the mods didn't go far enough."
Gonna have to start calling stuff "peanut spread" and "hot assorted meat trimmings"
Also, we've been using the word milk to include plant milk since the year 1200
Well, as everyone knows, it's gay for men to eat pussy, so therefore it must be straight for women to eat pussy 🤔
Yeah, just like she was in 2019 before the campaign started, which is why she was elected president.
I guess the difference is that those polls were only like a year out from the election while this one's over three years away. Maybe that means this one will be more meaningful?? Somehow???
I mean, it really comes down to how you define religion. A lot of people's conception of religion is grounded in the Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), and other traditions don't fit neatly into that framework. It's useful to identify the Christian/Abrahamic lens through which various traditions have been historically seen and to reexamine whether the actual reality is in line with the picture we have of them. Whether such traditions are ultimately classified as religions or not is semantic, but it's worthwhile to examine them as they are and to question assumptions about them.
It would also mean we'd have a witness able to report on the prison's conditions. And the administration can say he's lying, but when there's no other source of information about it, people are going to hear him out.
This is why Kamala Harris famously won the 2020 nomination and went on to become president, because she was polling in first place before the campaign process started.
Permanently Deleted
Lmao yes. I'm literally a communist.
I'm frequently accused around these parts of being a secret republican trying to sow chaos and help Trump win because of how much I criticize the democrats. Here's my comment history searching for the word Biden and for Obama, if you want to see for yourself.
Is there any possible evidence that would falsify the claim that he's dead?
It sounds a lot like other conspiracy theories where people assume a fact and then evidence comes out that contradict that assumption and they come up with all sorts of explanations to avoid changing their mind and insisting that they were right all along. Even if Van Hollen returned with fingerprints and DNA, maybe he's in on it too.
Even if they're carrying out mass executions, it's not hard to believe that they simply didn't get to this guy yet. Maybe his name started to get publicity and they made sure to keep him alive. Those seem a lot more reasonable than this "body double" stuff.
I mean you can believe whatever you want but that's verging into conspiracy theory stuff if you ask me.
Speaking of self-inserts, remember when she wrote that detective story with long segments that are just people on Twitter accusing the main character of transphobia?
Her brain's just fully melted at this point.
Elections are far too useful as a form of control for the state to dispense with them. Virtually every country on earth has elections, even if they're just sham elections for show. If you're a dictator or aspiring dictator, you're generally much better off having some pretence of democratic legitimacy than just coming out and announcing yourself as president for life.