Election Delays and Covid

[laughing dog]

It is difficult to believe that someone can honestly mischaracterize the posts of others so persistently.

But here you are anyway.

Flail away.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is difficult to believe that someone can honestly mischaracterize the posts of others so persistently.

But here you are anyway.

Flail away.

So do you think you can help Jimmy and Jahryn support their accusation?

 

[Jarhyn]

Flail away.

So do you think you can help Jimmy and Jahryn support their accusation?

What, the accusation that your stated principles are a smokescreen for something else you seem very badly to want?

This is a thread about clearly unconstitutional election delays. You have been repeatedly pressed on your principles and failed utterly to apply them uniformly. If you do not want Trump to win, and wish to do more than "hope" in your own mouth, you will vote for Biden.

But you will not. Instead you do exactly the thing that any reasonable person easily recognizes will do nothing at best and get 4 more years of Trump at worst.

You repeatedly attack someone in another country for doing something legal, and I can only assume it is an attempt to distract the conversation away from the illegality of what is happening here.

Personally, I see being asked to pay fair taxes towards infrastructure you benefit from to be a far less problematic use of the guns of the state than throwing people in trucks and holding them in concentration camps merely for being here and engaging in capitalism.

Your positions are pennywise and pound foolish.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Flail away.

So do you think you can help Jimmy and Jahryn support their accusation?

What, the accusation that your stated principles are a smokescreen for something else you seem very badly to want?

Ah, mind reading is your excuse for claiming I supported "secret police abduct people protesting actual government violence". Apparently you just admitted you cannot support your claim.

If you do not want Trump to win, and wish to do more than "hope" in your own mouth, you will vote for Biden.

Or vote Libertarian, or vote Green, or etc....

Personally, I see being asked to pay fair taxes towards infrastructure you benefit from to be a far less problematic use of the guns of the state than throwing people in trucks and holding them in concentration camps merely for being here and engaging in capitalism.

You still haven't supported your claim that I support such. Actually, you admitted you can't support your claim.

 

[laughing dog]

Flail away.

So do you think you can help Jimmy and Jahryn support their accusation?

To tell the truth, I did not even pay attention to it, so I have no idea. Which is consistent with my attitude of "Don't care".

Either their accusation is true, and you have to live it. Or, it is untrue, in which you get a dose of your own dishonorable MO, and you have to live it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

To tell the truth, I did not even pay attention to it, so I have no idea. Which is consistent with my attitude of "Don't care".

Saying that your attitude towards discussion is "don't know don't care" is perhaps the most honest thing you have ever posted.

 

[laughing dog]

To tell the truth, I did not even pay attention to it, so I have no idea. Which is consistent with my attitude of "Don't care".

Saying that your attitude towards discussion is "don't know don't care" is perhaps the most honest thing you have ever posted.

My response clearly indicates a specific discussion, not discussion in general. And, to those who can read with nuance, my attitude towards that specific discussion is "don't care, so don't know".

But thanks for providing yet another example of your mischaracterization of the posts of others.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

To tell the truth, I did not even pay attention to it, so I have no idea. Which is consistent with my attitude of "Don't care".

Saying that your attitude towards discussion is "don't know don't care" is perhaps the most honest thing you have ever posted.

My response clearly indicates a specific discussion, not discussion in general. And, to those who can read with nuance, my attitude towards that specific discussion is "don't care, so don't know".

But thanks for providing yet another example of your mischaracterization of the posts of others.

Someone is still salty that I wouldn't take credit for his post.

So thank you for proving my point yet again.

 

[laughing dog]

My response clearly indicates a specific discussion, not discussion in general. And, to those who can read with nuance, my attitude towards that specific discussion is "don't care, so don't know".

But thanks for providing yet another example of your mischaracterization of the posts of others.

Someone is still salty that I wouldn't take credit for his post.

So thank you for proving my point yet again.

What point would that be?

 

[bilby]

My response clearly indicates a specific discussion, not discussion in general. And, to those who can read with nuance, my attitude towards that specific discussion is "don't care, so don't know".

But thanks for providing yet another example of your mischaracterization of the posts of others.

Someone is still salty that I wouldn't take credit for his post.

So thank you for proving my point yet again.

What point would that be?

I believe that Jason is seeking to imply that you are an adhesive material, and that he is a vulcanised tree sap widely used for motor vehicle tyres.

Though his debating style is a little difficult to follow clearly, as I haven't encountered it since primary school.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What point would that be?

I believe that Jason is seeking to imply that you are an adhesive material, and that he is a vulcanised tree sap widely used for motor vehicle tyres.

Interesting. Based on that hypothesis, the coefficient of restitution of the processed vulcanized tree sap would be at a magnitude which would allow anything, such as a phrase or metaphor, to deflect or "bounce" off of it. The much lower coefficient of restitution for the adhesive covered material would move likely overwhelm the momentum of the deflected phrase or metaphor, absorbing said energy, and it would not deflect off of it, effectively leaving it stuck.

 

[laughing dog]

What point would that be?

I believe that Jason is seeking to imply that you are an adhesive material, and that he is a vulcanised tree sap widely used for motor vehicle tyres.

Though his debating style is a little difficult to follow clearly, as I haven't encountered it since primary school.

While I have great respect for your analytic abilities, I hope you are mistaken. Your analysis is consistent with his MO and responses in this thread, but I find it disappointing to think he has to resort to a stupid “no u r”.

 

[bilby]

What point would that be?

I believe that Jason is seeking to imply that you are an adhesive material, and that he is a vulcanised tree sap widely used for motor vehicle tyres.

Interesting. Based on that hypothesis, the coefficient of restitution of the processed vulcanized tree sap would be at a magnitude which would allow anything, such as a phrase or metaphor, to deflect or "bounce" off of it. The much lower coefficient of restitution for the adhesive covered material would move likely overwhelm the momentum of the deflected phrase or metaphor, absorbing said energy, and it would not deflect off of it, effectively leaving it stuck.

A distinct possibility.

 

[Elixir]

A distinct possibility.

I have to take issue here. The notion that human utterances have a persevering physical nature that would allow them to either rebound from the surface of another human with any significant retention of energy, or that they would somehow interact with such a surface in a manner that would produce a bond like a Hall Effect or a congruence that might produce adhesion, adding mass to that body - these ideas are neither founded upon nor supported by any known feature of physics. IOW, these are fantasies and neither should be considered a "possibility".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

My response clearly indicates a specific discussion, not discussion in general. And, to those who can read with nuance, my attitude towards that specific discussion is "don't care, so don't know".

But thanks for providing yet another example of your mischaracterization of the posts of others.

Someone is still salty that I wouldn't take credit for his post.

So thank you for proving my point yet again.

What point would that be?

In this thread it is that neither Jimmy's nor Jahryn's accusation can be supported. And that you tried to distract from that question. And that you are salty that I wouldn't take credit for a post you made.

Interesting. Based on that hypothesis, the coefficient of restitution of the processed vulcanized tree sap would be at a magnitude which would allow anything, such as a phrase or metaphor, to deflect or "bounce" off of it. The much lower coefficient of restitution for the adhesive covered material would move likely overwhelm the momentum of the deflected phrase or metaphor, absorbing said energy, and it would not deflect off of it, effectively leaving it stuck.

For example, this is how Jimmy supports his accusation.

 

[laughing dog]

What point would that be?

In this thread it is that neither Jimmy's nor Jahryn's accusation can be supported. And that you tried to distract from that question.

That is false. I simply refused to enter into your derailing dispute.

And that you are salty that I wouldn't take credit for a post you made.

What post of mine are you talking about?

 

[bilby]

What point would that be?

In this thread it is that neither Jimmy's nor Jahryn's accusation can be supported. And that you tried to distract from that question. And that you are salty that I wouldn't take credit for a post you made.

Interesting. Based on that hypothesis, the coefficient of restitution of the processed vulcanized tree sap would be at a magnitude which would allow anything, such as a phrase or metaphor, to deflect or "bounce" off of it. The much lower coefficient of restitution for the adhesive covered material would move likely overwhelm the momentum of the deflected phrase or metaphor, absorbing said energy, and it would not deflect off of it, effectively leaving it stuck.

For example, this is how Jimmy supports his accusation.

It's how Jimmy riffs on a slightly tongue in cheek post I made.

Mocking your childish debating style isn't an attempt to support or refute anything. It is, however, a highly appropriate response to your pomposity, particularly as you support that pomposity with ludicrously unsubtle and naïve 'arguments', that dress up kindergarten level 'debate' in flowery language.

It's a common style amongst libertarians, and one of the reasons why serious thinkers tend to laugh at them, rather than attempting to engage with them. Libertarianism is the political wing of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In this thread it is that neither Jimmy's nor Jahryn's accusation can be supported. And that you tried to distract from that question.

That is false. I simply refused to enter into your derailing dispute.

That's why you kept posting in a thread that doesn't interest you.

And that you are salty that I wouldn't take credit for a post you made.

What post of mine are you talking about?

This one.

Hitler was less worse than Stalin when one looks at the number of killed.

Ever since you made that argument, you've tried to give me credit for your argument.

Mocking your childish debating style isn't an attempt to support or refute anything. It is, however, a highly appropriate response to your pomposity, particularly as you support that pomposity with ludicrously unsubtle and naïve 'arguments', that dress up kindergarten level 'debate' in flowery language.

It's a common style amongst libertarians, and one of the reasons why serious thinkers tend to laugh at them, rather than attempting to engage with them. Libertarianism is the political wing of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Saying "support your accusation against me" is now a "childish debating style" and "Dunning-Kruger". I would love to see you go into any courtroom across the country where there is a case of defamation and advise the lawyer to use that defense.

 

[bilby]

That's why you kept posting in a thread that doesn't interest you.

And that you are salty that I wouldn't take credit for a post you made.

What post of mine are you talking about?

This one.

Hitler was less worse than Stalin when one looks at the number of killed.

Ever since you made that argument, you've tried to give me credit for your argument.

Mocking your childish debating style isn't an attempt to support or refute anything. It is, however, a highly appropriate response to your pomposity, particularly as you support that pomposity with ludicrously unsubtle and naïve 'arguments', that dress up kindergarten level 'debate' in flowery language.

It's a common style amongst libertarians, and one of the reasons why serious thinkers tend to laugh at them, rather than attempting to engage with them. Libertarianism is the political wing of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Saying "support your accusation against me" is now a "childish debating style" and "Dunning-Kruger". I would love to see you go into any courtroom across the country where there is a case of defamation and advise the lawyer to use that defense.

No, no; Saying "support your accusation against me" after the person has already done just that, as a means to pretend that they have not, and then projecting the accusation back on them in the face of all logic and reason, is a childish debating style.

As is sealioning.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, no; Saying "support your accusation against me" after the person has already done just that, as a means to pretend that they have not, and then projecting the accusation back on them in the face of all logic and reason, is a childish debating style.

But he did not. Jahryn said her support was due to mind reading, Jimmy didn't support it at all.