Page 10 of 14 [ 216 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next


trickle down econonics- a fairy tale, or what?
trickle down benefits the 99% :idea: 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
trickle down benefits only the 1% :x 82%  82%  [ 28 ]
i'm not sure :shrug: 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
where's my ice cream? :chef: 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 34

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,354
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Jan 2018, 4:39 pm

then I believe only the more aware of them will blame trump, the rest blaming the rest of us for not sufficiently supporting their hero.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

01 Jan 2018, 5:06 pm

B19 wrote:
No, I don't think so. They will be too drowning in personal despair to belatedly develop analytical skills or look back and see the function of cognitive dissonance in their previous beliefs. They may blame Trump the person in time, though without understanding that he was a functionary in a much bigger picture.

I can't find a single person that will claim today they voted for George W. Bush in 2000/4, even in my own right wing little town they have nothing good to say about him because he was an absolute disaster and they know it. Yet, 8 years later they decide to go for Trump, who is nothing more than George W. Bush's failed policies and bravado on steroids, and a great many of them think that's why George W. was a failure: he didn't go far enough, not that his policies were counter productive. They've doubled down now, and I just don't see them changing anytime soon, regardless of how bad things may turn. They'll just find another scapegoat to blame their failures on, such as Soros, Hillary, Obama, minorities in general, educated liberals, etc. The GOP never took responsibility for George W., when Trump crashes and burns they won't take responsibility for him either: the party of 'personal responsibility' pushes that responsibility onto everyone but themselves.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,354
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Jan 2018, 5:10 pm

party of hypocrites. how many of the 10 commandments do they regularly break?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

01 Jan 2018, 10:16 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Knock yourself out, make me your special interest. I absolutely couldn't care less.

However when it comes to being unbiased, I don't believe I have referred to myself as such. And if I did it was an incorrect choice of words. I am obviously biased regarding my views of liberalism. I have said that I seek what are considered unbiased or at least the least biased news sources like Reuters and AP, because I don't what my bias or objectivity to be shaped by someone or something else. I want it to belong to me and be mine.

Regarding me supposedly proclaiming myself to be a "straight shooter", a word search of my posting history shows that only you have used the term "straight shooter", not me.

Now I'll point out the flaw in what I perceive to be your reasoning. And that is it seems to me you are implying that if I'm con regarding one thing I must therefore pro regarding something else. If I'm critical of Catholicism for instance, does that mean I must be Protestant, or does it mean I must be LDS, or perhaps Jehovah's Witness, or perhaps atheist. Or perhaps I'm none of those and I'm just simply critical of Catholicism out of my own distinctive individuality.


EzraS wrote:
People think I'm a Trump supporter because I point out what I see as problems and flaws in anti-trumpism and also liberalism. I still maintain there's way too much hype, hysteria and sensationalism involved regarding Trump, to the point where people flip out over him taking a couple of sips from a water bottle. It's just plain bonkers as I see it. So really I'm more anti-bonkers than pro-trump.

^^ That's a sly attempt to sound like you have no agenda, your posting history differs wildly from that statement.


I've made it perfectly clear that I am prompted to point out the flaws I see in liberalism, which of course would be an agenda. So again you are making claims, of me making claims, that I never made.


Aristophanes wrote:
As for 'special interest', not even close, if you were a special interest I'd have your entire posting history printed out, highlighted for inconsistencies, catalogued by date, and annotated with counter evidence and I'd just info dump it all.


I said, go ahead and make me your special protect (future-tense) not that I was already your special project. Again, you are out of context.

Aristophanes wrote:
As it is I just like seeing you dance, anyone that's inconsistent I like seeing dance. You're more than welcome to walk away, but you dance every time I ask, so where's the problem?


Ah so you're just screwing with me. I already figured that was the case. But I don't mind taking it apart.

So just to be clear, your agenda is to simply screw with me. Maybe trying to get me to have a meltdown. Maybe trying to browbeat me into no longer posting. Whatever it is, you've made it clear in your "I just like seeing you dance" statement that you are up to no good.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

01 Jan 2018, 10:27 pm

auntblabby wrote:
a certain person did say "how could anybody not love him" [tRump] in another thread. it's all makin' my head spin. :pale:



You mean this?:

EzraS wrote:
:lmao: :hail:

How can anyone not love that man? :heart:


Disclaimer: satirical.


What part of disclaimer and satirical didn't you get?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 96,354
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Jan 2018, 10:32 pm

AFAIC, you have become thoroughly obnoxious. it is not always possible to know exactly when you are being serious, and when you are kidding, disclaimers notwithstanding. I detest head games.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

01 Jan 2018, 10:33 pm

EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Knock yourself out, make me your special interest. I absolutely couldn't care less.

However when it comes to being unbiased, I don't believe I have referred to myself as such. And if I did it was an incorrect choice of words. I am obviously biased regarding my views of liberalism. I have said that I seek what are considered unbiased or at least the least biased news sources like Reuters and AP, because I don't what my bias or objectivity to be shaped by someone or something else. I want it to belong to me and be mine.

Regarding me supposedly proclaiming myself to be a "straight shooter", a word search of my posting history shows that only you have used the term "straight shooter", not me.

Now I'll point out the flaw in what I perceive to be your reasoning. And that is it seems to me you are implying that if I'm con regarding one thing I must therefore pro regarding something else. If I'm critical of Catholicism for instance, does that mean I must be Protestant, or does it mean I must be LDS, or perhaps Jehovah's Witness, or perhaps atheist. Or perhaps I'm none of those and I'm just simply critical of Catholicism out of my own distinctive individuality.


EzraS wrote:
People think I'm a Trump supporter because I point out what I see as problems and flaws in anti-trumpism and also liberalism. I still maintain there's way too much hype, hysteria and sensationalism involved regarding Trump, to the point where people flip out over him taking a couple of sips from a water bottle. It's just plain bonkers as I see it. So really I'm more anti-bonkers than pro-trump.

^^ That's a sly attempt to sound like you have no agenda, your posting history differs wildly from that statement.


I've made it perfectly clear that I am prompted to point out the flaws I see in liberalism, which of course would be an agenda. So again you are making claims, of me making claims, that I never made.


Aristophanes wrote:
As for 'special interest', not even close, if you were a special interest I'd have your entire posting history printed out, highlighted for inconsistencies, catalogued by date, and annotated with counter evidence and I'd just info dump it all.


I said, go ahead and make me you special protect (future-tense) not that I was already your special project.

Aristophanes wrote:
As it is I just like seeing you dance, anyone that's inconsistent I like seeing dance. You're more than welcome to walk away, but you dance every time I ask, so where's the problem?


Ah so you're just screwing with me. I already figured that was the case. But I don't mind taking it apart.

So just to be clear, your agenda is to simply screw with me. Maybe trying to get me to have a meltdown. Maybe trying to browbeat me into no longer posting. Whatever it is, you've made it clear in your "I just like seeing you dance" statement that you are up to no good.

As I said, I'm not singling you out, if you've drawn my attention it's because you're either wildly brilliant or you're wildly inconsistent. I like playing with the extremes in either direction. And yes, it's a game, games are fun, if you or I weren't getting some sort of satisfaction neither of us would be here.

If you're close to a meltdown, my apologies, that's not the intention at all, and disengage if necessary. The main thing I'm trying to suss out here is whether you're playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or if you're truly unaware of how inconsistent your claimed stance is to what you've actually been arguing the last year.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

01 Jan 2018, 10:48 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
As I said, I'm not singling you out, if you've drawn my attention it's because you're either wildly brilliant or you're wildly inconsistent. I like playing with the extremes in either direction. And yes, it's a game, games are fun, if you or I weren't getting some sort of satisfaction neither of us would be here.

If you're close to a meltdown, my apologies, that's not the intention at all, and disengage if necessary. The main thing I'm trying to suss out here is whether you're playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or if you're truly unaware of how inconsistent your claimed stance is to what you've actually been arguing the last year.


Your statement "I just like seeing you dance" makes it perfectly clear that are trying to bully me and renders your accusations against me invalid. You exposed the fact that you are doing nothing more than the shameful inexcusable act of trolling someone, exposed yourself as being a troll, and now you're trying to gloss it over. You are by your own admission the wolf in sheep's clothing. Now do you wish to continue exposing and embarrassing yourself?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

01 Jan 2018, 11:15 pm

auntblabby wrote:
AFAIC, you have become thoroughly obnoxious. it is not always possible to know exactly when you are being serious, and when you are kidding, disclaimers notwithstanding. I detest head games.


Have you been inspired by Aristophanes' admitted bullying? That would be a shame if so because you're far too nice of a person to start making ugly accusations against someone trying to make them feel bad about themselves.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

01 Jan 2018, 11:19 pm

EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
As I said, I'm not singling you out, if you've drawn my attention it's because you're either wildly brilliant or you're wildly inconsistent. I like playing with the extremes in either direction. And yes, it's a game, games are fun, if you or I weren't getting some sort of satisfaction neither of us would be here.

If you're close to a meltdown, my apologies, that's not the intention at all, and disengage if necessary. The main thing I'm trying to suss out here is whether you're playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or if you're truly unaware of how inconsistent your claimed stance is to what you've actually been arguing the last year.


Your statement "I just like seeing you dance" makes it perfectly clear that are trying to bully me and renders your accusations against me invalid. You exposed the fact that you are doing nothing more than the shameful inexcusable act of trolling someone, exposed yourself as being a troll, and now you're trying to gloss it over. You are by your own admission the wolf in sheep's clothing. Now do you wish to continue exposing and embarrassing yourself?


When I'm saying you're dancing, it's because you're DANCING AROUND THE SUBJECT WITHOUT ANSWERING IT. So enough deflection, I'll just ask directly: are you playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or are you naive to the fact your claims of merely being against misinformation don't line up with most of your previous posts?



Last edited by Aristophanes on 01 Jan 2018, 11:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

01 Jan 2018, 11:30 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
When I'm saying you're dancing, it's because you're DANCING AROUND THE SUBJECT WITHOUT ANSWERING IT. So enough deflection, I'll just ask directly: are you playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or are you naive to the fact your claims of merely being against misinformation don't line up with most of your previous posts?


These are your claims, not mine, as I have already pointed out several times. Continually putting words in my mouth and then using that as a means of baiting and screwing with me. The one playing a wolf in sheep's clothing game is you.
You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

01 Jan 2018, 11:34 pm

EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
When I'm saying you're dancing, it's because you're DANCING AROUND THE SUBJECT WITHOUT ANSWERING IT. So enough deflection, I'll just ask directly: are you playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or are you naive to the fact your claims of merely being against misinformation don't line up with most of your previous posts?


These are your claims, not mine, as I have already pointed out several times. Continually putting words in my mouth and then using that as a means of screwing with me. The one playing a wolf in sheep's clothing game is you. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.


If you think someone asking a question you don't want to answer is bullying you're in for a shock when you're expected to function in the real world. There are people out there that WANT to push you to a meltdown because they get satisfaction from seeing people in pain. Also of note: 'dancing' is a common phrase you'll find in rhetorical texts going all the way back to Quintillian, it means the speaker is on shaky ground and their only opportunity to escape the argument unscathed is to dance around to distract the audience from the shaky ground they're currently on. Such as not answering a simple A or B question. We've seen that you can deflect, but can you parry and riposte as well? It's as simple as answering the question and replying with a tough question of your own.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

01 Jan 2018, 11:46 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
When I'm saying you're dancing, it's because you're DANCING AROUND THE SUBJECT WITHOUT ANSWERING IT. So enough deflection, I'll just ask directly: are you playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or are you naive to the fact your claims of merely being against misinformation don't line up with most of your previous posts?


These are your claims, not mine, as I have already pointed out several times. Continually putting words in my mouth and then using that as a means of screwing with me. The one playing a wolf in sheep's clothing game is you. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.


If you think someone asking a question you don't want to answer is bullying you're in for a shock when you're expected to function in the real world. There are people out there that WANT to push you to a meltdown because they get satisfaction from seeing people in pain. Also of note: 'dancing' is a common phrase you'll find in rhetorical texts going all the way back to Quintillian, it means the speaker is on shaky ground and their only opportunity to escape the argument unscathed is to dance around to distract the audience from the shaky ground they're currently on. Such as not answering a simple A or B question. We've seen that you can deflect, but can you parry and riposte as well? It's as simple as answering the question and replying with a tough question of your own.


Your questions are loaded, based on a false premise you created and then attributed to me, which you've made quite obvious. Do you think you can cloud that over with verbose pseudo-sophistication? I think it likely that you have quite a lot of experience playing cat and mouse games. You obviously like screwing with people and selected me as a target to get your jollies. Keep digging, you're half way to china by now.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

02 Jan 2018, 12:00 am

EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
When I'm saying you're dancing, it's because you're DANCING AROUND THE SUBJECT WITHOUT ANSWERING IT. So enough deflection, I'll just ask directly: are you playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or are you naive to the fact your claims of merely being against misinformation don't line up with most of your previous posts?


These are your claims, not mine, as I have already pointed out several times. Continually putting words in my mouth and then using that as a means of screwing with me. The one playing a wolf in sheep's clothing game is you. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.


If you think someone asking a question you don't want to answer is bullying you're in for a shock when you're expected to function in the real world. There are people out there that WANT to push you to a meltdown because they get satisfaction from seeing people in pain. Also of note: 'dancing' is a common phrase you'll find in rhetorical texts going all the way back to Quintillian, it means the speaker is on shaky ground and their only opportunity to escape the argument unscathed is to dance around to distract the audience from the shaky ground they're currently on. Such as not answering a simple A or B question. We've seen that you can deflect, but can you parry and riposte as well? It's as simple as answering the question and replying with a tough question of your own.


Your questions are loaded, based on a false premise you created and attributed to me, which you've made quite obvious. Do you think you can cloud that over with pseudo-sophistication? I think it likely that you have quite a lot of experience playing cat and mouse games. You obviously like screwing with people and selected me as a target to get your jollies. Keep digging, you're half way to china by now.

Even a loaded question can be answered correctly with use of other techniques, try me if you want an example (going to bed after this post so reply won't be until next time I log in if you want an example). Deflection is great, but it becomes tiresome and easy to spot when used exclusively. All that said it's not a loaded question at all, what a lot of the people here have seen is what I've seen: you predominately come in and defend Trump while selectively cherry picking evidence and refuting any claim against Trump regardless of evidence or logic, you don't talk about other politicians or policies unless they involve Trump or one of his associates, and then you try to portray yourself as some moderate just 'calling it like I see it', when in fact you have a very transparent agenda. Sorry you got called on it, that's life kid. Live and learn.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Jan 2018, 12:11 am

Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
When I'm saying you're dancing, it's because you're DANCING AROUND THE SUBJECT WITHOUT ANSWERING IT. So enough deflection, I'll just ask directly: are you playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or are you naive to the fact your claims of merely being against misinformation don't line up with most of your previous posts?


These are your claims, not mine, as I have already pointed out several times. Continually putting words in my mouth and then using that as a means of screwing with me. The one playing a wolf in sheep's clothing game is you. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself.


If you think someone asking a question you don't want to answer is bullying you're in for a shock when you're expected to function in the real world. There are people out there that WANT to push you to a meltdown because they get satisfaction from seeing people in pain. Also of note: 'dancing' is a common phrase you'll find in rhetorical texts going all the way back to Quintillian, it means the speaker is on shaky ground and their only opportunity to escape the argument unscathed is to dance around to distract the audience from the shaky ground they're currently on. Such as not answering a simple A or B question. We've seen that you can deflect, but can you parry and riposte as well? It's as simple as answering the question and replying with a tough question of your own.


Your questions are loaded, based on a false premise you created and attributed to me, which you've made quite obvious. Do you think you can cloud that over with pseudo-sophistication? I think it likely that you have quite a lot of experience playing cat and mouse games. You obviously like screwing with people and selected me as a target to get your jollies. Keep digging, you're half way to china by now.

Even a loaded question can be answered correctly with use of other techniques, try me if you want an example (going to bed after this post so reply won't be until next time I log in if you want an example). Deflection is great, but it becomes tiresome and easy to spot when used exclusively. All that said it's not a loaded question at all, what a lot of the people here have seen is what I've seen: you predominately come in and defend Trump while selectively cherry picking evidence and refuting any claim against Trump regardless of evidence or logic, you don't talk about other politicians or policies unless they involve Trump or one of his associates, and then you try to portray yourself as some moderate just 'calling it like I see it', when in fact you have a very transparent agenda. Sorry you got called on it, that's life kid. Live and learn.


Your whole routine with me has been proven to be such obvious gaslighting.



B19
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,939
Location: New Zealand

02 Jan 2018, 1:38 am

3 questions:

How do you make sure that your objectivity is not an illusion?

What heuristics do you use to test this complete objectivity you assert?

Is it possible to be objective if you are unaware of your biases?