22 Apr 2022, 8:05 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Fnord wrote:
flamingshorts wrote:
Fnord wrote:
...Evidence, please?
The best evidence I can find is a masterclass from an expert in the field, Yuri Bezmenov.Different enemy, different sleepers, same tactics. Listen to the entire lecture.
Your specific answer is at 44:30 to 45:05
YURI BEZMENOV - PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE SUBVERSION & CONTROL OF WESTERN SOCIETY
• Yuri Bezmenov (a well-known conspiracy theorist) gave an interview in 1984. This interview was used in the teaser for the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, in addition to its use in the main introduction.
• BitChute is known for accommodating far-right extremists and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hate speech.
Do you have any evidence that comes from reputable sources?[/color]
While Yuri Bezmenov may have had a few good ideas, few people -- other than video game companies -- seem to have embraced them.
BitChute, Gab, and any others have already lost credibility by virtue of being conspiracy theory websites.
Gimme science, not speeches.[/color]
You set a goalpost by asking for evidence. He gave you evidence. You declared his evidence to not be evidence. You should have been clear about exactly what you meant or what you'd accept as evidence.
Anyone can dismiss another person's evidence without assessing it correctly.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
22 Apr 2022, 8:14 pm
Pepe wrote:
...It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
22 Apr 2022, 8:19 pm
Pepe wrote:
Anyone can dismiss another person's evidence without assessing it correctly.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
Fjord is MOSTLY reasonable. The only Chinese in his intellectual armor is his susceptibility to the hypocrisy of the empiricist fallacy. That aside, he’s a pretty ok guy.
I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
22 Apr 2022, 9:10 pm
Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
. . . You should have been clear about exactly what you meant or what you'd accept as evidence.
You are right. I should have stated that I want only valid and thoroughly vetted empirical evidence arrived at by scientific method, and not some esoteric bushlit pulled from random social media websites devoted to conspiracy theories or populated by known conspiracy theorists.Then again, I have known for over 50 years that accusations, beliefs, doctored images and videos, innuendos, lies, opinions, rumors, slogans, and spurious ideas are not now, never have been, nor ever will be valid and thoroughly vetted empirical evidence arrived at by scientific method.
I made the mistake of assuming that everyone else knows this too.
My bad.[/color]
2 points.
1. I am assuming we can hold you to your own standards.
2. Hopefully, we are still allowed to espouse "opinions", also.
22 Apr 2022, 9:12 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Anyone can dismiss another person's evidence without assessing it correctly.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
Fjord is MOSTLY reasonable. The only Chinese in his intellectual armor is his susceptibility to the hypocrisy of the empiricist fallacy. That aside, he’s a pretty ok guy.
I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
Agreed.
Fnord has both good and bad points.
22 Apr 2022, 9:13 pm
flamingshorts wrote:
Pepe wrote:
...It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
QFT.
22 Apr 2022, 9:50 pm
22 Apr 2022, 9:54 pm
Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Fjord is MOSTLY reasonable. The only Chinese in his intellectual armor is his susceptibility to the hypocrisy of the empiricist fallacy. That aside, he’s a pretty ok guy.
I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
[color=black]I think you are a reasonable person too. Even when we disagree on who is correct and who is not, you at least have arrived at your claims and opinions in a reasonable manner.I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
The ones for whom I have no patience are those who post esoteric bushlit as fact, and then vainly attempt to back up their “facts” with even more esoteric bushlit.
What does "esoteric " mean?
I know, I know, "Google is your friend".
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
22 Apr 2022, 10:05 pm
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Fjord is MOSTLY reasonable. The only Chinese in his intellectual armor is his susceptibility to the hypocrisy of the empiricist fallacy. That aside, he’s a pretty ok guy.
I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
[color=black]I think you are a reasonable person too. Even when we disagree on who is correct and who is not, you at least have arrived at your claims and opinions in a reasonable manner.I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
The ones for whom I have no patience are those who post esoteric bushlit as fact, and then vainly attempt to back up their “facts” with even more esoteric bushlit.
What does "esoteric " mean?
I know, I know, "Google is your friend".
Esoteric just means special knowledge, like mystical knowledge or New Age philosophy. Classical music is largely esoteric, but in that case it happens to be how classical music works. Outside a certain subset of people who specialize in it, regular folks aren’t going to understand it. Esoteric things aren’t necessarily bad or untrue, but they are self-referential and may even require their own language to describe them.
22 Apr 2022, 10:16 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Fjord is MOSTLY reasonable. The only Chinese in his intellectual armor is his susceptibility to the hypocrisy of the empiricist fallacy. That aside, he’s a pretty ok guy.
I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
[color=black]I think you are a reasonable person too. Even when we disagree on who is correct and who is not, you at least have arrived at your claims and opinions in a reasonable manner.I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
The ones for whom I have no patience are those who post esoteric bushlit as fact, and then vainly attempt to back up their “facts” with even more esoteric bushlit.
What does "esoteric " mean?
I know, I know, "Google is your friend".
Esoteric just means special knowledge, like mystical knowledge or New Age philosophy. Classical music is largely esoteric, but in that case it happens to be how classical music works. Outside a certain subset of people who specialize in it, regular folks aren’t going to understand it. Esoteric things aren’t necessarily bad or untrue, but they are self-referential and may even require their own language to describe them.
23 Apr 2022, 8:58 pm
23 Apr 2022, 10:08 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Anyone can dismiss another person's evidence without assessing it correctly.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
Fjord is MOSTLY reasonable. The only Chinese in his intellectual armor is his susceptibility to the hypocrisy of the empiricist fallacy. That aside, he’s a pretty ok guy.
I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
It seems you have been "Punked" by the "auto-correct".
The word "c.h.i.n.k" is valid usage, in this instances.
Quote:
The idiom "c.hink in one's armor" refers to an area of vulnerability. It has traditionally been used to refer to a weak spot in a figurative suit of armor. The standard meaning is similar to that of Achilles' heel.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_in_one%27s_armor
23 Apr 2022, 10:12 pm
The power to block attacking races creates attacking a race.
Who can predict this? 
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
23 Apr 2022, 10:22 pm
Pepe wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Anyone can dismiss another person's evidence without assessing it correctly.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
Fjord is MOSTLY reasonable. The only Chinese in his intellectual armor is his susceptibility to the hypocrisy of the empiricist fallacy. That aside, he’s a pretty ok guy.
I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
It seems you have been "Punked" by the "auto-correct".
The word "c.h.i.n.k" is valid usage, in this instances.
Quote:
The idiom "c.hink in one's armor" refers to an area of vulnerability. It has traditionally been used to refer to a weak spot in a figurative suit of armor. The standard meaning is similar to that of Achilles' heel.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_in_one%27s_armor
Yes, I’ve been punked! What’s worse is that I inadvertently used a racial slur. I’m using a grammar keyboard on my mobile devices now. Saves time and helps me keep an eye on punctuation, but it’s hardly perfect. I’m not going to edit the post, though. Too funny!
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
23 Apr 2022, 10:58 pm
23 Apr 2022, 11:37 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Anyone can dismiss another person's evidence without assessing it correctly.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
That is why I gave up doing the "hard yakka" research because, after all the work, I usually got an "is not" reply.
It is rather pointless to provide evidence if the other person has no intention of considering it.
Fjord is MOSTLY reasonable. The only Chinese in his intellectual armor is his susceptibility to the hypocrisy of the empiricist fallacy. That aside, he’s a pretty ok guy.
I’ll throw in two or three contrarian replies when I’m feeling cute, but there’s little point in going far down that path. I’m more like a vulture preferring to pick the bones of roadkill for personal amusement. There are one or two folks on here whose arguments are stillborn more often than not.
It seems you have been "Punked" by the "auto-correct".
The word "c.h.i.n.k" is valid usage, in this instances.
Quote:
The idiom "c.hink in one's armor" refers to an area of vulnerability. It has traditionally been used to refer to a weak spot in a figurative suit of armor. The standard meaning is similar to that of Achilles' heel.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chink_in_one%27s_armor
Yes, I’ve been punked! What’s worse is that I inadvertently used a racial slur. I’m using a grammar keyboard on my mobile devices now. Saves time and helps me keep an eye on punctuation, but it’s hardly perfect. I’m not going to edit the post, though. Too funny!
It may have been the WP website auto-correct.
