TranscendentalEmpire @ TranscendentalEmpire @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,219

Joined

2 yr. ago

Nah, the Japanese government since WW2 has primarily been run by war criminals or the children of war criminals. Modern Japan is basically what Germany would have been if people like Goring got to skip the Nuremberg trials and instead became the president.

Are you actually trying to say you did not say "They didn't decide"? Because it's right there, just a few posts up. Literally word for word.

Can you not see that you were the first to state "They didn't decide"?

Again, "DNC has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn't, it's not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses." Is not the same as "they decided".

Believing someone deserves something is not the same as giving something to someone. It's just evidence of partiality.

Are you really not smart enough to just go look back after I told you you said it? Or are you just grossly dishonest? Who are you lying for here? You can't honestly believe you can gaslight, because it's still right there for me to look at.

I think you may need to work on your rhetoric and reading comprehension.

Also, I see you've continued to ignore the fact that you haven't defended your original statement. You know..... the whole point of the argument.

Nah, this dude is just lying their asses off for some reason. I get voting for the lesser of two evils, I mean I voted for Clinton as well. But, apparently there are still ride or die Clinton heads out here still sucking down the copium.

Lol

They didn't decide.

And

the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.

Are the same to you...?

Keep trying to shift the goal post.

You are the one who made an assertion, I rebutted it with sources evidence. You keep trying to squirm away from the fact that you were absolutely wrong. You can keep up the gish gallop of logical fallacies if you want, but we both know you have failed to defend your original affirmation, so now you are relying on semantic reasoning.

Project harder next time.

the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.

Is what I originally said.... You decided to take it out of context and change the phrasing, interpreting it as if I claimed they rigged the primaries. In reality they did decide who they thought deserves to be the president, the impartiality is clear.

You aren't being very academically honest.

This is all moot, the original argument was that you claimed all the DNC did was write some bad email, and that's just not true. The DNC showed a remarkable amount of bias in the primaries. All your other arguments have just been poor attempts to distract from the fact that your original statement was a lie.

Go kick rocks.

she didn't. People keep repeating this, but it's not a fact. The DNC started transitioning over to Hillary after Bernie already had statistically ZERO chance

Sure....

really weird that everyone seems to hate Democrats who run for president more than Republicans who run for President, but for reasons they can never quite pin down to anything related to facts.

Lol, just because I criticize Democrats doesn't mean I don't criticize Republicans. It doesn't come up as much because it's a given that Republicans are going to be awful people.

Also, it's not that people don't provide facts, it's just that you ignore them when presented. I noticed you didn't confront the Idiocracy of her not campaigning in Michigan.....

Yeah, I know. Hillary was further to the left than her husband.

Lol, Hilary was just as much of a moderate as bill Clinton, they literally developed American 3rd way politics together.

Should we have given Trump the 2016 presidency because Hillary was married to a moderate?

Lol, what a pointless strawman argument.... Hillary Clinton has her own political career we can judge her upon. Plus, this is moot as Clinton already "gave" trump the Whitehouse by not campaigning in Michigan.

"Offhandedly blaming 9/11 on the Taliban does nothing but drive people away".

Lol, I know your trying to make a point here, but it's as hilariously flawed as your argument. Yes blaming 9/11 completely on the Taliban is highly reductive and does nothing but further entrench Americans in nationalism. 9/11 is the result of blowback from the cold war.

There's no question 2016 was Republican propaganda and Hillary. I ABSOLUTELY have valid criticisms about the Democratic party. But that doesn't mean every stupid criticism should be taken as valid. The Republicans have gotten REALLY good at the propaganda game.

You are conflating valid criticism with "stupid criticism". Nothing I've stated is unsupported by evidence.

As "unpopular" as Hillary was, she was sladed to crush her by historic margins before you account for the Russian hacking scandal.

Except her popularity was already drastically shifting weeks before the comey letter was released. It was always a tight race, what evidence do you have that supports her win by "historic margins"?

The "Comey effect" is literally an idea propagated by her campaign to explain the lost. Even though theres testimony from people on her team that begged her to campaign in key swing states, and blame her ignoring that advise for the lost.

I'm not saying there wasn't interference, I'm just saying that it wasn't solely to blame for her poor performance. You just can't ignore swing potential swing states in that tight of an election.

Normally I would agree with you. 2016 was different. If Charles Manson ran for President and won, it's the voters faults. NOBODY who did the least bit of research wasn't shitting their pants on election day 2016.

I don't really see what you're trying to get across here.....

And because we can't fucking learn our lessons and we STILL blame the perfectly viable Hillary Clinton.

Lol, she lost..... She wasn't a viable candidate, and there were concerns about her campaign throughout the entire process. Historically, running a milquetoast career politician against a firebrand populist is always a poor prospect. The political landscape has changed, but the DNC refuses to change, they just blame the constituency for not playing along.

You literally linked to two people saying it was rigged with the link text "they didn't decide"

Lol, the reason it's in quotes is because it's quoting you.

This branch of the argument derives from as a response to my original rebuttals. Which was "has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn't, it's not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses"

You interpreted this as the DNC decided the election. In the article I provided, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the DNC did not remain impartial and chose to meddle the democratic process. You chose to ignore the entirety of the context to fixate on pedantry that furthers you logical fallacy.

Again, you don't even realize you are fighting your own strawman argument.

You've got yourself so tied up trying to be right or trying not to be wrong, rather than figure out what's right, that you don't even know which way's up anymore.

Said the man to the mirror.

I used the word argument, not claims.

Yes, you made an assertion which is also known as a claim, I made a rebuttal.

Are you suggesting you aren't making an argument?

An argument is between two sides, one making an affirmation and the other a negation. Since you were the first to make a claim, you are the affirmation. The negation of this claim is not in fact creating a new claim, or assertion.

My rebuttals are dependent on your assertions, so you are in fact steering the argument. So asking if I'm "pretending if that's been my argument the whole time" is nonsensical.

So, how exactly did they rig it? You're making some vague claims, but can point to nothing.

I never claimed anything was "rigged", that's a strawman of your own making. My rebuttals was that DNC was impartial, and the article I provided already explains how.

You are mostly arguing with yourself via shoddily applied logical fallacy.

Are you pretending that's been your argument up to this point?

My dude, you are the one making claims. I'm just negating them as they come.

Btw, why didn't you point out that both of them backtracked the comments?

Again.... Manufactured consent. Why would two senior politicians make claims and then backtrack upon them without admitting they were wrong in the first place? Could it be that both of these politicians are dependent on the DNC for their political careers?

Just because someone is pressured into retracting a comment does not mean that it erases the material evidence the comments were based on.

They didn't decide

Because that's the type of candidate they believe they want.

Guessing you've never heard of the term "manufacturing consent"?

No, I'm saying that the DNC has the responsibility to remain impartial, and when it doesn't, it's not surprising that the candidate they decide deserves to be president loses.

Only after the rest of the moderate candidates were convinced to drop out before the debate and voting.... Sanders would have likely won the primaries if there were more moderates on the ticket to split the vote.

Hillary was unlikeable because she was a woman who wasn't submissive. Sexist people hate that. Everyone who ever met her loves her.

I mean, that's just validating her own reasoning on why she lost the election. She didn't win because she was arrogant, and decided she didn't have to campaign in Michigan.

People also didn't like the fact that she and the DNC colluded together to torpedo Sander's primary at any given chance.

I personally don't like her because of what the Clinton's have done to the DNC over the last 2 decades, particularly their championing of 3rd way politics.

Offhandedly blaming every valid criticism as Republican propaganda does nothing but drive people away. Hillary Clinton was obviously a bad candidate, this is self evident in the fact that she lost to a conman.

It's not the job of the DNC to blame voters for not voting for their chosen candidate, it's their job to give us candidates that we want to vote for.

I think there's mainly 3 choices here , it could be that we've created a society where people with little to no empathy or regard for social norms excel. It could be that amassing so much wealth in our society requires people to adopt an ethical flexibility, and that flexibility eventually spills over into all aspects of their lives.

Or, it could be that morality and ethics are simply social construct that are quickly set aside as soon as society loses its ability to enforce its social mores.

All options appear to be not very groovy.

Yeah... My oldest cat makes different noises for different requests. Yowling near door to go outside, chirping near bowls for dinner, and little mews while following you around to be picked up. And I'm not really sure it's an outlier case as the other two younger cats are starting to learn to do the same.

If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.

That's a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives....

The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.

The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.

For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years.......no.

No, it won't. That's the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren't taking about overall health. We aren't talking about the 'betes.

I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.

None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.

"Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies"

From your own article....

If you're dehydrated, you're lacking salt. There's a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don't want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren't pumping people's blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.

Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration..... hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.

Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it's an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/when-replenishing-fluids-does-milk-beat-water-202211142849

"Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I'd never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren't particularly new or compelling. "

Finally, the main benefit of water is that it's neutral. The reason why people don't tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you're dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.

Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it's highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.

Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

When WikiLeaks first came about it's original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn't been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn't take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn't have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn't care so long as his name got air time.

You know what's better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn't alcohol or literal piss.

I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn't take into account things normally associated with dehydration.

If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn't recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.

Normally this wouldn't really matter, but if you're already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.

Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn't have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it's the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.

Yet here we are, talking about it. "There's no such thing as 'Bad Press'", I guess? Are they right?... maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?... also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?... no, not really.

Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.

Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.

Seems like something I'll have to read more about.

Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?