If you say so. Just know if I catch you bailing when statistics or evidence is brought up that counters your claim, you continue to argue the point when the evidence refutes you, or if someone corners you on something they didn't say and directly show evidence they didn't say it, I will begin to stack up these occurrences and create a list.Creating "lists" and keeping tallies, and banking screenshots of a user on the internet is pretty spot on for a petty grudge. So I wouldnt expect less.
That is not at all what I was asking the concession for and you know it. It was literally this exchange:You were asking for a concession on something my post made crystal clear from the jump my post is not about. Something that I actually repeated over and over it wasnt about.
You could have admitted, that I never made such a claimWhich brings us to the heart of the problem with your claim. My original post, and discussion literally was never about the venue or Sweeneys dress. You decided to ignore multiple posts stating just that to say at some point:
he fact that you admit there are "certain posters" I will admit are right, over me, is not giving you the fuel that you thinkIts not giving you fuel either. We both can claim to concede against specific users you agree with that you deem were in good faith.
said you were off topic multiple times as well since this WAS about that venue and this specific instance in question.Ironic you talk of goalpost moving. You chose to respond to me speaking specifically about not all feminists dont view raunchy as empowering. I made it clear from the jump of my original post that was what my post was about. As my post WASN'T about the venue or Sweeney dress and I made that crystal clear. Yet, you kept trying to circle my post to that instead of what I was saying. Then demanding a concession to something my post was never about with you insisting it was
In fact, I'll say right now, I agree with more of your posts than I don't.Despite when we disagree, I can say I agree with more of your posts than I dont as well.
Untrue. I had someone correct me with a more recent study that superseded my old study I was using that was conducted back in the 1990's. I was unaware that both a new study was conducted in 2024 and that study contradicted the previous findings. I didn't like the answer but I conceded I was, indeed, wrong.You arent helping disprove what I just said of doing so with users you typically already agree with. At best this is a nice story.
You told me outright that my opinion doesn't supersede a venue's either and that I too was putting my own beliefs over a venue's right to their own dress code.Speaking of misconstrueding my posts. My argument was about not all feminists agree that dressing raunchy is empowerment, and that my post are NOT aboit that venue. You decided to repeatedly keep circling back to the venue to make my posts about the venue, and worse decided twist my post to be all about the venues decision. Using the above to desperately spin all my posts to be about the venue.
I did not. Again, I have the screenshotsPeople with petty grudges tend to, so that doesnt surprise me.
also conceded that I am slightly hypocritical of not heeding my own advice, by the way, which does run counter to your claim I won't concede a point.I dont even know how to address the hot mess earlier in your post. But to this in particular..... you conveniently conceding (debateble at that) in the very topic of someone saying you dont concede to people who you typically disagree with, doesnt remotely prove you are a beacon example of someone who concedes to those you typically disagree with.
Are you not engaging in a last word contest, right now?Your grudge interests me because you are the one who decided to bring up your grudge. You brought up your grudge from some other topic from over a week ago, not me.
Or.. is a conversation interesting only in so-far you aren't caught outright lying?
First it was I don't. Now I hardly do. Those goalposts.I said you only concede to people you already agree with. You do not concede to anyone you typically disagree with.
You didn't agree you lied about something I said when I provided 5 of my quotes that ran contrary to your claim about me? Again, I literally have the screenshots. I also said words like "In many instances you are right. You are correct, just not here. Yes, people do this but this isn't the case." That seems to be strong language that I am conceding that you are right in multiple instances.That isnt conceding as we did not agree on the fundamental conversation itself. Making declarations to something that's contrary to my actual argument isnt a concession just because it makes you feel better to feel like its one.
My reputation here speaks for itself.To those who typically agree with you, ya, I kind of already said that.
Sure.So you do have a grudge then. So its finally coming out?
Not worth your time to address a lie you made about the person you are arguing? How convenient.That you hardly concede debates yourself with people you hardly agree with.
I'm not looking to win. I even admitted, in many instances, you were even correct.Ill take bs for 500 Alex. Even now you are holding onto a petty grudge because you thought you were owed a concession on something we did not agree on.
Strange. I had posters literally tell me "Woah. I'm surprised you admitted you were wrong there. Many people don't do that."Ill take bs for 500 Alex.
Not much of one. Again, if I see people waste their time with you I'm just going to remind them that it isn't worth it. Not much of a vendetta. More of a psa. There's no feud.And yet, your grudge is on full display. Even now by your own words its not worth replying to me.... but here you are... still responding.
No. You did. I gave you the opportunity and I have the screenshots to back it up. I literally quoted myself to directly show you I never felt my opinion superseded any venue and asked you to concede that I did not make that claim. You stopped posting."Giving me the opportunity to concede" isnt the point you think you are making in showing you concede. I stopped posting because its not worth the time. It was clear we didnt agree at all, we were never going to agree, none of us were budging, and I had something more interesting to do.
So you're conceding here your job isn't to convince anyone of anything. Got it. As I said, responding to you is a waste of time.By that same token you are a waste of time given you dont concede yourself.
If you say so. I'm just going to remind people you aren't a genuine poster and many came around to that conclusion before I did.Enjoy your petty vendetta.
ASDF is not a genuine poster and will never concede on any point even when he's directly wrong. We had a disagreement in another thread, where I called him out that his opinion does not trump a venue's dress code. He told me, mine doesn't either, and I quoted myself and outlined where I stated repeatedly, that he'd be right if the woman in question violated a venue's dress code and that isn't what happened. I showed, and outlined, that I never posted my thoughts over a venue's right to enforce their own dress codes.Glad, you arent one to concede yourself, and I didnt "run away" from the conversation.
I then asked him, as a measure of good faith, and if he is posting in good faith, if he could concede that I never made such a claim and he was wrong in saying that. Guess what Asdf did? He ran away. Tucked tail and booked it out of the conversation completely.
Now, mind you, I don't necessarily agree with your stance here. Just saying arguing with asdf is a waste of time.
So no, you actually can't comment on your own numbers in any single way but a single interpretationTheres nothing to "interpret" other than you fanfiction to change the reality of who voted for what.
So since 52 is a much larger number than 48 do you think it was a foregone conclusion that Dems were always going to cave to Republicans? If so, then what was the point of shutting down?Speak to the 8 Democrats and 52 Republicans.
Are you able to actually speak on any of these numbers you're posting or can I only expect ad hominems from you?Should take your own advice there since you are going on feelings and vibes to bend reality of what actually happened to hold Republicans not accountable at all, to defend Democrats being fully responsible for screwing over Americans in Healthcare. Despite basic math not agreeing with your feelings and vibes.
How many Republicans caved? 0?Theres that vibes and feelings talking again.
Why do you insist on interpreting the numbers in only a single way that's most convenient to your argumentYou mean that pesky thing called reality, basic math, and the facts of what actually happened. Not your fanfiction, vibes and feelings of what you feel what could of happened?
Was the question that I just posed to you not based on reality? What exactly did I make up?Yes.
Do you think it was merely a coincidence that the Dems that caved were either all retiring or aren't going to be up for reelection til 2028?Im still waiting on a question based on reality that shows Dems hold full responsibility. Your question still is based on vibes and feelings that ignores basic math who voted for what.
It was a pretty simple question, man.You mean your question founded on vibes and feelings? Your question that ignores reality of what actually occurred?
Do you really think that if one of the 8 wasn't present, we'd still be in the shutdown right now? Nobody else would have stepped up to vote to end it? Are you that naive?So you dont actually have any facts backing your post then? Just vibes. Which I get it. Ignoring pesky numbers and facts while pushing vibes is MAGAs #1 strategy to both sides a situation, or push Dems to be worse.
Did any of those Republicans yield to the Democrats side? No? Cause Republicans didn't cave.You said all of that, and said nothing that doesnt change the simple fact and math of the situation.
Did any of the Democrats yield to the Republicans side? Yes? Cause Democrats caved.
Well that's just false.40 Democrats (the majority of the party) did not cave.
And we're going to see over 200 Republicans vote for it in the House as well, with little to no Democrats voting yes.This as well.
But I'm sure that will also be Dems fault somehow
The only thing you're doing is giving cover to controlled opposition. What have they done to actually combat the existential crisis of Trump on our democracy?Not cave to Republicans during the shutdown. 40 Democrats voted against the bill that passed. You may not like basic math, but the math still stands.
It was 8 safe Dems. Do you think that was merely a coincidence? How many times do you need to see this convenient coincidence occur right in your face before you notice a regular pattern of safe scapegoat Dems that pop up each and every time that allow the republicans to fuck over the American people?Only thing you are doing is providing coverage for Republicans. Twisting into a pretzel to not hold Republicans accountable with excuses to not hold the majority party that literally voted for this, accountable.
Fine, instead of a monkey with a gun it's a dude swinging a knife on a train. Why'd nobody stop him? Did the security guard really say standing up to him was a pointless waste of time? Why do I need this security guard then if it thinks doing its job is pointless?Still a bad analogy. The dude with the knife is to blame for the dude with the knifes actions.
By all means blame the monkey that's brandishing a gun, but at the end of the day you really gotta wonder how the monkey got hold of the gun in the first place. Where was it's handler? Did the dude really just give up on keeping the gun away from the monkey cause standing up to it wasn't working?That analogy doesn't work as it tries to paint Republicans as children or animals that shouldn't be help accountable for their own actions, and instead tries to blame an entire party of people for a actions of 8 people. You cant even hide behind a majority of Democrats voted for this, as they didnt.
No, after last night the dems assumed full responsibility for the deaths that will be taking place.And none of the Republicans should take responsibility? The majority did NOT cave, only 8 caved and for that you are pushing Dems should take full responsibility. Yet the entire Republican party that did vote for this should take no responsibility?
I never said not to blame the 7, not sure why you keep saying I didYou literally didnt read my post based on this response.
Yeah yeah I know, but like, the vast majority of your posts have been about me, so like, I think that they should be about the thing you're really concerned about instead.My first post literally said to focus on the 7.
So why aren't you doing that? You're only talking about me.My first post literally said to focus on the 7.
Why are you more concerned with this distinction than the 7 Dems who betrayed the nation?Here lies why I say your disingenuous.
DrizztLink posted...Its an important distinction because theres a vast difference between specific Democrats caving and fucking people over, and claiming the entire party caved.... which is not actually true.
Done.
Thank you.
Yeah that is what I mean. I'm seeing examples on Google but Imma be real I'm cozy in bed on my phone and don't feel up to grabbing links but like I'm pretty sure.
I dunno dude, it feels like an unimportant distinction to me. The party is in trouble, this isn't even the first time this happened this year. I said some harsh things after the election because I was angry but you seem to be grinding some weird axe against me.
People like us keep voting for shit Dems like this that sell us outWe agree, and those shit Dems who caved need to be primaried.
I see you posting more about me than any of them.Because people like you disingenuous rally people to "both sides bad so why bother vote." Your literal disingenuous argument as we speak is to blame and rally around the entire party dropped the ball instead of rallying behind the actual less than 10 who need to be removed for dropping the ball.
Because this is a trend, I already said that. They should also be a unified front.The question is disingenuous as my anger is directed only at the less than 10 who actually caved. Not your disingenuous spin that it was the party.
Now answer my question please.
The Dems did drop the ball.Why are you being disingenuous by trying blame the party instead of the less than 10 who actually caved?
Asdf why are you more mad at me than the Dems who betrayed the American people?
Asdf if I was talking about men would say "not all men?".You literally responded to a post of mine that said to not blame the party for what less than 10 Democrats did. Blame the less than 10.
Also please stop calling me Dustin
This distinction isn't an important partWhen it comes to Dustin, it does. Even now he is not making that distinction as just in the last post again he is framing it as "the party."
Asdf you should not say I'm trolling because I don't entirely agree with you, that's a hyperbolic reaction. I've also been barley critical of the Dems lately because I've been happy that they were actually fighting.You respond to a post that says you should blame the less than 10 Democrats that caved, not the entire party.
The Dems dropped the fucking ball here. And pulling a "well you always hate them" just reinforces the idea that no one is allowed to criticize the party.
Why do you see this nightmare scenario the Dems created and feel the need to do damage control for them?
nobody has written "the entire party caved." Just move onDustin is. My post said dont blame the entire party for less than 10, and his literal response was to say "theres always enough" to vote with Republicans.
It does because there is always just enough. This is scientifically a trend at this point.You're one of those usuals.
I see we have come to the "leave the Dems alone" part of the topic.
There were always just enough.Literally doesnt change what I said. Less than 10 caving isnt, "the Democrat Party caving."
So what will the Trumpers say when this inevitably doesn't happen?It was somehow the Democrats fault.
It has to be the deepfakes. There is so much societal damage that can be done with those.This.
Bidens first act as president was giving people 1400 bucks in their pocket no strings attached and nobody cared or remembered six months laterWhen a Democrat does it, its communism or socialism or something and his spending caused inflation to soar.
In the small print at the bottom, they say they removed joke answers.Did they though..... Trump, McConnell and MAGA Mike is on there.
So . . . yeah.
Either those or moralistic arguments (i.e. "how can you be a good person without subscribing to a divine authority?")These type of people scare me the most.
its clear you do not under stand physicsMy post is literally not about what humans are capable and our limited understanding of the universe. So any post that speaks to objectivity of what humans are capable of, has nothing to do with my post. My post also isnt arguing we humans will ever even find a way to interstellar travel.
and guess what neither do i really
but i have looked at what experts say
and the simple fact is interstellar travel is very very likely 100% impossible
I have a Master's in phsyics. I can state with absolute confidence that a perpetual motion machine is impossible. It does not matter what technology we end up creating, it simply will not happenStop you right there. Your post is still talking about humans, and human capabilities.