Comment Re:Water for people (Score 1) 599
OK, understood.
Still lost in the trees I see.
Still trolling I see.
What I was arguing against was that cliche use somehow devalues an argument. It does not.
I tend to agree, but if you look at the post in question
"You're goddamn right we are the good guys. If you love China so much, then go live there."
...there's no argument there to devalue. There's an unsupported claim followed by a cliche. That's it.
Generally, using tired language doesn't weaken an argument. In this specific case however, the AC made a two sentence post with the last sentence composed entirely of a cliche typically employed by obstinate adolescents. There's no argument made, there's nothing that amounts to "figurative language", and there's nothing even remotely close to "truth".
But by all means, continue to imbibe AC's two sentence post with a much depth of thought and "truth" as you like.
ps - you should take note that many definitions of "cliche" describe them as phrases that are overused to the point of losing their original meaning. Seems to me that using meaningless phraseology could weaken an argument after all.
Your statement is on the same intellectual level of creationists who take the biblical genesis to mean the world is 6,000 years old. The cliche, like the biblical story, is to be taken as figurative language not a literal truth.
Well I guess you are inclined to credit AC with the use of "figurative language". I'm inclined to judge his post as having no intellectual merit whatsoever, and it appears as though I'm not the only one with that opinion.
BTW, your "creationist" troll was a little clumsy.
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
LOL, How is there any truth to the statement "If you love China so much, then go live there"? Such a statement is on the same intellectual level as "if you love China so much, why don't you marry it?" No truth there either.
I firmly believe if we didn't have hollywood, journalists, and a long tradition of marketing and advertising goons, you'd see the same sort of oppressive state apparatus as you do in China and Russia.
At the rate we're going, it won't be long before our state apparatus is indistinguishable from the others.
Or the government could not do that and allow the situation to continue. There's no law of physics that guarantees that government will act as above.
mmm...you're the one claiming that "[it] requires extraordinary intervention, such as killing you." in order for the government to get people to modify their behavior. I gave you an example of how the government can change people's behavior with simple financial disincentives.
The ubiquity and effectiveness of this government mechanism is beyond debate, isn't it? Are you really still claiming that government has to take drastic measures to change people's behavior? Or do you think that the use of fines qualify as extraordinary intervention? Either way sounds like BS to me.
And even in that situation, they haven't precluded the tragedy of the commons.
You must be confusing me with with the other poster. I couldn't care less about the tragedy of the commons.
As punishment for my daughter's carelessness, I told her that she had to help me input data from the photograph. She claimed that this punishment was "cruel and unusual," but she did it anyway.
A well written net neutrality law would have been better than the FCC bringing ISPs under their wing.
Yeah, that's one thing the US Congress excels at - enacting well written laws.
Dude, if you needed a CUDA card, the 980ti is DOGSHIT compared to a K2 GRID.
Only in double precision.
Quit fronting and admit you don't know jack about hardware.
His hardware choice might make perfect sense, depending on his use case. Perhaps you should lighten up a little.
Except from each other, of course. Else I could just argue that only invasions from outside of Earth should count as external invasions of the Middle East.
Wow. I think you've just given me a much better understanding of where you're coming from. Thanks for clearing things up for me.
Cheers!
Quite a change from what you wrote earlier.
I believe that's the second time I've made that point, and I don't think I've changed my position on anything during this exchange.
Keep in mind what I said:
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
So yes, Europe used to fight amongst themselves and now they don't.We pretty much have the same situation as before.
We pretty much have the same situatuion as before? Talk about making noise. For the third time: Europe stopped fighting amongst themselves because stability was forced upon them. You seem to think that somehow makes Europe superior to countries in the Middle East - which was the very first claim you made in this thread.
Sorry, that argument just doesn't hold water. I've pointed this out to you multiple times, and you continue to sidestep the issue with bullshit about the Arab Spring and European revolutions.
BTW, the Mongols and the Moors were ejected from Europe around 1300, and the Ottomans never really made it past the Balkans. This left the bulk of Europe invasion free for centuries.
Look, *you* are the one holding up Europe as some kind of shining example of how a people can change for the better (as opposed to "sandniggers" who can't).
The reality is that the only period of any length where Europeans weren't fighting amongst themselves has been after WWII, and it wasn't because Europe magically changed for the better of its own accord.
Why are you even making noises here? You lost your own argument
Why? Because you said so? Apparently you forgot your own statement:
Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?
You've mentioned one invasion. If you want to include WWI, that would be two invasions. But I guess you have different definition of the word "many" than I do.
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
The fact is, Europe did nothing but fight amongst itself for centuries. It wasn't until the "invasion" to end German aggression that Europe changed. And they didn't do it on their own; "changing for the better" was imposed upon them.
So no, it isn't just "sandniggers" who are incapable of democracy.
Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?
Do you really have to ask that question when history demonstrates many invasions up to living memory?
Really? When was the last time the Europe we know today was invaded by outside forces? To me, the Allied invasions of the world wars don't qualify because those were actions of liberation. Even if you want to include the Allied invasions, when was the last time an external armed force entered Europe before WWI?
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
Only since WWII.
strange that you capitalized the S
Not at all. It's the beginning of a sentence. Capitalizing "Democracy" is the weird thing.
Thanks for being pedantic. I will give your subsequent comments the weight they deserve.
Sure, it does.
Are you saying that mi's comment has merit? Or are you saying mi's comment is ignorant? I don't think it can be both. Do you need to re-read the conversation?
Europe used to be trapped in ancient tribal animosities too. They changed for the better.
Could it be that they changed for the better because they didn't have invading forces fucking with them for generations?
There's nothing worse for your business than extra Santa Clauses smoking in the men's room. -- W. Bossert
