By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 08 September 2019
tsogud said:
EricHiggin said:

Was KLA the first to mention how Trump made the Alabama claim, plus how and why that was a major problem? Did they ever claim or agree that it was a major problem?

If Trump does happen to be a new type of being on this planet, is that a problem? Are you humanist or racist?

I just want proof if he is human or not? Could you provide me with evidence, video footage, anything? After all, we have to be consistent with our skepticism and never presume anything and be spoon-fed things that should be blatantly obvious based on rational logic. So please evidence? Or do you admit you can't really prove anyone's a human? Would you say we'll need a healthy dose of speculation here?

You made the claim, so it's up to you to prove that. (Might I suggest David Icke and Alex Jones since they talk about lizard people quite often and are so highly regarded...)

As for being skeptical, you're free to think Trump is whatever you believe him to be. It doesn't mean you're right though, but can any of us concretely prove whether he is or isn't human without a DNA test? If not, then what's the point in arguing it?

Consistency doesn't = truth. If that were true, then it would be easy to argue that climate science is false. Global cooling to global warming to climate change? Where's the consistency? Must be false then right? Or was more time necessary, and more data, and more analysis of that data, etc? Even then, does everyone believe in man made climate change now?

You're free to try and change people's mind, but they are also free to disagree, even if you think their thought process is incorrect. It doesn't hurt to step back and reevaluate your own thought process sometimes, no matter who you are, or how certain you are.

I do agree we all need a healthy degree of skepticism. Some here seem to show skepticism as times, while others seem overly confident quite often. Being cocksure is a recipe for disaster eventually.



Around the Network
tsogud on 09 September 2019
EricHiggin said:
tsogud said:

I just want proof if he is human or not? Could you provide me with evidence, video footage, anything? After all, we have to be consistent with our skepticism and never presume anything and be spoon-fed things that should be blatantly obvious based on rational logic. So please evidence? Or do you admit you can't really prove anyone's a human? Would you say we'll need a healthy dose of speculation here?

You made the claim, so it's up to you to prove that. (Might I suggest David Icke and Alex Jones since they talk about lizard people quite often and are so highly regarded...)

As for being skeptical, you're free to think Trump is whatever you believe him to be. It doesn't mean you're right though, but can any of us concretely prove whether he is or isn't human without a DNA test? If not, then what's the point in arguing it?

Consistency doesn't = truth. If that were true, then it would be easy to argue that climate science is false. Global cooling to global warming to climate change? Where's the consistency? Must be false then right? Or was more time necessary, and more data, and more analysis of that data, etc? Even then, does everyone believe in man made climate change now?

You're free to try and change people's mind, but they are also free to disagree, even if you think their thought process is incorrect. It doesn't hurt to step back and reevaluate your own thought process sometimes, no matter who you are, or how certain you are.

I do agree we all need a healthy degree of skepticism. Some here seem to show skepticism as times, while others seem overly confident quite often. Being cocksure is a recipe for disaster eventually.

Wow, flew over your head. It seems you need to be spoon-fed as well and also I just want to make this clear. I was parodying KLAMarine's bad faith debating style and flawed use of skepticism to point out that not everything is spelled out for you and you have to use rational deductive reasoning to get to conclusions at times.

In any event, it wasn't meant to be taken too seriously the way you did.

Last edited by tsogud - on 09 September 2019

 

KLAMarine on 09 September 2019
the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

"At least 3."

>So can you link for me these three? I'd like to look at them myself.

Tweet 0:

Instance 1, 2:

That morning, Trump also repeated his claim that Alabama would be affected by the storm, telling reporters, “Alabama is going to get a piece of it, it looks like. But it can change its course again and it could go back more toward Florida.”

At a FEMA briefing an hour later, Trump said that the storm “may get a little piece of a great place: It’s called Alabama. And Alabama could even be in for at least some very strong winds and something more than that, it could be. This just came up, unfortunately. It’s the size of — the storm that we’re talking about. So, for Alabama, just please be careful also.”

Instance 3:

Trump shows map: 

Instance 4:

Instance 5:

Instance 6:

Instance 7:

https://time.com/5671606/trump-hurricane-dorian-alabama/

KLAMarine said:

"Emergency procedures have no purpose then.  

It's easy to evacuate a million people with no guidence or procedures.  Regardless of emergency."

>What the hell are you on about? Emergency procedures very much have a purpose: mitigating damage and preventing fatalities. Why would you think emergency procedures have no purpose!?

You implied that people could look outside to see what the conditions were.  As if it were that simple for someone to decide that they need to evacuate.  

KLAMarine said:

"And I don't.  

It can lead to misinformation."

>Better to prepare for a hurricane that isn't coming than to not prepare for a hurricane that is. In other words, Trump warning Alabama a hurricane is coming will at least give Alabama a heads up to anticipate and keep a sharp eye out for any incoming weather anomalies.

"Monica Medina, a former top official at NOAA who served in the administrations of former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clintons, said the statement "will make us less safe as a country."

>Okay, how? How will it makes us less safe? I don't see an explanation on the how.

For a lot of reasons. 

1.)  You're less likely to listen to a forecast if you think there's a good chance it's wrong.  

2.)  You're less likely to listen to a forecast if you think the weather is being politicized.  

KLAMarine said:

Tricky liberals.  Making comments to suggest Trump is incompetent about the weather.  Every true American knows he's a master weather man, and he's never lied!

>You typed this, not me. Doesn't even come close to representing my views/opinions.

Because nothing happens unless it's on video tape.

>Again, you typed this. Not me. Again, doesn't even come close to representing my views/opinions.

>You typed this, not me. Doesn't even come close to representing my views/opinions.

You said the statements against Trump could be politically motivated. Which implies that Liberals are making a bigger deal about Trump sharing a weather report to get at him.  Which is ludicrous.  

Tweet 0: Okay, that's one where Trump mentions the hurricane hitting Alabama.

Instance 1, 2: Trump here uses appropriate language unlike his tweet 0: he says

“Alabama is going to get a piece of it, it looks like. But it can change its course again and it could go back more toward Florida.”

“may get a little piece of a great place: It’s called Alabama. And Alabama could even be in for at least some very strong winds and something more than that, it could be. This just came up, unfortunately. It’s the size of — the storm that we’re talking about. So, for Alabama, just please be careful also.”

Instance 3: a repeat of tweet 0 so skipping.

The rest of the instances you provided aren't Trump claiming Alabama is going to be hit.

You implied that people could look outside to see what the conditions were.

>Which they can: I can look outside right now and if it's raining, I will see rain falling from the sky. If I see high wind speeds, the trees will be affected by those strong winds and I can tune into a weather service to see what was up and if I may need to start emergency procedures.

As if it were that simple for someone to decide that they need to evacuate.

>It's certainly not that simple but if conditions outside my window seem extreme, I can tune into the news to look for further info.

1.)  You're less likely to listen to a forecast if you think there's a good chance it's wrong.  

>True but again, there is always a chance that a weather forecast is wrong. If the weatherman predicts rain for tomorrow, I'm going to take an umbrella JUST IN CASE it does in fact rain. There's a chance it won't rain but I want to be prepared. I'm not going to shout at the weatherman if he's wrong, that risk is unavoidable.

2.)  You're less likely to listen to a forecast if you think the weather is being politicized.  

This can go both ways: weather forecasts being politicized by pro-Trump and anti-Trump entities taint the forecasts themselves.



Machiavellian on 09 September 2019
KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

So are you not at all skeptical about that statement?

I assume you speak of "The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

I am skeptical. Thankfully, the NOAA page actually provides a link to their claim that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120

https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

jason1637 said:

Bruh the hurricane isnt hitting Alabama and Trump continued to claim it would after he was corrected on multiple occasions. Idk how this is even an argument.

Would be nice if you could actually provide me with Trump's own tweets claiming as such or footage of Trump doing as you say he did. Nothing provided so far, all you've given me is your mere word. I'm afraid that's not good enough.

Bruh, I gave you an article which showed it wasn't just tweets.  It was a bunch of different statements Trump made to various sources.  I guess it was convenient for you to dismiss that article since you have no intention of even understanding the situation.  Nothing is going to be good enough for you because you have not followed the whole dumb crap.  You continue to die on this issue trying to defend something that really isn't defesivable. 



jason1637 on 09 September 2019
the-pi-guy said:

Let's talk about something else.

So one thing I don't get is when some people say that a minimum wage increase would lead to people getting fewer hours, as if that by itself were a terrible thing. People bring this up as if by itself with no other factors in play, this is a bad thing.

If I can make the same amount of money in half the time, why's that dreadful? If I'm currently doing 40 hours a week at minimum wage, doing 20 hours at $15 would be a better situation. Even if that's all I did, and I wasn't really making more money, I'd still be in a better place because i have more free time.  

And potentially with that free time, if I needed more money, I could get another job that probably would also give me 20 hours a week.  And then I'm back to working 40 hours a week, but I'm making double what I was before.   

I saw a Freedom Toons video about how they were right that Bernie had to cut hours to hit the $15/hour.  Despite the fact that these people were making exactly the same amount of money.  It ends up being the dumbest "gotcha libs" ever. 

I feel that the minimum wage should be increased but just not to $15. Maybe like $11 or $12. Fewer hours is a plus for some people but another effect of an increase would be loss of jobs.



Around the Network
Jumpin on 09 September 2019
jason1637 said:
the-pi-guy said:

Let's talk about something else.

So one thing I don't get is when some people say that a minimum wage increase would lead to people getting fewer hours, as if that by itself were a terrible thing. People bring this up as if by itself with no other factors in play, this is a bad thing.

If I can make the same amount of money in half the time, why's that dreadful? If I'm currently doing 40 hours a week at minimum wage, doing 20 hours at $15 would be a better situation. Even if that's all I did, and I wasn't really making more money, I'd still be in a better place because i have more free time.  

And potentially with that free time, if I needed more money, I could get another job that probably would also give me 20 hours a week.  And then I'm back to working 40 hours a week, but I'm making double what I was before.   

I saw a Freedom Toons video about how they were right that Bernie had to cut hours to hit the $15/hour.  Despite the fact that these people were making exactly the same amount of money.  It ends up being the dumbest "gotcha libs" ever. 

I feel that the minimum wage should be increased but just not to $15. Maybe like $11 or $12. Fewer hours is a plus for some people but another effect of an increase would be loss of jobs.

I agree with lower minimum wage to no minimum wage to cover friend/family business type work for secondary income earners and teenagers. But the fact that household top-earners pay as little as 11 or 12 USD per hour should be distressingly problematic. It is a symptom of a broken economy. The key part of the solution would be strengthening the worker unions. There's also the technology boom to contend with, you don't want to halt the progress of automation, but at the same time, you don't want the profits to go to capitalist owners of automation.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin on 09 September 2019

Are some of you guys actually trying to defend the fact that Donald Trump is a pathological liar?
It is kind of sad that people believe he is an honest non-foolish man.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

KLAMarine on 09 September 2019
Machiavellian said:
KLAMarine said:

I assume you speak of "The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

I am skeptical. Thankfully, the NOAA page actually provides a link to their claim that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41, which can be viewed at https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120

https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

Would be nice if you could actually provide me with Trump's own tweets claiming as such or footage of Trump doing as you say he did. Nothing provided so far, all you've given me is your mere word. I'm afraid that's not good enough.

Bruh, I gave you an article which showed it wasn't just tweets.  It was a bunch of different statements Trump made to various sources.  I guess it was convenient for you to dismiss that article since you have no intention of even understanding the situation.  Nothing is going to be good enough for you because you have not followed the whole dumb crap.  You continue to die on this issue trying to defend something that really isn't defesivable. 

For the sake of brevity, what portion of the article you linked would you like to focus on?



TallSilhouette on 09 September 2019

NOAA firings threatened for correcting the president on Dorian.



Machiavellian on 09 September 2019
KLAMarine said:
Machiavellian said:

Bruh, I gave you an article which showed it wasn't just tweets.  It was a bunch of different statements Trump made to various sources.  I guess it was convenient for you to dismiss that article since you have no intention of even understanding the situation.  Nothing is going to be good enough for you because you have not followed the whole dumb crap.  You continue to die on this issue trying to defend something that really isn't defesivable. 

For the sake of brevity, what portion of the article you linked would you like to focus on?

You can choose whichever part you see fit to argue about.  Since the article gave you a timeline on each event, feel free to throw your best effort.  Since it is you who dispute the article, I am sure you must have something you feel is not correct.