By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 20 February 2020
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

If nobody votes, what happens?

Have to buy a product? Since when was anyone in America forced to buy a product, or forced to vote?

I mean, that is a functionally impossible question. If everyone who disliked both candidates chose not to vote, you would still have tens of millions of voters.

As previously stated, if you don't vote, you aren't getting no president and a redo, you are just letting a bunch of idiots make the decision for you. And again, you aren't forced to vote, but you are forced to have a president.

Maybe the reason you aren't understanding this is that someone keeps making bad comparisons instead of just looking at the question at face value and seeing how simple it is. Like, we don't need abstract maths to do simple addition...

It's impossible for everyone to hate the candidates available to choose from? We're not talking hundreds to choose from. I wonder how revolutions happen?

I also don't believe that every other voter other than myself is an idiot, but that's just me.



Around the Network
Runa216 on 21 February 2020
EricHiggin said:
the-pi-guy said:

>You'll have to follow the conversation. 

The issue is, there's no way to follow the conversation because you make up nonsense that comes up out of no where.  

>If there wasn't nuclear fusion happening at the core of the sun, would there still be solar flares?

1.) Not likely because there wouldn't be much of a sun without fusion.    

2.)  You're trying to interlink two ridiculously unrelated things, that are basically only connected by the Sun's existence.  

3.) Why don't you read the answers that both SpokenTruth and I gave you, for why the solar flares are not relevant to the discussion?  

Then why are you following it if it's nonsense?

So you admit they wouldn't exist without the sun, but also think they aren't linked and are "ridiculously unrelated"? So like the people who voted for Trump have nothing to do with the decisions he makes as President? I wonder why they're always getting blamed for what Trump does then? All the finger pointers must be wrong then, right, since trying to link the voters to the President would be "ridiculous" based on how "ridiculously unrelated" they are, correct?

Watching you argue is actually painful to watch. You are doing your stance a disservice by doing a piss-poor job backing it. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 on 21 February 2020
CaptainExplosion said:

He complained about Parasite winning Best Picture because it's a South Korean movie, and said Gone With the Wind, a movie from 1939, should've won instead.

Not only does he hate South Koreans, he doesn't know what decade he's in.

He knows what decade he wishes he was in, though! 

Seriously, how did someone this bigoted get elected, faulty electoral college or not? I know this just shows how many racist and xenophobic people there are in the US, but there's no way I'm comfortable accepting that there are more outright racist bigots in the US than there is the entire population of Canada. We should know better. We do know better. I guess some people are just super, duper shitty and proud of it. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Wman1996 on 21 February 2020

So I didn't want to make a thread about this because the general election is still almost 9 months away, but I was thinking about something. How will President Trump react if he loses? Will he have a Twitter meltdown, but accept the results? Will he demand a recount? Would he be super hostile towards any potential victorious opponent, or would some make him more angry than others?
I think Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders would anger him the most. Joe and the whole Ukraine stuff, plus Joe is a VP of Barack Obama would make Pres. Trump mad. On the other hand, Bernie's supposed radicalism would make Pres. Trump extremely salty and could lead to fear-mongering to the max.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 151 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million, then 125 million, then 144 million)

PS5: 115 million (was 105 million) Xbox Series S/X: 57 million (was 60 million, then 67 million)

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

Runa216 on 21 February 2020
CaptainExplosion said:
Runa216 said:

He knows what decade he wishes he was in, though! 

Seriously, how did someone this bigoted get elected, faulty electoral college or not? I know this just shows how many racist and xenophobic people there are in the US, but there's no way I'm comfortable accepting that there are more outright racist bigots in the US than there is the entire population of Canada. We should know better. We do know better. I guess some people are just super, duper shitty and proud of it. 

I'm surprised he hasn't referred to anyone as the n-word. He's only in it for himself, and the people who blindly support him are too stupid to realize that.

Racism against black folks isn't considered culturally acceptable. If he said that word, even he knows he'd be booted faster than a foot fetishist at an ass kicking convention. No, the 'in' form of racism today is hating muslims and other middle-eastern cultures. it's 'okay' to call those people terrorists, in the eyes of many. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
Runa216 on 21 February 2020
Wman1996 said:
So I didn't want to make a thread about this because the general election is still almost 9 months away, but I was thinking about something. How will President Trump react if he loses? Will he have a Twitter meltdown, but accept the results? Will he demand a recount? Would he be super hostile towards any potential victorious opponent, or would some make him more angry than others?
I think Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders would anger him the most. Joe and the whole Ukraine stuff, plus Joe is a VP of Barack Obama would make Pres. Trump mad. On the other hand, Bernie's supposed radicalism would make Pres. Trump extremely salty and could lead to fear-mongering to the max.

Honestly? I don't think there's much of a chance of him losing. Sadly. I mean, he wiggled his way out of impeachment somehow despite CLEARLY being guilty (like, not even due to complicated, roundabout, nuanced ways some people are acquitted via exonerating evidence or a lack of evidence against them; no, he outright said 'I did a thing, too bad', and his party - who is in power right now - is like 'yeah, he did it, but we don't care. Acquitted of all charges'), and every minute he remains in a position of power is an insult against your country's name. 

That said, if he does lose, he'll just twist every single fact and statitstic to prove he was the majority, or claim all the polls and votes were illegal, will claim only illegal immigrants (who can't vote) voted for the opposition, will call the people reporting fake news, etc. 

all in all, he'll ignore reality and substitute his own. Only, unlike the Mythbusters, he's an ignorant clown who doesn't know shit about shit but thinks he's an expert on everything. Like 'the nuclear' or him being 'the best at negotiation'. He is so removed from reality it's scary. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

EricHiggin on 21 February 2020
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Tucker said Medicare for all means one medical goods supplier?

Free health care for all would certainly mean more people using and expecting medical services. Fast, reliable, service. How much worse would an interruption with the existing system be compared to a free for all system? How quickly could this situation occur, and how quickly could other suppliers fill the demand?

Let me get this straight.

Current system:
China is large supplier
Majority have healthcare

Medicare for All:
China is large supplier
All have healthcare


If more people have healthcare, more people could be affected by a supply shortage if China halts supplies. 

And somehow a halt on medical supplies under M4A is a bigger problem compared to our current system where many people have no healthcare at all?

And yes, they could be restocked pretty damn quick.  Suppliers exist all over the world.   Again, does Canada worry about this? The UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia, Germany, etc.....................?

Well yes. More people expecting speedy, quality, services, would put more pressure on the system. It has nothing to do with what would be better in terms of having healthcare or not, it has to do with planning ahead. What's the point in free health care if you can't get it when you need it?

When you go to war with a rival/enemy, you don't send the majority of your troops into a bottleneck and hope for the best. You don't invest the majority of your money in a single unstable stock. You spread it out, even if you have a little more dedicated to one specific objective.

Those suppliers could instantly fill the demand? If the cut off happened when a serious illness fell upon the world, or worse, would that be seen as acceptable? Waiting to fill the demand while people needlessly perish due to the wait because most of the eggs were placed into one basket?



EricHiggin on 21 February 2020
Hiku said:
EricHiggin said:

You either didn't watch the clip or you didn't understand it based on that reply.

People should not have to ask you multiple times to explain your position on something.
And including a clip is a good supplement to an answer. But forcing people to comb through an 11 minute clip (more than once) for a specific remark that you neither time stamped, nor sufficiently described, is not a proper answer by itself.

Also, if you use an analogy to make a point, it's best to avoid scenarios that would never occur, like "What if no one voted?"
Let's try to not waste people's time like this any more please.

Well I was responding to a post based on a clip. I took the time to watch the clip. If someone else isn't going to bother watching the clip, why is it up to me to explain it all to them? What if a significant portion of the clip has to do with where I'm going with the conversation or has useful context? I mean if people respond with, 'I'm not answering you until I get what I want from you first', does that mean you have to respond to their demands, period? Is something along those lines how I should have responded instead?

I didn't include it at first, but I quickly pulled it up and added it for their benefit, since it seemed clear they hadn't watched it. Now I didn't remember where exactly in the clip that specific portion was either, so I would have had to go through the entire clip myself to find it. I also felt much of the clip tied together nicely and gave an idea of where the host was coming from, and I didn't want useful context to be left out so the conversation could be as useful as possible. It's been brought to my attention how poor the conversations have been of late, and then those same individuals do the same thing they accuse me of, entering a conversation without knowing the details. Why is it ok on their part but not mine, apparently?

Based on their response, they clearly hadn't watched the clip at all. It was highly unlikely they had watched it, let alone multiple viewings. It wasn't until they watched it that they had a reasonable understanding of where I was going with my point. Even after explaining it all over multiple replies up until recently, they still didn't get the core point I was making anyway, which I've further had to explain.

Well since we've been talking about possibilities, and I was being asked to provide some, I figured based on some unbelievably unlikely scenario's that have actually come to pass, it wasn't out of the question. Maybe I'm mistaken?

0:00-10:27

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 21 February 2020

EricHiggin on 21 February 2020
Runa216 said:
EricHiggin said:

Then why are you following it if it's nonsense?

So you admit they wouldn't exist without the sun, but also think they aren't linked and are "ridiculously unrelated"? So like the people who voted for Trump have nothing to do with the decisions he makes as President? I wonder why they're always getting blamed for what Trump does then? All the finger pointers must be wrong then, right, since trying to link the voters to the President would be "ridiculous" based on how "ridiculously unrelated" they are, correct?

Watching you argue is actually painful to watch. You are doing your stance a disservice by doing a piss-poor job backing it. 



EricHiggin on 21 February 2020
Hiku said:
EricHiggin said:

Well I was responding to a post based on a clip. I took the time to watch the clip. If someone else isn't going to bother watching the clip, why is it up to me to explain it all to them? What if a significant portion of the clip has to do with where I'm going with the conversation or has useful context? I mean if people respond with, 'I'm not answering you until I get what I want from you first', does that mean you have to respond to their demands, period? Is something along those lines how I should have responded instead?

If someone presented/started an idea/argument, then yes. Have them elaborate first instead of only responding to you with another question, or give you homework.

You looked at a video, and then made this observation:
"Didn't realize America relied so heavily on Chinese medical products. Free health care? Hmm."

Some people wanted to know what you were getting at. What exactly the issue is. What your point is, etc.
And in your first reply, you did elaborate.

"Don't think you got the point, which is based on what Tucker points out about China having such leverage if it ever wants to use it. Imagine how much of a problem that would be now, and how much bigger of a problem it would be with free health care for all."

But after that when some people asked you specific questions, your replies started looking like this:

"You either didn't watch the clip or you didn't understand it based on that reply."
"The leverage, based clearly on what is said in the clip, has nothing to do with product volume. You obviously didn't do your homework, again, it seems."
"Where did you get that from? He nor I am under that impression. Maybe you should watch the clip."

Since you were the one who brought up this idea, it's not unreasonable to expect you to explain it.
And not only because you brought up the idea, but also because it's possible that people watch the clip, and still don't understand what you're getting at. There's also the possibility of misunderstandings. I can't tell you how many times someone's given me "homework" like this, and it turns out they misunderstood something, or their logic didn't quite make sense, etc. In which case I just wasted my time for nothing.

So that's why the burden of explaining someone's point should be on the one who made it. Other people can chose to do the homework you present, but it shouldn't be expected of them.
And especially if they consistently keep saying they don't understand, then it's on you to provide a proper explanation for the point you're trying to make.

I listened to the clip as well before making my original post, and I too have questions about what you're getting at exactly.
But I wanted my post to focus on posting etiquette. So I may make a separate post asking you about that later.

The initial individual's response didn't understand the point, but seemed clear they had watched and understood the clip, yet didn't get where I was taking it. That's why I responded as I did, with a little more detail than how I responded to the next reply by another individual.

The second, main individual, based on where your quotes are coming from, just happens to be the one who was recently making demands of me to give them what they wanted if I wanted a response. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing, logically, since the entire thing revolved around the clip? Proper etiquette would have them, at the very least, watch the clip first. Wouldn't they agree?

Not only that, but also recently, after being told that I don't know squat by this same individual, and then asking them to explain, they refuse to, then make a point of how I'm 'obviously' wrong, and should just ask for help next time, because they would like to help. I then ask for an answer and help, again, and get nothing. Why was that acceptable, which I can only assume, considering nothing was said to them? (The reason I didn't get an answer is because they didn't have a legitimate one and didn't actually want to help, since none was needed, which I understood at the time btw).

After pointing out they didn't watch or understand it, they simply replied with "then enlighten me", etc. After explaining it further, they then ask me to continue to explain, which I do, again. Then they come up with a response that is so far off the clip that it was clear they couldn't have watched it. At that point it was obvious that it wasn't about misunderstanding, it was about lack of knowledge of the clip.

After telling them they should watch the clip, there was a significant reply gap, in which I would assume meant they actually took the time and watched the clip. Their response this time was on point because they required the context of the clip to get where I'm going with my point. They didn't misunderstand, they wanted to be spoon fed, which I actually tried initially, but didn't help, because why would it without the clip?

My initial point of how they should watch the clip, was on point. They hadn't watched it and should have. The fact they didn't and dragged the conversation out is not my fault, it's there's. You don't fail a test in spectacular fashion and then complain that you didn't have the proper materials to study from. You make sure you have that beforehand and then study, then take the test.