Double_R

You unjustly slandered me

No, my slander was perfectly justified.

I called you a coward. Because you are. Over 600 posts into this thread, dozens or maybe even hundreds by yourself, many of which being into the thousands in terms of characters, and you still make up excuse after excuse after excuse just to avoid answering perhaps the most basic question you've been asked in this entire thread.

You consistently hide behind post numbers because you know no one will read them. Which means no one will bother to see for themselves what a liar you are by claiming the reason you won't answer my question is because I failed to explain my "convoluted post 89 explanation..." even though you wrote post 89.

So even when it comes to the thing you want me to explain, you can't even point directly to it, you have to hide behind one post that references another post, which itself references another post, that references another post that you took issue with. It's beyond cowardly, it's sad and pathetic.

600+ posts in and you're still arguing about red shift, the theory of gravity, E=MC2, all in an effort to justify your claim that the big bang theory is just a leap of faith, and yet you can't even address the simplest question you've been asked because you know your entire position will crumble of you try...

Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?

Go ahead, keep ignoring and running away from this question. Everyone reading this knows exactly why.

It's well known in many of those communities that speaking proper English and being educated in STEM is "acting white"

It's also well known that those communities fall far short of a nuclear family setting, making it much more likely the children are raised without being read to regularly at a young age.

That's 100% a cultural issue and has zero to do with race.

So black people don't like being educated and don't read to their children, which explains why they're not qualified to do the jobs white people can do. But you're not a racist.

This isn't worth my time to refute.

We already know this is a myth based on the fact liberals literally think black Americans can't make it on merit and need policies that discriminate against whites and Asians

Let's perform a thought experiment.

You have a company where 70% of the applicants are white and 30% of the applicants are black.

Then you learn that 90% of the company's workforce is white and 10% are black.

What explains this gap? Why so many more white people than black?

Let me guess... Merit. The hiring numbers are not always going to match exactly to the applicant pool unless done artificially, not the company's fault the white people were better and more qualified.

Cool.

Now let's reverse that. Same applicant scenario but this time it's 50% black and 50% white. What explains that gap?

Well, DEI of course, cause there's no way the black candidates were better than the white candidates.

This is your racism showing. The very fact that you see a push to find *qualified* black or other underrepresented groups as discrimination against white people demonstrates that the only way you think these groups could be qualified in the first place is if they take the jobs of better people. At no point so you ask yourself why those groups are underrepresented in the first place. Cause you don't need to. It's self evident to you.

But go on and keep projecting your racism onto liberals.

What if he countered your argument, and claimed that jury decisions are in fact rooted in faith?

He won't, and knows why. If all jury verdicts are a matter of faith, then the central claim of this thread becomes totally meaningless. At that point he's simply saying anything we believe that we did not personally witness is faith. That logically expands then to not just every scientific claim but nearly every claim we've ever believed.

Kermos has engaged consistently through 600+ posts and counting, all in an effort to discount the big bang specifically, without addressing the most basic consequence of accepting his fundamental premise. It's deeply dishonest and he knows that, which is why rather than engage with me he just ignores me. It's much easier to hide behind 10k characters of AI generated nonsense than to engage in a simple yet fundamental question about what your position entails.

you don't have to have any level of sophistication to excuse your own confirmation bias. Just a cult-like sense of good and evil.

Says the guy who has ignored every individual point I've made to strengthen the case.

It's like trying to explain red to someone who's color blind

You silly American libs think every word in your language is a dog whistle for DNA discrimination.

I already explained to you many of the dots people like you leave for us to connect, and how that is why we conclude that people like you are racist.

You had no response to any of that, so you just retreat to your fifth grade level case for why it's not so.

You're not sophisticated enough to have this conversation.

The goal of your current president is to replace brown communistas with brown capitalists

Right, and raiding work places definitely pushes that agenda forward.

Well, that explains all your hatred. 

I'm really sorry, dude. I understand when someone messes with your source of income. What can I say? Sometimes the applied policies are so tough that people who have nothing to do with it are affected.

I kind of figured you would catch that part and ignore the rest. While I appreciate your sympathy, my assessment (it's not hatred) of Donald Trump was shaped well before Trump 2.0 costed me a substantial portion of my bonus along with many of the day to day perks I used to enjoy back when my company had money to spend on the well being of it's employees.

In fact I recall back when I used to like Donald Trump and was intrigued by the idea of him running for president. I'll never forget when he sat there telling the reporter about how he had people in Hawaii looking into Obama's birth certificate and that they couldn't believe what they were finding. So serious, so confident. I thought to myself wow, is this birther stuff really real?

Fast forward like a few weeks later or whatever it was, Obama releases his birth certificate and there's Trump all of a sudden telling us how glad he is that he was able to contribute to getting this issue put to bed, then demanding Obama's college records. Watching him give that speech was the first time I ever realized... Wow, he's such an idiot.

Everytime I saw him after that my assessment of him only worsened and hardened. The only thing that shocked me was how others couldn't see what a moron and bullshitter he really was, it was so obvious and got worse every time he spoke. Fast forward 11 years and finally the rest of the country is waking up.

That's all bullshit.

The US was already seen as a banana republic thanks to old Joe. Most of the problems that Americans are facing now is because of the democrats, since Obama to be more accurate.

Those could basically all be summed up as "nuh uh". Let me know when you have something of substance to respond with.

Yes, racists like you take a word about culture and pretend it's about DNA.

The pretending is when people like you try to mask your own bigotry by hiding behind these silly words. Assimilate and culture are words every minority has heard all their lives and knows full well what it means. You guys just don't want to say it out loud.

The reason I believe you're a racist isn't because of the words you've used to which I can't properly translate. It's because I've heard you argue your positions many times on this and racism is the only coherent through line, which is true of every immigration hardliner I've ever heard out. Still waiting for you to show you're any different.

They can make the same contributions in their homeland

This has nothing to do with the point you just responded to, but is emblematic of the issue. Sure they could, so what? Why would you phrase that as if telling someone to pack up their whole life and start over again somewhere else in a place you know has less to offer them is just an inconvenience? And why is it beneficial for us to focus our time energy and resources on this rather than the many other issues we could be addressing?

The fact that you thought that sentence alone was meaningful is telling.

That cost is already set at a $2600 reward for self-deportation. If you think that's too little or too much, explain why.

I think it's a stupid approach to immigration. If they're not doing anything wrong and are in fact contributing, it's counterproductive. If they're an actual criminal breaking serious laws then they should be arrested, not paid off. Either way it's silly.

But if your goal is to get rid of the brown people it makes sense.

Clearly, that cost is not high enough to dissuade illegal crossings. Therefore, those costs must drastically increase.

Funny how spending is no longer an issue when it comes to keeping those brown people out.

If their first act is to ignore US law, that's permission to import the lawlessness of the countries they left.

This is just incoherent nonsense.

If part of the idea here is, they're criminals because they broke the law when they came here, that's a blatantly dishonest use of the term. No one fleeing poverty and gang violence is going to stop because the sign said no entry. Them comming here alone is no indication that they have any ill intentions, and that's if you assumed that every illegal came here that way, which isn't even close to the truth.

Second, what do you mean import the lawlessness of where they came? The overwhelming majority of them were escaping that very lawlessness, so your point still ignores that fact.

Try again.

68% of Cuban Refugees voted Trump, versus 23% for Harris

The Democratic Party's Sketchy...

Blah blah blah. Not interested in your AI slop, especially when it had nothing to do with anything I've said. Try responding to the points I've actually made.

Are you afraid of brown capitalists? How about the rich ones?

I'm not MAGA, my politics isn't based on fear of the other. So no, I'm not the snowflake that you guys project into the political left.

He probably doesn't have enough logical sense to realize that illegally importing millions of unassimilated people from banana republics would eventually turn his country into one.

You really thought you killed it with that one.

"Assimilate"... This has become the new buzz word for racists. But your bigotry has always been obvious so it's quite fitting.

No one is advocating to "import" millions of people into this country, the conversation is about what to do with the millions of people who are already here, many if not most of which making valuable contributions to our society, and what costs are appropriate to minimize illegal entry. But that conversation is way too sophisticated for your feeble mind, so of course it translates into this.

The fundamental source of fear that drives you is itself logically absurd. The people who flee banana republics at great risk and great cost to themselves and their families do so because they don't want to live in one, so the idea that they would all come here to turn us into one is just plain stupid.

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

I'm not here to defend Trump.

As you sit here and boast about the things he's done. But sure, go on...

What matters here is that the new inmigration policies have worked. Don't you remember when herds of illegals tried to cross the border

Worked. American citizens shot dead in the streets by ice, hundreds more illegally detained, cities being occupied by ice turning to riots, human rights violations, constitutional rights violations, and all so we can deport farm workers and nannies. If that's what you call "working" then you're just a bigot plain and simple.

And yes, I recall when people used to cross our border, because they saw the US as the shining city on the hill that Ronald Reagan boasted about. They didn't stop crossing the border because of some set of genius policy solutions Trump figured out, they stopped coming because America is no longer a place people around the world want to come to. I would know first hand, I work in tourism and our business is down over 40% because no one wants to come here. So no, I don't consider this an accomplishment.

and once in American soil old Joe sent them a bus convoy to take them to the big cities and lodge them in 5-star hotels instead of just kicking them out?

It's amazing how well propaganda works.

First of all, it wasn't Joe Biden bussing these people to big cities, that would be your republican governors like Abbott and Ron Desantis.

The 5 star thing is also grossly disingenuous, your tired old talking point purposefully makes it sound like they were living in luxury when all that was happening was that they were using the spaces that were empty because of COVID. They weren't receiving 5 star service which you dishonestly try to portray it as.

Lastly, they didn't just "kick them out" because unlike Trump they were following the law which grants asylum seekers certain rights. If you didn't like that law you know what we could have done? Change it. You know who wanted to change it? Democrats and republicans... Until Trump came along and told republicans to stop trying to fix the problem so he could campaign on it.

Turns out republicans didn't give a damn about the issue either because they realized how easily manipulable people like you are. So millions of extra illegals crossed into this country all because Trump decided his power was worth more than fixing your problem. And republicans all went along with it. But tell me more about how much more deserving they are of your vote.

Those images of inmigration agents trying to stop the illegal inmigrants from entering the US are now in the past.

And have instead been replaced by images of US citizens being shot and killed or detained by ice all because they spoke the wrong language or had the wrong skin color. Great improvement.

You can live peacefully

I was living much more peacefully before, back when I used to be able to look forward to my annual bonus.

Unlike you, I'm not afraid of someone because they are brown or speak Spanish.

I know you hate Trump but your hatress can't be over your patriotism.

My patriotism is the source of my disdain for Trump and every idiot who supports him. He's totally destroying everything that made this country stand out as the example to the rest of the civilized world. Remember when we used to shake our heads when we would look at banana republics over their use of their militaries in the streets, blatant use of government power to silence critics and weaponize their justice systems, their cartoonish corruption... And then think, wow, good thing that'll never happen here... Well it has. That's us now, and you're ok with that. That is what's amazing here.

I already explained that the government can hold shares of any US company. That doesn't make it communist.

Wow, so you're a liar. Ok, let's be reminded of your post #10 which is what I was responding to:

You're dismissing the declassification of UFO documents which is important, but I'm pretty sure there are more things that you don't give a sht because it's not about subsidies, control of prices or nationalization of private companies.

So you had an issue with the nationalization of private companies, until I reminded you that it was Trump who actually did it, now it's "I already explained that government can do that". Ok bro.

Besides as it is usual from you, you dismiss everything we say.

Because everything you say is nonsense. Regardless, I don't merely dismiss anything, I respond to everything members like you say with paragraphs worth of rebuttals only for you and your cohorts to act like I didn't say anything at all. Very different thing.

Maybe the most successful laws that the Congress produced lately have been those related to inmigration policies. Now every illegal who manages to cross the border is sent back as it should be.

The only law republicans passed this term was to give Trump billions of dollars to fund his militarization of ice so they can continue occupying US cities, which is exactly the point I made to start this thread when I said all they've done is lay down while Trump tramples on the constitution.

And guess what, at last count Trump was still behind Obama and I believe even Biden on actual deportations. As usual, Trump is all about the show, he couldn't care less about actually governing, which is why he's always falling sleep in the oval office.

Besides, I'm really curious to know why you think it's a positive thing that we're spending more money on ice than most country's spend on their militaries just to round up farm workers and nannies. Aren't you folks on the political right supposed to be about small government, fiscal responsibility and anti tyranny? Is making our society less brown really that important to you? Do you have nothing better to worry about?

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

You're dismissing the declassification of UFO documents which is important, but I'm pretty sure there are more things that you don't give a sht because it's not about subsidies, control of prices or nationalization of private companies.

That last line is especially hilarious being that Donald Trump literally has the federal government holding shares of major US companies and boasted about these moves to cheering supporters as the taxpayers getting something back from their massive profits... In other words, he's literally nationalizing US companies. But tell me more about how against that you are.

That aside, your response is a clear concession of the underlying point. You had nothing to say about what I pointed to so instead you tried to take a sarcastic dig at me, which failed miserably.

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

You've got to evaluate how Republicans is doing in the Congress. As far as I'm concerned, they are doing very well so they deserve to stay there.

Doing very well at what? They're only notable legislative act this term was the OBBB which is deeply unpopular. Other than that they've literally done nothing for the past two years other than lay down while Trump tramples over the constitution.

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

Well it looks like, yet again, you seem to have missed my very long post 470. Any response to it, are are you still cowarding away from the very basic question I've asked you 5 times now?

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

--> Right... "They"... As in one idiot on TikTok.

One idiot on TikTok, and 2 idiots on Debate Craft (SkyWalker and Debby). So much for, "this place is for HIGHER level thinking".

Oh. Wow. You showed me.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8KkWsyh/

They resort to absurd sexual jokes and accuse the right of Rage Baiting.

Right... "They"... As in one idiot on TikTok.

Great argument.

So after all of that, you've finally found something you can respond to: I wrote “Me #33” when #33 was actually addressed to SatanLucy.

Wow. What a ground changing revelation.

Too bad it changes nothing about the substance of the argument, the fact that this is what you've chosen to focus on instead of the argument I've been making tells its own story.

You keep telling me that I need to “explain myself” regarding #136 before you'll engage with anything I've written since then. This is an obvious dodge.

#136 explains why you responded to #65 before you reached #76. That doesn't answer #76. It doesn't answer the questions I asked in #46 and repeated in #76. And it certainly has nothing to do with the question I've asked you repeatedly since #140.

Instead, you go right back to #35.

That's the pattern here.

You point to #136.

#136 points back to #89.

#89 points back to #74.

#74 points back to #35.

And then #35 is supposed to settle everything.

No. You're hiding behind the post numbers.

Your three-ball analogy in #35 demonstrates that, in your deliberately constructed scenario, the grandfather doesn't know which ball hit him or where that ball came from.

It does not demonstrate that an inference about an unobserved event is therefore “faith.”

That's the part you've never established.

And notice how convenient your standard is. You don't have to demonstrate that the inference is unreasonable. You simply declare that because nobody personally witnessed the event, the conclusion is “faith.”

That's why I've asked you the same simple question in #140, #388, #417, and #438:

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

You still haven't answered it.

Instead, you've repeatedly supplied another reason why you don't have to. First it was the chronology. Then #89. Then #136. Now it's the fact that I incorrectly identified the recipient of #33.

At some point, the audience can reasonably ask why a question that takes five seconds to answer has required this many excuses.

So by all means, keep telling everyone that my posts are “nonexistent.”

The record is right there.

So after all this, let's try this again...

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

At this point I'm not even asking to see if you'll answer it, it's obvious you will avoid this question till the eventual heat death of this thread. I'm only asking to demonstrate to anyone reading this how cowardly you are; to start a whole thread on this one question while avoiding it's most obvious implications.

You've just described the left. They're small minded. If you disagree, then define, "small minded".

I already gave you two traits of petulant individuals, including small mindedness, and explained to you exactly how you fit into it. Respond to that instead of this obvious deflection.

Define, "petty". We will see if you can actually do this.

Ok.

AI Overview

petty /ˈpedē/

Petty is an adjective that describes something of little importance, a person who is small-minded or overly concerned with trivial matters, or a lower secondary rank. [1, 2, 3]

Possibly getting banned from a site you spend much if your time on is not trivial. But you won. And it even appears that the site did something I had suggested, it realized it's code of conduct standards were not going to be applied so it changed them, all to accommodate people of your ilk.

And yet you still focus on the people who voted against you.

It's trivial because it doesn't matter anymore. The trial is over. The results are in. You're still here. The site's conduct rules have been downgraded to suit you.

It's small minded because you still can't figure out that this isn't about you. Most of the people who voted against you did so because they saw the same basic thing I did;

1. You repeatedly violated the site's rules of conduct
2. Formal action was taken against you for it
3. You returned to the site with no meaningful change in your behavior
4. You remained defiant in your right to act however you please in violation of the site's terms

No one has to be "out to get you" in order to see the problem here and vote accordingly, but you're too small to see that. You think everyone is thinking about you because that's all your thinking about. No, we see more then that, even if you don't.

You don't know what petty is. I'd start a debate that was trying to get you banned if I was petty. I'm not.

The fact that you are not petty enough to start such an absurd dead on arrival debate doesn't mean you aren't petty. And when you have to respond with such a silly point that doesn't do anything to address the point I just made all so that you could respond with... something... That's a demonstration of pettiness right there.

Emotional people try and get others banned. I don't do that. YOU are the emotional one, not me.

Yeah, 'I know you are but what am I'... No hint of emotional immaturity there.

Do you think a judge can compel a US President and force him to share his personal space with all 340 million people?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what is at issue.

The press gets access to the white house. Not his bedroom, to the room that they literally built for the press.

The president does not get to decide who gets access to the press room, especially when it's because of coverage he doesn't like, which he has explicitly admitted was his reason for doing so.

Do you understand the first thing about the first amendment?

That's rhetorical. There is no way you could have made the silly arguments you've made in this thread if you did.

What do you think about this?

I think it is yet anther hilarious example of how the political right couldn't care less about the principals they pretend to embrace as foundational to their indefensible support for Trump.

For years now that's all we heard, free speech, free speech, free speech. Then these morons watch as Trump constantly uses his presidential bullhorn to attack journalists, deports people for writing negative stories about him, bans lawfirms from government buildings for representing clients who opposed him, sicks the FEC on any outlet producing content he doesn't like, and now tries to ban entire media outlets *explicitly* because he doesn't like they're coverage of him... And they have nothing to say.

But tell me more about how Biden complained to Twitter about people spreading lies about a pandemic that was literally killing people by the millions.

What's absolutely clear is that these idiots do not understand the most basic reason the first amendment was... the first amendment. It wasn't because the framers were worried about people's rights to be assholes on social media. It was literally because they feared exactly what Trump is trying to do.

I don't try to make it look bad, I just don't care if it does look bad so it always looks bad.

It takes effort to make your posts look as bad as they have so that's just not credible. But for the sake of argument, fine, you aren't purposefully trying to make them look bad. Still doesn't matter. Intent is not just a concerted effort to generate that result, it's also the understanding that such a result would likely follow and proceeding anyway. Wilful disregard for the considerations of others is every bit as harmful. That's why we don't waste our time concerning ourselves with your psychology, all we need to arrive at a reasonable consequence judgement are your posts themselves.

--> People are not emotionless robots

Well, they should be.

And yet you are not either. You've spent all this time whining and complaining about, and being petty towards those who voted against you, including starting this thread all because you are pissed that you were put on debatecraft trial. That's every bit as emotional as the people you are criticizing. Until you can truly let this go you have no business attacking others for reacting emotionally to your posts.

There is no such thing as an explanation that can't be denied. You can explain something to someone else but you can't understand it for them.

These debates aren't about "truth", they're about logic and reason. You either follow it's principals or you don't. If you do, then these conversations are useful exercises of it. If you don't, then you're just a waste of space pretending to care about reality when you don't. Either way, I do it for the exercise, because I find that even the latter is useful. George Carlin one said, "never argue with stupid people, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience". I disagree, why give them that edge?