Savant

Did you not get the Hitchhiker's reference?

If any of these questions are not adequately answered, the accuracy of any measurement, temp, or otherwise, is in doubt. And, there foes the science: poof. Gone.

That's just an argument from ignorance. The fact that measured temperatures have remained relatively consistent over time is evidence that it's being measured accurately. Is it a lot of evidence? Maybe you'd argue it's not, but it's more evidence than just asking a lot of questions. Make the argument that it hasn't been measured consistently or that the scientists are doing it wrong, if you base your case on "maybe x, y, and z" then there's an infinite number of "possible" objections you can raise.

You should date a woman your own age (42). It's the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

single, universal, worldwide climate

Climate doesn't mean it's the same temperature everywhere, it means the average temperature. If your argument is that we should expect the average to change the way we are observing from non-human activity, then...make the argument? Saying something is unreasonable without saying why isn't really making an argument.

Just for the sake of pushing the conversation forward, here's a Wikipedia page with average temperatures over time estimated with proxy data. The drastic increase since 1880 seems not to be the norm.

Agnosticism should be the default position for any statement until you have a reason to believe it's true or false. Every true statement has a negation and vice versa, and most theories about the size of infinities would probably suggest there are the same amount of true and false statements. So if there's literally nothing indicating whether a statement is true or false, I'd argue it's 50/50. As if there's a book in a foreign language with 50 true statements and 50 false statements and you picked a random one without knowing what it says.

That said, a "reason" to disbelieve a statement could be something as simple as your intuition usually being reliable and indicating that the statement seems false. That would probably at least be enough to move the odds below 50/50.

I vote for middle ground and progressive punishment.

You're against getting any human feedback on an argument, right? So what about votes that give feedback to debaters? Should the rule be that, once a voter has given you feedback on an argument, you can never improve it and use it again? Also seems hard to be consistent with the ChatGPT thing since maybe someone asked AI about a topic 3 years ago and now are using that knowledge in an argument. That seems like it should be allowed, but then how is that different from someone asking ChatGPT for information to use in an argument? They both got influence from the same place.

I mean, same for most of the arguments used here. Ontological argument for God, bodily autonomy argument for abortion, Kalam cosmological argument, none of those concepts are original. But it doesn't seem like plagiarism to me to just borrow a concept.

I don't think a comedy skit exaggerated for effect is really evidence of anything. Surely there are better real-world scenarios that could illustrate your point, with the additional advantage of being, you know, real?

You can see though how Cuomo thought getting sick people treated would help save lives.

Well, he didn't implement the proper infection control procedures, so he must not have wanted to save lives that badly. Then he lied about it.

He didn't know the effects until it's too late.

Does it make a difference if I'm deciding the better politician based on results? A politician who gets people killed is worse.

Currently nobody; but it's what he's promising that makes him unelectable (abolishing private property).

Which he can't do. And the title o this thread wasn't prove Mandami is the best candidate, just give a pro-Mandami argument. If anything, all you are doing is bringing up other anti-Mandami arguments.

You can see the argument for/against COVID restrictions (life vs freedom)

Except Cuomo reduced life and freedom by forcing nursing homes to accept sick people.

he's better than Bin Laden

So it's like 3rd degree murder vs 1st degree

and Mandami

Who has Mandami killed?

They were both like murder actually. You know, since people died.

Okay but your point was about how old the news was, not the badness of what happened.

we already know that more educated and wealthier people vote democrat. we know that trump supporters are prone to being lower information voters. we know just by virtue of IQ distributions that half are below average intelligence and at least a third are genuinely dumb as rocks.

Perhaps you should ask a Democrat for help formatting your post.

COVID is old news.

I mean, the Holocaust and 9/11 are older news, but I still wouldn't vote for Hitler or Osama bin Laden if they were alive.

What is wrong with Cuomo? Most I've seen is SA convictions

Well, that and killing old people.

Can anybody present good pro Mandami arguments?

He's not Cuomo.

You don't have to type "rage bait" on these, marking them offensive is enough.

The one I'm thinking of is already implemented on the forum main page. Well, it's hidden on mobile to save space but on desktop you can see the last comment for each category.

I’m not sure that people who matter were mad about the Sweeney commercial

People who matter doesn't just include politicians. People will see a few crazies raging on TikTok and think less of the party as a whole, especially if the videos get a lot of engagement or if those people are "influencers." There's a reason that people raging about the Trump win in 2016 got a lot more attention than they probably deserved.

Should be fixed now

Labor could be portioned better so that the same people don't constantly perform the same bad labor (e.g. mining for cobalt).

I've yet to hear anyone propose a way of incentivizing this kind of labor (or any kind of labor) that is less exploitative than capitalism. When socialists get pressed on the details, I've only ever heard them propose other forms of wage slavery or actual slavery.

But most of his work is on the critique of capitalism, not necessarily the envisioning of a future society.

Pretty convenient to spend one's time criticizing capitalism for not 100% resolving scarcity rather than providing a feasible alternative. The biggest strike against Marxism isn't that it's never been tried, it's that capitalism has been tried, most successfully via social democracies. If economics is chess, then capitalism is Magnus Carlsen with a strong record of superior performance to other systems (feudalism, mercantilism, Stalinism, Juche). Marxism is the guy who has never played a chess match before and isn't even sure what his strategy would be, but some people insist he would definitely beat Magnus Carlsen while criticizing Magnus for not playing perfectly 100% of the time.

Okay, patch coming soon. You should be able to do it in a few mins.

You click on the three dots

Well, Trump is the downright moron H L Mencken predicted in 1920.

Mencken was a full-blown racist. His idea of a "moron" is probably just anyone who supports human rights.

I'm gonna unmark you as offensive for now, but if you make an offensive post or comment, you gotta click the dropdown and label it as offensive.

Anytime I want to do a Rage bait thread, I label it as, "Rage bait" in advance and all non-Rage bait threads I leave the Rage bait label off? Many people like rage baiting.

If you tell the mods you will self-label your offensive posts and comments as offensive, they will probably agree to unmark you as automatically offensive (I could, but you should really talk to the official mods or they may be confused and remark you). That way, your offensive posts still get labeled but the mods don't have to manually label all your posts. Message RationalTheist.

When I say "mark as offensive" I mean click the three dots and officially mark it. Don't just put "Rage bait" in the title.

Why don’t you apply it here.

They did apply it to Remy, but presumably you have offensive posts enabled as viewable so it still shows normally to you.

Do farmers get celebrated as heroes for that? No. We mostly struggle to make a living and the bad farmers actually profit more than good farmers who try to make their food as healthy as possible.

If there are bad farmers, it might explain why farmers aren't universally praised. Individually praised, sure, but it would be like praising all politicians because some of them save lives.

Not once did I see anybody hailing farmers as heroes.

The point wasn't that they were producing food, it was that they were near other people and hence risking infection. People praised nurses too, it's not because they thought food comes from the hospital.

I'm the captain now.