Non Footy Chat Thread II

[I'm a loser baby...]

Someone asking a question is pretty piss poor "evidence".

"Is the sun green?" = evidence the sun is green... f**k off

Have you ever heard anyone ask if the sun is green?

 

[the phantom menace]

No - that's kind of the point.

The #poupoulogic re a question being "evidence" for the source of the quote is flawed.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

No - that's kind of the point.

The #poupoulogic re a question being "evidence" for the source of the quote is flawed.

It is evidence. Not great evidence but evidence still. That no one ever asks if the sun is green is fairly good evidence that it's not.

 

[the phantom menace]

Wow, everyone's still drinking the kool-aid around here...

Come on, a question about whether something is the case is not evidence that things is the case.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Wow, everyone's still drinking the kool-aid around here...

Come on, a question about whether something is the case is not evidence that things is the case.

You haven't grasped the difference between your question and his. People were asking if someone was the author because that's a common belief. And collective knowledge is a valuable tool. No one is asking if the sun is green.

 

[the phantom menace]

His post said "The fact merkins are asking if Dostoevsky said it is evidence that he did."

At best that's a very poorly worded assertion, the logic of which falls apart on inspection.

At worst it's complete #poupounonsense.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

His post said "The fact merkins are asking if Dostoevsky said it is evidence that he did."

At best that's a very poorly worded assertion, the logic of which falls apart on inspection.

At worst it's complete #poupounonsense.

The key word there is merkins, plural. So several people believe he is or could be the source. Not one person asking if the sun is green is evidence that it's not.

 

[the phantom menace]

Ah, so two people asking whether the sun is green makes the evidence that it must be .

Yep, that plural in Poupou's nonsense post sure makes all the difference... but his logic in that sentence is still demonstrably flawed.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Ah, so two people asking whether the sun is green makes the evidence that it must be .

Yep, that plural in Poupou's nonsense post sure makes all the difference... but his logic in that sentence is still demonstrably flawed.

Yes, two people asking that would be some evidence that it might be. Not great but something. But you don't even have one person asking if the sun is green.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Someone asking a question is pretty piss poor "evidence".

"Is the sun green?" = evidence the sun is green... f**k off

Who ever asked if the sun was green?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No - that's kind of the point.

The #poupoulogic re a question being "evidence" for the source of the quote is flawed.

It's completely beside the point. A hypothetical question isn't the same as a genuine question. People are claiming Dostoevsky said something about snowflake culture, which is why people are trying to fact check it. If people were claiming the sun was green, there would probably be fact checkers there as well. But they're not.

This is where thought experiments reach their limitations. Another example is the flying spaghetti monster. It's a poor critique of religion because nobody actually believes in it.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Ah, so two people asking whether the sun is green makes the evidence that it must be

No but multiple people making the claim is evidence in support of it. Even one person making the claim is evidence, albeit very flimsy. But also, claims about current events are easy to verify. Claims about historical events are not, even if they only happened five minutes ago.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Just meat, salt and water. Something like that.

I thought one of them was semen?

 

[Bandwagon]

Sounds like bothsidesism.

Nah, it's all the rights fault.

 

[Gronk]

Well said. Who gives a f**k who said it first? Virtue signalling has become an. aggressive art form for the left.

I think you don’t know what “virtue signalling” is supposed to mean.

It’s supposed to be a slur against people to express social justice, fairness and equality by implying inconsistencies and hypocrisy via ad hominen.

All I did was post a fact checking of the origins of the quote. It wasn’t the Russian dude, it was an anonymous conservative butthurt.

 

[Avenger]

I think you don’t know what “virtue signalling” is supposed to mean.

It’s supposed to be a slur against people to express social justice, fairness and equality by implying inconsistencies and hypocrisy via ad hominen.

All I did was post a fact checking of the origins of the quote. It wasn’t the Russian dude, it was an anonymous conservative butthurt.

And why does it matter? And I absolutely know what virtue signalling means. Piers Morgan explained it to me.

 

[the phantom menace]

Piers Morgan explained it to me.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Bartman does funnys!

 

[the phantom menace]

I'm not sure what this means, but my "spiritual advisor" suggested that it might be appropriate to post in the thread at this juncture?

 

[Gronk]

Will these words make you think twice before gambling?

Gambling companies will soon be forced to include new warnings on all their advertisements about the risks of taking a punt, in what the federal government hopes will help problem gamblers.

www.abc.net.au

‘Gamble responsibly’ message ditched from betting ads

Online wagering companies must ditch the “gamble responsibly” tagline by March next year in favour of seven new phrases backed by research.

www.watoday.com.au

“Gamble Responsibly” has now been replaced with mandatory lines that must be rotated by all online gambling companies across all platforms.

• "Chances are you're about to lose"
• "Imagine what you could be buying instead"
• "You win some. You lose more"
• "What's gambling really costing you?"
• "Think. Is this a bet you really want to place”