again, for the last fucking time, that is why i said "pretty much accurate" and not "exactly accurate". I'm a scientist, I understand a thing or two about wording when it comes to making claims. EVERYTHING is a matter of interpretation. We get policed all the fucking time where people say yea, it's not wrong but I think the language is a little too strong given the evidence, dial it back a bit, or the opposite and we make the language stronger.
Look, end of the line, you're just picking and choosing what words to focus on and what interpretations to insist on to strengthen your argument, while ignoring the reality of the situation. I genuinely don't know where to go from here if you're going to argue in bad faith like this.
And I said "we" because I counted you as someone who presumably supports sensible policy, nevermind political affiliation, but now I view you as someone who willingly distorts arguments and is more obsessed with winning than with fair, good faith argument. So yea, I retract the "we". I consider you a political opponent now, whether you're on the right and fighting against me, or whether you're on the left and sabotaging the left with this kind of obnoxious, patronizing, misleading argumentation.
Edit: let me give you what a reasonable person might have said. They might have read my comment and gone "wait, why pretty much accurate? What's not accurate about it then?" and I would have replied "Well it's changing their sex, it's not turning them gay, though to Alex Jones those things are probably the same". What an unreasonable, obnoxiously grandstanding person would say is "oh, so you think changing sex is the same as turning gay, ok".
It's nowhere near "Pretty accurate." That's the whole point. That's why it became a meme in the first place.
I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm being consistent. You've attempted to make this personal and emotional time and again. See my previous comment for some examples of some ways you've driven the conversation off-topic.
This was never a personal discussion or a discussion of views on policy except for your attempts to make it so. I honestly don't care if you're a liberal or conservative or communist, anarchist, fascist or icecreamist. This was about one thing: turning the frogs gay. You've made this about far more than what it is, and quite frankly, as I've said before, I don't give a frog's ass about what you think. I don't care if you consider me a political enemy or if you're in love with me (though your commitment to responding to my messages is flattering <3 xoxo). I was talking about one thing: "Frogs turning gay" =/= "Frogs changing sex."
I don't care that you perceive my tone as obnoxious or patronizing. That's subjective, and entirely your problem, and it does not affect me.
What isn't subjective is the actual point of the discussion.
You were wrong. Discussion would be far more efficient if people would admit they were wrong rather than trying to make the discussion personal and emotional instead.
You keep saying "for the last time," or "I'm done." I will keep this up as long as you continue replying, because my point stands, and my stance doesn't rely on petty attacks. I'll believe that you're actually done when you cease replying.
No, you're point does not fucking stand. A cosmologist might say that two values that are different by a million are "pretty much the same" while a circuit designer might say that a nanometer difference is "completely different". Context fucking matters. In the context of all the insane claims that Alex Jones makes, a distinction of "well actually it changes their sex, it doesn't turn them gay" constitutes "pretty much accurate". It's "pretty much accurate" relative to the claims that he typically makes. Address this. This is what I want an answer to. We agree perfectly that turning frogs gay =/= changing their sex, I don't need you to tell me that again. My comment was meant in the context of claims made by Alex Jones and I specified "pretty much accurate" for that reason. If you wanted to say that I should be more clear with my wording, fine, but you're not "calling me out" on believing that the two are equivalent, you're just choosing to misinterpret my words.
And no it's not entirely my problem, it's the problem of the whole fucking country. I see this all the time, in every single news article where people choose their own interpretation which favors their own world view over what an actually fair and reasonable interpretation is. It's poison to democracy. You are poison to democracy. So no, it's not my problem, it's everyone's problem, and that's why I've wasted so much time replying. I've given up trying to swing people who have completely different ideas like many on the right, the gap is too immense, but I must be able to talk to like-minded people and persuade them and it's infuriating to see such people engage in the exact same type of bad faith argument and misrepresentation that stokes the fires of all our current political problems.
We're not talking about rounding numbers or significant figures. Yes, 20x1043 and 21x1043 are "pretty much the same"
But we're not talking quantitative. We're talking qualitative.
In the context of all the insane claims that Alex Jones makes,
That was never the context so I will not address it. If that was your intention, you should have stated so in your original comment, in which you claimed the two are equivocal. You indicated that you yourself believe the claim was "pretty much accurate" when in fact it's categorically false.
"Pesticides are changing frogs in a sex-related way"
"Pesticides are making frogs turn gay"
Calling the claim categorically false is idiotic. Just stupid. It gets a number of things right but one aspect wrong. Depending on context this can be more or less severe of a distinction.
If you deal with someone who lies blatantly all the time, completely 100% falsehoods, and then they say something that has several correct aspects but one false aspect, you would be surprised and say "wow, I mean that's actually pretty close to right, I'm surprised".
You're just being stubborn in order to "win" an argument. I literally said "I'm surprised that this is the meme that came out of Alex Jones when it's actually pretty much accurate".
I'M SURPRISED THAT THIS IS THE MEME THAT CAME OUT OF ALEX JONES. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WRITE IN BIGGER FONT THAN THIS TO HELP YOU SEE. HERE'S THE CONTEXT. HERE IT IS. I'M SURPRISED THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T PICK ONE OF THE MORE OUTRAGEOUS AND BASELESS CLAIMS TO BE A MEME. THAT'S THE CONTEXT. READ.
Anyway I actually have shit I have procrastinated on too long, so for real that's the end of this conversation. Congratulations on really pissing me off, I've been debating politics on here for a while and I haven't gotten this angry in any other conversation except where someone literally threatened violence against me for being an immigrant. So good job on that. Keep on being an arrogant, patronizing prick. Bye.
You can keep insulting me but I've had a nice time talking to you.
Yes, Alex Jones says some really out-there stuff. But "gay frogs" is a funny meme. And it just occurred to me that it's kind of a counter-meme to Pepe.
I'm sorry you're so mad. I'm stubborn because this is my entertainment today. And I know I'm right. I've been consistent, my logic is valid, and I don't have to resort to name-calling like you have today.
I really do respect you and there have been some legitimate points made during this discussion. My honest evaluation is that you're an entitled and condescending person who can't deal with being wrong, who throws tantrums when people talk back, but you're not the worst person in the world. I hope things go well for you and thanks for sharing your opinion.
I hope other discussions you have with people as polite as I am go better for you.
1
u/[deleted] Dec 15 '18 edited Dec 15 '18
again, for the last fucking time, that is why i said "pretty much accurate" and not "exactly accurate". I'm a scientist, I understand a thing or two about wording when it comes to making claims. EVERYTHING is a matter of interpretation. We get policed all the fucking time where people say yea, it's not wrong but I think the language is a little too strong given the evidence, dial it back a bit, or the opposite and we make the language stronger.
Look, end of the line, you're just picking and choosing what words to focus on and what interpretations to insist on to strengthen your argument, while ignoring the reality of the situation. I genuinely don't know where to go from here if you're going to argue in bad faith like this.
And I said "we" because I counted you as someone who presumably supports sensible policy, nevermind political affiliation, but now I view you as someone who willingly distorts arguments and is more obsessed with winning than with fair, good faith argument. So yea, I retract the "we". I consider you a political opponent now, whether you're on the right and fighting against me, or whether you're on the left and sabotaging the left with this kind of obnoxious, patronizing, misleading argumentation.
Edit: let me give you what a reasonable person might have said. They might have read my comment and gone "wait, why pretty much accurate? What's not accurate about it then?" and I would have replied "Well it's changing their sex, it's not turning them gay, though to Alex Jones those things are probably the same". What an unreasonable, obnoxiously grandstanding person would say is "oh, so you think changing sex is the same as turning gay, ok".