Damedius' forum posts

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

They tend to be over represented in many fields which allows people to rationalize many ideas that they have. So it could be jealousy and/or a scapegoat for their own situation.

The Talmud doesn't help either.(Even if most American Jews are secular). There are many writings in it that really don't look good through our modern lense.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@Serraph105 said:

I'm gonna go ahead and take McCain's side on this. I don't ever watch The View, but if they were there to honor a recently dead president then letting it devolve into criticise the current president doesn't seem to be the thing to do, much less getting upset (and pissed for no real reason) when McCain tried to bring the discussion back around to the person they're supposed to be discussing.

Besides, I'm sure Trump gets plenty of discussion every day on that show, why not let this segment be what it was originally supposed to be about?

I can agree with that but it seems a bit hypocritical after taking a swipe at Trump at her own fathers funeral.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@n64dd said:
@mattbbpl said:

@n64dd: Great, charge Democrats with being desperate while Republicans literally undermine democracy. Your party is fraudulent, and you're complicit. Both are morally bankrupt.

Both have been crooked for a long time. Democrats are just visibily worse.

Seeing the corruption inside the Democratic party would cause them to experience cognitive dissonance so they ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Damedius said:
@dark_drag765 said:

Not only is it the most unfunny, unoriginal thing concocted but it is dehumanizing and reduces thoroughly intellectual condemnations and critiques of the Trump administration to “orange man bad”.

Dehumanizing. You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you Deplorable or fascists?

When you present an argument and the right defends against it........sometimes the names are accurate. As for Fascist..........if you read how they come into power and some of their actions prior you can see parallels to this administration. Just because someone has a letter next to their name that you love doesn't mean they are above criticism. I see the country divided between the ends justify the means and those who uphold American ideals. Hint.......the trump supporters are the former and the rest of the country........which doesn't actually need to agree politically.......the latter.

That is wonderful exercise in rationalization.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@dark_drag765 said:

Not only is it the most unfunny, unoriginal thing concocted but it is dehumanizing and reduces thoroughly intellectual condemnations and critiques of the Trump administration to “orange man bad”.

Dehumanizing. You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you Deplorable or fascists?

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@tryit said:
@Damedius said:
@tryit said:

but it does appear to be factual.

How can you personally tell what the hard data says without looking at the hard data?

because I have no reason to doubt that its accurate statistically speaking

how can you be sure the sun will rise tomorrow? because statistically its highly likely that it will (dont troll on 'sun doesnt rise exactly bla bla bla)

how do you know for sure you can walk right now without actually walking? same answer

more over, the claim itself is not absurd, in fact not really surprising. so there is that as well and what would be the motivation to lie about the data? and finally occam razor to top it off

That's a long winded way of saying you can't.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@tryit said:

but it does appear to be factual.

How can you personally tell what the hard data says without looking at the hard data?

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@tryit said:
@Damedius said:
@tryit said:

now the hard data appears to show

Hard to say from the article since it doesn't actually link the hard data.

Though they are claiming that those searches are more prevalent in areas where Trump did better.

that appears to me to be the assertion.

I assume its correct (the actual data collected) because I dont have any real reason to think it would be false.

simple

as

that

I have seen some really shady studies.

For instance a study making conclusions about the effectiveness of flu vaccines. They conducted the study by using anonymous phone calls where almost no one called the phone number.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@tryit said:

now the hard data appears to show

Hard to say from the article since it doesn't actually link the hard data.

Though they are claiming that those searches are more prevalent in areas where Trump did better.

Avatar image for Damedius
Damedius

737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Damedius
Member since 2010 • 737 Posts

@tryit said:
@Damedius said:
@tryit said:

I stopped right there.

again...read carefully...I am NOT i repeat I am NOT drawing conclusions on the facts gathered. the facts gathered are that those searches happen more then in other categories...FULL STOP.. do not move forward from that..stop right there...full stop.

it prooves nothing..other than those searches did in fact happen more so then in other groups.

correct?

because that is all I am pointing out, dont make this hard on yourself

again..I am not making an assertion of causation. I am pointing to the fact part of the study, not the conclusions.

do you put into question the actual data itself..again NOT the conclusions of the fact but only strickly the data gathered of internet searches...focus ONLY on that part

You said "so the facts are that more male Trump supporters do these searches then non-Trump supporters."

Which is incorrect. If you read the article carefully you will see that they have no idea who made the searches.

that appears to be false.

yeah I know, you are suggesting that all those searches are done under their accounts but actually done by other people...yeah I get it.

lol

stop while you are ahead

You didn't read it did you?

Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.