Elon Musk buys Twitter

[Doc Socks Junior]

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

I I know it happened! You missed the point- when the article was written in February, it was true! 

Well, no, it was never true that there was no way Trump would lose in November. That fact is obvious because he did, in fact, lose in November. You might need to take remedial Reason and Logic courses.

Statement remains false. Your online hero remains wrong. 

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

More evidence than the guy who Borysenko is being compared to!

Since they both simply offered their anecdotal opinions with no supporting evidence, the evidence seems equal. One can imagine a world where Karlyn "Hitler Went To Heaven" Borysenko does not have a good handle on reality. Hint, it's probably the world we're living in right now.

Although honestly, my default opinion is that she's just milking the online right wing for a little fame and coin. Pretty simple.

[Doc Socks Junior]

23 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

She's making a point about spiritual beliefs. Hindus believe this also! There's a whole slew of arguments between reincarnation believers about why reincarnation exists. Some people go even further, and instead of saying they CHOOSE to be born that way, instead children who die from hunger in the third world are being punished for their actions in past lives. 

Edit: sorry, I had a problem with my phone, I tried to post and then it deleted half my post, then I posted again and half of what I wrote went away. Then I double checked the context of what I was reading and realised I had messed it up. I've fixed my comment to reflect the facts. 

Yeah, I understand some of what Hindus believe. I've had some enjoyable conversations with them. I don't recall them telling me that Hitler went to heaven, a concept they obviously don't adhere to, but maybe my memory is lacking.

So it wasn't just a joke, eh?

That being said, using dumb examples to make a point on the Internet certainly is evergreen.

It's unfortunate that your phone was bad enough at reading context to think she was making a joke. I hope you're able to control the interpretations that your "phone" makes in the future. Blink twice if you're being held hostage by your sentient phone and you'd like to be rescued so that your 'phone' doesn't continue making false and inaccurate statements and making you look bad.

[+Link of Hyrule]

55 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well, no, it was never true that there was no way Trump would lose in November. That fact is obvious because he did, in fact, lose in November. You might need to take remedial Reason and Logic courses.

I didn't say he won! What I said was that at the time the article was written (February 2020) the democrats were on a one-way hiding to Shellackingville, and thus the article wasn't "wrong" at the time based on the information that was available to her in February 2020. 

 

55 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Statement remains false. Your online hero remains wrong. 

Before yesterday's post I hadn't seen a Karlyn Borysenko video for months. I actually think she's kinda annoying! 

 

55 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Since they both simply offered their anecdotal opinions with no supporting evidence, the evidence seems equal. One can imagine a world where Karlyn "Hitler Went To Heaven" Borysenko does not have a good handle on reality. Hint, it's probably the world we're living in right now.

Although honestly, my default opinion is that she's just milking the online right wing for a little fame and coin. Pretty simple.

"Hitler went to heaven" is a spiritual belief that she personally holds about what happens to ALL people when they die. Thousands, maybe even millions, believe that everyone goes to heaven when they die. According to Borysenko's beliefs, Hitler isn't going to heaven for somehow being a better human being than others, he is going to heaven because all humans go to heaven according to her beliefs. You're trying to twist that into praise for Hitler because the example is the most extreme example of a terrible human being that we can think of, and her point was that even he is going to the same place as everyone else. Like it or not that's a popular theological stance that many have, from many spiritual views. 

 

42 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Yeah, I understand some of what Hindus believe. I've had some enjoyable conversations with them. I don't recall them telling me that Hitler went to heaven, a concept they obviously don't adhere to, but maybe my memory is lacking.

Karlyn isn't a Hindu. Hindu's don't believe in heaven. I was pointing out that the views Karlyn expressed are not unique to her, they are not shocking, they are not strange. Many people believe 1- heaven exists, and 2- everyone goes to heaven. Many people believe reincarnation exists, and many people fuse spiritual notions of reincarnation with concepts of heaven to create their own beliefs about what happens when we die. 

All of it is faith, and none of it is hateful. No more hateful than the Hindu arguing that children dying of cancer are being punished for their actions in past lives. 

 

42 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

So it wasn't just a joke, eh?

That being said, using dumb examples to make a point on the Internet certainly is evergreen.

It's unfortunate that your phone was bad enough at reading context to think she was making a joke. I hope you're able to control the interpretations that your "phone" makes in the future. Blink twice if you're being held hostage by your sentient phone and you'd like to be rescued so that your 'phone' doesn't continue making false and inaccurate statements and making you look bad.

I didn't say my phone stopped me from reading the context. I accidentally deleted half of my response before posting the first time, and when I posted the second post the copy-pasted text was my first draft, which was written before I had looked into it and assumed what the context would be (it was a placeholder sentence that I wrote at the start of the response, I changed it in the first post but accidentally deleted that and quoted a new post. I realised only after I posted the second post that I hadn't changed my comment to reflect the proper context I got the proper context and so I changed it.  

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify what happened, though. I appreciate it  

[spartan max2]

11 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well, consider the source who brought this important public figure to our attention, I suppose.

On a different thread a few days ago he told us that TDS was a diagnosis in the DSM lol

At some point you'd help that he would learn to question his sources more.

Edited January 20, 2024 by spartan max2

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

On a different thread a few days ago he told us that TDS was a diagnosis in the DSM lol

At some point you'd help that he would learn to question his sources more.

There's a wink emoji  -  - there to helpfully point out the sarcasm in that post, anyone can check the context for themselves to confirm this! I'll give the benefit of doubt that you missed the intended humour and therefore would like the record set straight that I have never claimed (except in jest) that TDS was in the DSM!

Have an excellent day, mate

 

Edited January 20, 2024 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

There's a wink emoji  -  - there to helpfully point out the sarcasm in that post, anyone can check the context for themselves to confirm this!

@spartan max2

Also check post #82 in that thread.  I just woke up and was reading the thread and noticed that @Gromdor brought the same issue up (post #77)  to which I said you'll find it under the DSM's entry on "Sarcasmitis".  So this is not the first time the sarcasm was addressed, but I'm glad I was able to clarify the situation for you

 

Edited January 20, 2024 by Paranoid Android
Tagged member

[Doc Socks Junior]

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I didn't say he won! What I said was that at the time the article was written (February 2020) the democrats were on a one-way hiding to Shellackingville, and thus the article wasn't "wrong" at the time based on the information that was available to her in February 2020. 

Well, congratulations to you for not speaking the obvious falsehood that Trump won. However, you're still completely incorrect that the article was correct at the time. The article said there was no way a future event could happen. That future event did happen. It doesn't matter what information was available in February 2020, or how likely a different possibility was.

Statement remains false.

Do we need to work on the concept of linear time again? I know this is difficult for you, given you've struggled with it two different times. Don't worry, I'm patient.

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Before yesterday's post I hadn't seen a Karlyn Borysenko video for months. I actually think she's kinda annoying!

Congrats. Is this another example of the coy 'I don't really like them' like Trump?

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

"Hitler went to heaven" is a spiritual belief that she personally holds about what happens to ALL people when they die. Thousands, maybe even millions, believe that everyone goes to heaven when they die. According to Borysenko's beliefs, Hitler isn't going to heaven for somehow being a better human being than others, he is going to heaven because all humans go to heaven according to her beliefs.

Right, so. She believes odd things. Congrats to her.

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You're trying to twist that into praise for Hitler because the example is the most extreme example of a terrible human being that we can think of, and her point was that even he is going to the same place as everyone else. Like it or not that's a popular theological stance that many have, from many spiritual views. 

You might think I was twisting her words into praise for Hitler, but I actually just believe she's dumb.

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Karlyn isn't a Hindu. Hindu's don't believe in heaven. I was pointing out that the views Karlyn expressed are not unique to her, they are not shocking, they are not strange. Many people believe 1- heaven exists, and 2- everyone goes to heaven. Many people believe reincarnation exists, and many people fuse spiritual notions of reincarnation with concepts of heaven to create their own beliefs about what happens when we die. 

All of it is faith, and none of it is hateful. No more hateful than the Hindu arguing that children dying of cancer are being punished for their actions in past lives. 

Something being an object of faith does not disqualify it from being hateful. Congratulations for illustrating that so well by producing an example of a hateful belief that devout people might believe. Multiple people believing things doesn't improve the odds of me taking it seriously.

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I didn't say my phone stopped me from reading the context. I accidentally deleted half of my response before posting the first time, and when I posted the second post the copy-pasted text was my first draft, which was written before I had looked into it and assumed what the context would be (it was a placeholder sentence that I wrote at the start of the response, I changed it in the first post but accidentally deleted that and quoted a new post. I realised only after I posted the second post that I hadn't changed my comment to reflect the proper context I got the proper context and so I changed it.

So after you stated that it was a joke, you realized you were wrong, and fixed it?

Great, I'm glad you realized your error.

16 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

  Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify what happened, though. I appreciate it  

Any time you correct your false statements, it's a net win.

[+Link of Hyrule]

On 1/21/2024 at 11:02 AM, Doc Socks Junior said:

Well, congratulations to you for not speaking the obvious falsehood that Trump won. However, you're still completely incorrect that the article was correct at the time. The article said there was no way a future event could happen. That future event did happen. It doesn't matter what information was available in February 2020, or how likely a different possibility was.

Statement remains false.

Do we need to work on the concept of linear time again? I know this is difficult for you, given you've struggled with it two different times. Don't worry, I'm patient.

I've explained what I meant. You're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing now, by the sound of it. But let's say we use the same logic and apply it to another issue.... let's say, the pandemic and the ever-changing information about masks. Did the CDC present falsehoods because they told us that masks weren't effective, then they told us they were effective, then they said they weren't effective again. Or is it only people you politically disagree with who can't make false predictions based on best current available data? 

If there's a semantic issue that I haven't realised (like last time when you took my comment about 2024 far more literally than I intended it), the let me know and I will try re-reading my post to see if I said something I didn't intend. Otherwise I think this has run its course. 

 

 

On 1/21/2024 at 11:02 AM, Doc Socks Junior said:

Congrats. Is this another example of the coy 'I don't really like them' like Trump?

I've never said I don't like Trump. I've said that he's not my first choice to be president, as there are several people who could do a better job than he could. But in a 2-horse race between Trump and Biden, then my support is for Trump because Biden is incompetent. It was my initial hope that either DeSantis or Haley would oust Trump from the race. But it appears DeSantis has dropped out and Haley is still a long way behind. And with the way the democrats are using the justice system to target Trump (eg, Colorado and Maine's decision to remove Trump from the ballot) I'll happily admit that part of me wants Trump to win the primary and the presidency just to stick it to those who are using the justice system to target political enemies. It's disgusting what the democrats are doing, and I want them to fail for that reason, at the least to learn the lesson that you shouldn't weaponise the justice department to take out your political enemies. Trump may not be as good as Haley, but he's still better than Biden! 

On the other hand, I simply don't like Karlyn Borysenko. She has some good things to say but a lot of what she says is mixed in with a lot of boring commentary too that is not relevant to whatever issue she is discussing. Which is ok if you're just out there putting your beliefs to paper or video for people to see, but isn't good enough for an influencer with a following. She is neither compelling enough to listen to or novel enough in her approach to be worth listening to. There are dozens, maybe even hundreds or thousands, of influencers in a similar position to her but do a much better job than she does. In my opinion, of course. 

 

On 1/21/2024 at 11:02 AM, Doc Socks Junior said:

Right, so. She believes odd things. Congrats to her.

You might think I was twisting her words into praise for Hitler, but I actually just believe she's dumb.

That is not coming across in your post, but thanks for clarifying  

 

On 1/21/2024 at 11:02 AM, Doc Socks Junior said:

Something being an object of faith does not disqualify it from being hateful. Congratulations for illustrating that so well by producing an example of a hateful belief that devout people might believe. Multiple people believing things doesn't improve the odds of me taking it seriously.

It's the logical conclusion of Hindu beliefs on reincarnation - if suffering is a consequence of past life actions, then children dying of cancer deserve it because of their past lives. That is not hateful, it's just a matter of philosophy. To argue otherwise leaves the very real possibility that any belief about the afterlife is by nature "hateful" or "evil". Do all people go to heaven? Well, that includes Hitler so that's evil. Do only good people go to heaven? That means God is dishing out infinite punishment for a finite crime and arguably no one deserves that - not even Hitler. 

People often mistake disagreements and differences of opinion as "hate". Especially when it comes to religious beliefs, such arguments are usually unproductive. I'm not religious, I don't have any personal beliefs about heaven or hell, but if a Christian tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe (or worse, because I used to believe but turned my back on the message) that's not necessarily hateful. It might be hateful, it depends on how the Christian is saying it, what their motives are, and what their beliefs truly are. Like the HIndu, it might be hateful to discuss reincarnation and suffering, but it might not. Like Karlyn, it might be hateful to suggest Hitler goes to heaven and suffering children chose this in a previous life/past life/pre-birth, but the context seems to suggest that it is not hateful!  

 

On 1/21/2024 at 11:02 AM, Doc Socks Junior said:

So after you stated that it was a joke, you realized you were wrong, and fixed it?

Great, I'm glad you realized your error.

Any time you correct your false statements, it's a net win.

That's basically it, though had my formatting not stuffed up, this would have all happened behind the scenes before I clicked "post" and you wouldn't be aware of it at all. As it was the information was fixed within 2-3 minutes of my posting it after I had realised the error, but I appreciate that you've got to get your daily dose of passive aggressiveness out of your system somehow.

Edited January 22, 2024 by Paranoid Android

[Doc Socks Junior]

On 1/21/2024 at 4:54 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I've explained what I meant. You're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing now, by the sound of it. But let's say we use the same logic and apply it to another issue.... let's say, the pandemic and the ever-changing information about masks. Did the CDC present falsehoods because they told us that masks weren't effective, then they told us they were effective, then they said they weren't effective again. Or is it only people you politically disagree with who can't make false predictions based on best current available data?

I'm not arguing. I'm doing some remedial explaining about the concept of 'time' as applied to the correctness of predictions to someone who keeps struggling with the concept. But it's fine. I hope you eventually get it!

You seem to be struggling under the misapprehension that I might consider different classes of people to be unable to make false predictions.

I predict that within the year, you, when corrected as to a false statement that you've made, will end the discussion by saying "Let's agree to disagree" or some variant thereof. Now, it is entirely possible that I'm making a false prediction. God, I certainly hope so. But, no, to simplify matters for you, I don't consider certain categories unable to be wrong.

It's not really the same logic. A more similar logical case would be, if the CDC, in May 2020, said "There is no way that 1 million Americans die of COVID. It simply cannot happen." In that case, I'd be happy to point out that they, like the fruit loop you dredged up from the bowels of PragerU, were wrong, and made a false prediction.

On 1/21/2024 at 4:54 PM, Paranoid Android said:

If there's a semantic issue that I haven't realised (like last time when you took my comment about 2024 far more literally than I intended it), the let me know and I will try re-reading my post to see if I said something I didn't intend. Otherwise I think this has run its course. 

It's not a semantic issue, it's a logic issue. I've explained it pretty well, though. Read it a few more times, and it might sink in.

On 1/21/2024 at 4:54 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I've never said I don't like Trump. I've said that he's not my first choice to be president, as there are several people who could do a better job than he could. But in a 2-horse race between Trump and Biden, then my support is for Trump because Biden is incompetent. It was my initial hope that either DeSantis or Haley would oust Trump from the race. But it appears DeSantis has dropped out and Haley is still a long way behind. And with the way the democrats are using the justice system to target Trump (eg, Colorado and Maine's decision to remove Trump from the ballot) I'll happily admit that part of me wants Trump to win the primary and the presidency just to stick it to those who are using the justice system to target political enemies. It's disgusting what the democrats are doing, and I want them to fail for that reason, at the least to learn the lesson that you shouldn't weaponise the justice department to take out your political enemies. Trump may not be as good as Haley, but he's still better than Biden!

Seems like it was a shyster Republican who filed the case in Colorado, if I recall.

On 1/21/2024 at 4:54 PM, Paranoid Android said:

On the other hand, I simply don't like Karlyn Borysenko. She has some good things to say but a lot of what she says is mixed in with a lot of boring commentary too that is not relevant to whatever issue she is discussing. Which is ok if you're just out there putting your beliefs to paper or video for people to see, but isn't good enough for an influencer with a following. She is neither compelling enough to listen to or novel enough in her approach to be worth listening to. There are dozens, maybe even hundreds or thousands, of influencers in a similar position to her but do a much better job than she does. In my opinion, of course.

Huh, well I'm glad I don't listen to her then, if she's not worth listening to. I'm glad I didn't have to listen to her a lot to figure that out. I may have a better BS detector than you.

On 1/21/2024 at 4:54 PM, Paranoid Android said:

That is not coming across in your post, but thanks for clarifying  

Me saying she "doesn't have a good handle on reality" and was "using dumb examples on the Internet" didn't let you figure out that I thought she was dumb?

What was difficult to figure out?

On 1/21/2024 at 4:54 PM, Paranoid Android said:

It's the logical conclusion of Hindu beliefs on reincarnation - if suffering is a consequence of past life actions, then children dying of cancer deserve it because of their past lives. That is not hateful, it's just a matter of philosophy. To argue otherwise leaves the very real possibility that any belief about the afterlife is by nature "hateful" or "evil". Do all people go to heaven? Well, that includes Hitler so that's evil. Do only good people go to heaven? That means God is dishing out infinite punishment for a finite crime and arguably no one deserves that - not even Hitler.

Close enough. You decided to include "evil" in there, which I wouldn't personally. I think that is reserved for the gross misapplication of said beliefs. For example, persuading disaffected young men to strap on bombs and detonate them in a school with the promise of an enjoyable afterlife. If a Hindu person went to a child cancer ward and decided to tell all the kids and parents, that they were experiencing the just consequences of their prior-lives actions, heck, that'd be pretty evil too, I guess. Dumb, as well. If it's just a logical consequence of their beliefs and they blather about it in dumb ways, then it's less evil.

On 1/21/2024 at 4:54 PM, Paranoid Android said:

People often mistake disagreements and differences of opinion as "hate". Especially when it comes to religious beliefs, such arguments are usually unproductive. I'm not religious, I don't have any personal beliefs about heaven or hell, but if a Christian tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe (or worse, because I used to believe but turned my back on the message) that's not necessarily hateful. It might be hateful, it depends on how the Christian is saying it, what their motives are, and what their beliefs truly are. Like the HIndu, it might be hateful to discuss reincarnation and suffering, but it might not. Like Karlyn, it might be hateful to suggest Hitler goes to heaven and suffering children chose this in a previous life/past life/pre-birth, but the context seems to suggest that it is not hateful! 

Close enough for me not to quibble.

On 1/21/2024 at 4:54 PM, Paranoid Android said:

That's basically it, though had my formatting not stuffed up, this would have all happened behind the scenes before I clicked "post" and you wouldn't be aware of it at all. As it was the information was fixed within 2-3 minutes of my posting it after I had realised the error, but I appreciate that you've got to get your daily dose of passive aggressiveness out of your system somehow.

As I said, I'm glad you corrected your own mistake. Thanks.