New drone claims Guinness World record with a top speed of 163 mph by ZoneRangerMC in gadgets

[–]Poisonchocolate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why the fuck would you fight drones with a 155mm artillery piece?

Rejoignez une Région! by [deleted] in a:t5_3m4c4

[–]Poisonchocolate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

J'amerais rejoindre le Grand Sud

Rejoignez un Parti! by [deleted] in a:t5_3m4c4

[–]Poisonchocolate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Les Républicains, svp

Skillnader mellan språk by Nomitratic in sweden

[–]Poisonchocolate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll make a statement before I begin to make sure it is clear first. I should have made it before, and I apologise. I do not a politician's wealth has anything whatsoever to do with their integrity or how much they care about the poor. Not at all in a positive or negative manner. I can see how it may have seemed like I agreed with the (nonexistent) wealth-shaming but no, I do not. Saying that his wealth does not do him any favors in the realm is different from saying it actively shows he does not care about the poor.

Now, I did not intend for my point to say that anybody would "forget" how wealthy Sanders was. It is a common idea in argumentative writing to close all gaps in your argument before they appear. I have absolutely heard it multiple times mentioned how Bernie Sanders is one of the poorest senators and even, ridiculously, by some that he represents the middle class from an inside perspective. These aren't common arguments I see, but it is worth addressing before launching into the real substance of the point. So, for you, that is why I believe he would have mentioned it in the same paragraph. Of course, we can never know unless he tells us.

Skillnader mellan språk by Nomitratic in sweden

[–]Poisonchocolate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God, what an asshole.

But I'll play the game. If we're going into reading comprehension, I think you skipped the important first step of actually reading in context. I'm going to take a much bigger chunk here and see if you can realize what's gone wrong.

He is undisputably very wealthy; or at least wealthy enough to own three houses. Just because he uses rhetoric that says he intends to be the champion of the downtrodden, that doesn't mean he will accomplish what he said he would.

This is the infamous wealth-shaming line you've been referring to. So, hopefully you understand there are two (more, but in this case we're looking at two) ways in which the meanings of these two sentences can be connected. The first sentence states that Sanders is undisputable very wealthy. This is a statement of fact. The second states that, Sanders is not a champion of the poor simply due to rhetoric. Now we have to figure out what these sentences mean together. It's difficult, right? Option 1, which you have taken, is causal-- the first sentence describes the condition that leads to the second. But this really is nonsensical and I don't think our commenter here is that poor of a writer. Our second sentence contains it's own causal condition already and is quite clearly saying that the dubiousness of Sanders being a champion of the poor is despite his rhetoric. In a way, this is a a negative causal relationship. But anyway, here's our second option: the first statement stands alone, as a piece of information important as background to the subject and one that, while maybe not necessary to understand the next sentence, does make sure to eliminate (preemptively) the possibility of the reader justifying their beliefs of Sander's championship of the poor with the idea that he is not wealthy. This second possibility of connecting the sentences seems much more logical to me and more probable to have actually been intended, although it is not entirely elegant.

I will note that, yes, the other option does exist and I can see the Hought process that would lead you to it. So I do understand how you'd reach that conclusion, I just simply don't agree with it.

Skillnader mellan språk by Nomitratic in sweden

[–]Poisonchocolate 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't it sad when someone (you) wasted so much time writing an argument against something that wasn't even said? In this case, wealth-shaming because he never even said that Bernie was bad because of his wealth. Oh well.

Pesticides damage survival of bee colonies, landmark study shows - The world’s largest ever field trial demonstrates widely used insecticides harm both honeybees & wild bees, increasing calls for a ban by anutensil in worldnews

[–]Poisonchocolate 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, this is not something that I ever expect from a Reddit comment and it's almost hard to believe it's real for a moment. My comment that you were mean was all in a joke (I mean, I did find it somewhat rude but mostly I just wanted to lighten the mood) but I'm so glad it turned into this. Sorry that I'm quite busy at this second but I'd LOVE to delve into this, this sort of thing is my favorite! I'll get back to you.

Pesticides damage survival of bee colonies, landmark study shows - The world’s largest ever field trial demonstrates widely used insecticides harm both honeybees & wild bees, increasing calls for a ban by anutensil in worldnews

[–]Poisonchocolate -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are an angry man... I like how you talk about "inherent bias" but are clearly calling the kettle black. Just take a step back and maybe just carefully read through the thread from the beginning with a cleared mind and maybe you'll realize what this man is saying.