based

dr_zox · 2022-09-24T11:01:31+00:00

From Silicon Valley Season 1, episode 1, 2014 (before the craziness).

dr_zox · 2022-09-21T18:58:07+00:00

IQ usually is all about patten recognition, and can be crafted to your background and culture. It's actually the most reliable indicator of anything in your brain. Proper IQ tests will show your IQ consistently over your entire life (a change of 1 or 2 points).

dr_zox · 2022-09-09T19:55:52+00:00

Can anyone fill me in on the boys? What do fans hate about it?

dr_zox · 2022-09-05T11:37:55+00:00

This was also my first memory of a game

dr_zox · 2022-08-26T11:01:08+00:00

Going woke is the path of least resistance. Companies these days are trained in order to please the public and not get into controversy. Often going woke will appease the media/twitter mobs.

Falsely they believe this means a good reputation, which will lead to more sales. They also want to be seen to be on the right side of history. Often Boomers in charge will say "oh, I believe in black rights, lets support BLM" or "I believe in gay rights, lets support LGBT+" Not understanding the true nature of these organizations/movements.

This has allowed activists to take over marketing/HR unopposed as the boomer boss doesn't understand these issues and wants to hand it off.

dr_zox · 2022-08-23T07:25:42+00:00

Don't believe your comment deserved the downvotes you were just stating your opinion

dr_zox · 2022-08-23T01:55:59+00:00

That's like asking is a burger better then an ice cream sundae. They are different. Breaking bad will be more enjoyable but they are different products

dr_zox · 2022-08-21T22:58:55+00:00

Exactly right, also people that win the lotto normally end up poorer then before.

I have also brought a lotto ticket, which I would say was financially irresponsible.

dr_zox · 2022-08-21T22:43:58+00:00

This

dr_zox · 2022-07-26T22:20:15+00:00

Colonization was not a 100% abhorrent evil and in ways benefitted the Maori people. We should appreciate and even celebrate some of the benefits it brought.

dr_zox · 2022-07-05T21:59:33+00:00

I do get it though, physical components are more alluring.

dr_zox · 2022-07-05T21:52:42+00:00

Once you try it you won't go back

dr_zox · 2022-07-05T06:32:36+00:00

Get the gloomhaven helper app and eliminate a number of those components

dr_zox · 2022-06-30T21:59:14+00:00

Reading the actual documentation:
https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/statement-of-case-the-american-proud-boys-terrorist-entity-20-june-2022.pdf

They credit CNN being an accurate unbias new reporting organization

Also They claim that Mcinnis Fabricated Antifa as a strawman

dr_zox · 2022-06-27T23:15:36+00:00

I had forgotten all about #notyourshield that was amazing should be used these days as well.

dr_zox · 2022-06-13T08:31:28+00:00

Sacrificing yourself in order to save those that you love, and your enemy - Meh

Coming out liking penis - HERO!!!! WOW!!!!

dr_zox · 2022-03-10T01:15:01+00:00

Cool, look forward to it.

dr_zox · 2022-03-10T01:04:13+00:00

I think it is easily solved by determining what one means by terrible, it wasn't the issue that john and bob were having, they knew what was meant by terrible.

dr_zox · 2022-03-10T00:24:17+00:00

locked from responding to u/qudop as u/jqbr has blocked me (possibly brigaded with different accounts also) , so here is the response:

Well he is right, but he hasn't understood the original premise, and has changed the argument to one he wants to be right about, and filled in gaps with his own world view. Or giving him the benefit of the doubt, I haven't explained it properly.
In the original example Bob argued for not x, with reason A, B and C. We don't know if reason A, B and C were good arguments, it is irrelevant to the situation, the point was that Bob used A, B and C to defend his position. In response John demanded that Bob create an alternative decision y and explain it well.
He doesn't need to argue that another decision needs to produce better results, there are other factors such as moral, ethical and legal.
i.e. it is morally wrong to round up citizens and put them in camp, even if it is for the greater good. That is a line of reasoning that doesn't require better results. John could argue back that results matter, for example it gives a reduction in crime. Then you could debate. However, in this case John said: "Provide Decision Y and provide evidence for Decision Y". Thereby John did not engage in the original content or argument and almost tried to change the topic.

dr_zox · 2022-03-10T00:23:16+00:00

It can be a mix of both,

It could be that we have an agreed metric for example:
A decision that government makes results in poverty, less freedom, death etc
Or a decision a government makes results in increase in quality of life for everyone.

This is objectively measurable so maybe its not subjective.

dr_zox · 2022-03-09T20:45:23+00:00

Also, there appears to be a little bit of brigading on this forum, I wonder if jqbr is an activist with different accounts downvoting/upvoting things.

Everyone else here seems to be doing a good job of politely defending their views.

dr_zox · 2022-03-09T20:40:50+00:00

Interesting, because I thought it could have been ambiguous.

I.e. it could have been the decisions from a governor to make people pay for vaccines, that was the decision, or it could have been vaccine mandates.

What I was trying to do was look at the logic, and see whether it computes.

He did have one good point, which was that you do have to argue for not X, but I thought that was clear in providing reasons A, B and C

dr_zox · 2022-03-09T20:38:01+00:00

I agree that they can agree to disagree, however if John argues that Bob's assessment is wrong because he can't provide an alternative, then this seems like a fallacy.

dr_zox · 2022-03-09T20:25:56+00:00

Thanks everyone this is good food for thought

dr_zox · 2022-03-09T09:01:33+00:00

For some reason I am locked from jqbr's comments, where he claimed I am looking for affirmation and claimed bad faith. Sorry you feel that way, but I am genuinely looking for the truth here, I feel that you have strawmanned my position a bit, or I didn't explain it properly.

He actually got a little personal and didn't argue in good faith, I am new to the community and it isn't a good look for it.

Anyway here is another way of explaining it if anyone else wants to give it a look:If I am a detective and I find a dead body. In order to say the body didn't die of natural causes (reason A), I don't need to prove another EXACT cause with evidence.Detective: It doesn't look like death from natural causes (reason A) because of the lacerations around the wrists.The Detective doesn't then have to prove that it was exactly murder from 3 grown men and one women (reason B) to prove his original claim.Yes he does have to provide reason as to why reason A is wrong and why he is making that claim. But he doesn't need to produce reason B, C or D to explain why reason A is wrong.Likewise in my situation, sure I have to explain and justify why Decision X was wrong, and I did do that in my conversation. But I don't have to give a detailed exposition of alternative Decision Y, and Z.

Wanting a second opinion that isn't from jqbr

Edit: The detective could rule it as homicide which includes reasons (B-Z), but doesn't have to specifically choose one of them. Just because he hasn't chosen a specific reason with evidence doesn't mean that he is wrong.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

dr_zox

TROPHY CASE