I do not need to see it, because of what the Daily Wire is and does. The Daily Wire exists to advance conservative politics, not to explore reality. It is thus incapable of allowing non-conservative ideas free and fair space, because that fundamentally undermines the company's purpose.
Your career is not to explore reality, yet you manage to have opinions on things. You might find theirs interesting.
Er, actually, my career has absolutely been about exploring reality. Less so more recently, but it's still a part.
Oh, your job title is "reality explorer"? Neat!
Legal Eagle is a bad channel if you actually want legit legal analysis. You can go back and look at their takes on past cases and see how wrong they were. Even something I knew was unconstitutional 5 seconds after hearing it, Legal Eagle said it would hold up and then the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 of "get that shit out of here". They even made a video explaining that they aren't bias by saying that they were bias. The channel was fun when it was going over how many laws were broken in movies like Christmas Vacation and how much money would be paid out. Even then, I was like I don't think that's how this or that works but it's not some serious legal analysis.
I have watched hours of LegalEagle. If you told me he stopped just shilling for Democrats, I'd give him another shot.
As a scientist, there's got to be a fair chance I've done more to discover how the universe works than you have.
I mean, you're above averagely intelligent and informed, but you really are not all that. In particular, I don't think you quite get how boringly orthodox, right wing you appear to be. I just don't think people really smart and interesting do nothing but pound stiflingly ordinary tropes. And then there's the fact that you resolutely fail to run rings around anyone here (except maybe in your own mind). And none of us are geniuses as far as I can tell.
Yeah, but I'm not doing that blind. I have actually seen Shapiro, Kirk, and most of these guys in action, and I'm happy I've seen enough.
It is the inevitability of culture that the truest and realest things become ordinary tropes. The avant-garde may find new things of value occasionally, but it is surrounded by ten-fold untruths and failures. And that's fine, that has value, but it's important to understand that if someone is interesting and fresh all of the time, they are nearly always going to be wrong.
I mean, I sometimes do that by accident. Just winning the argument does nothing to convince any of you of anything, and that is a far more compelling challenge. I very well could rip about everything you guys say to shreds, but then we'd only ever be talking about what you think, and I can't convince you of my positions without discussing them.
The thing is, the person serving burgers at McDonalds might also be good at cooking, but you'd never experience that talent only eating at McDonalds. I can all but guarantee that the Kirk, Shapiro, etc that you've seen has been interactions with either random college students or dull tv hosts. They are venues where those people are basically obligated to cater to the most basic lines of thought. I recommended a program that is not that, where they are talking to people who already know all those basic things 1000x over, where they dig a lot deeper, and regularly joke that when they talk they are renegotiating the Peace of Westphalia.
Because LE actually deals in facts, logic, and actual truths. tstorm doesn't and uses the usual whataboutism with armchair science.
www.foxnews.com
www.freep.com
If your contribution has had no persuasive impact, and is held in no high regard outside your own head, in what sense have you won?
Unfortunately reality isn't static. Circumstances, ideas, technologies move on and people who think they are holding onto the truth and reality are actually holding onto outdated dogma.
Sure sure. You could have been a contender.
What a bunch of pompous, self-regarding asses they must be.
On the contrary: people who think truth gets outdated end up latching onto complete absurdity.
The group is two Catholics, two Protestants and one Shapiro.
If it is a competition between us and your position is entirely dismantled and thrown in the garbage, even a low regarded position wins by still standing. In a debate, success is relative. Persuasion is more difficult (and worthwhile) than tearing a person down. I do not give you the Seanchaidh treatment, if much rather persuade you.
LMAO, because this video is SOOOOOOOOO factual, logical and truthful.....
What kind of "competition" are you even imagining, here? This is an online discussion; it doesn't have points, scoreboards, judges or rules by which to measure this "winning".
Yes, and debate (or discussion, of varying quality) is the only thing it's even possible for any of us here to engage in. Nobody has ever "won" anything objective and it would be meaningless to try.
So, you think because it was true that Theodore Roosevelt was the current president in 1905, it is an absurdity for us to believe he is not the current president?
I watched that video. It was incredibly boring. And factual. He spent the first half presenting "Here is how those removing Trump argue." while keeping personal comments to a minimum. It was only at 15:30 he presented how the Supreme Court is likely to handle this case, where he said that "most commentators are assuming that the Supreme Court will overturn the rulings". He then went on to say that the reasoning they use is the interesting bit, while as before keeping personal comments at a minimum.
