If you don't understand this, then I can't help you.
This is a very dumb non sequitur.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Yep, I even had to look up the laws regarding self-defense and provocation. Because I was ignorant of them, but I had a base-level understanding of what self-defense is.
That's not what I said.
I never said "I HAVE COMPLETE AND TOTAL IGNORANCE OF ALL OF THESE SUBJECTS BECAUSE I WAS RAISED IN A CAVE BY CRUSTACEANS, AND IN FACT, I NEVER EVEN HEARD OF THE CONCEPT!", which is what you seemed to have understood.
Yes. Because of mandatory education.
Maybe you're frustrated that the topics you discuss can be argued by someone with only the most minimal understanding?
If you don't understand this, then I can't help you.
I do. I said it's a non sequitur. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't understand what it was.
So you looked up the laws, throughout the year to debate those points, educating yourself enough to debate semantics.
Then, you claimed to have no knowledge of American laws prior to November.
Yes. That is a lie. Straight from the house's mouth. Thank you for confirming that for us, it makes things much easier.
There truly was no significance. The attempted comparison to your own comments is a bigger stretch than Michael Jordan's dunk in Space Jam.
Related:
Yes.
Yes, because I was raised in a cave by crustaceans and never received mandatory education about laws, so I went from complete and total ignorance to being able to hold a conversation on subjects, overnight, one day in November.
That's exactly what I meant by what I said. You got it.
Your original statement, bolded for empahsis.
In your following statement you just confessed to educating yourself enough to debate semantics about American laws for the purpose of debate, prior to November.
Those statements cannot coexist, they are contradictory.
See, things we say mean things, which creates a follow on effect that things we say relate to previous and future statements we make. I can understand why being a liar, that frustrates you, but lashing out with silly hyperbole about living in a cave is not distracting from your lies.
Why not also point out the time that I had to educate myself about laws in order to pass a written driving test and get my license? Surely that's evidence of me lying, right?
In the context of my original statement, "law" meant "laws relating to politics". You know, the kind of law relevant to this discussion. How electors are chosen, how they cast their votes and when, laws about fraud, recounts, etc. You know, those sorts of laws that it makes sense to talk about in a topic about the election. Not laws about self-defense, or driving, or mandatory education, or whether or not a half-crab half-man gets citizenship.
They're not contradictory if you understand context. Like how you also shouldn't also understand "ignorant" to mean "knowing absolutely nothing", because it rarely means that.
It truly feels like he learned internet etiquette on a chan board and can't make the transition to a normal forum.
This thread has had more arcs than DBZ at this point.
I feel the need to ask if you're aware of what email is? Like did you willfully stay ignorant about that too?
Also:
I wonder if there's a bunch of people on Twitter manually reviewing this stuff in order to put disclaimers on things, or if there's an automated system that does it, because this claim was in an image. Are they doing OCR on every image, just to check it for claims about the election that they'd need to mark?
I wonder if there's a bunch of people on Twitter manually reviewing this stuff in order to put disclaimers on things, or if there's an automated system that does it, because this claim was in an image. Are they doing OCR on every image, just to check it for claims about the election that they'd need to mark?
I do not have a complete understanding of what email is, or how it works. I just use it.
A great answer for a software engineer with 8 years of experience!
You're right, I would call it autocratic, because that's what it would be. On the other hand, he already has done stuff like this, which is part of why I think he is autocratic. Why would he stop now?
Let's remember Trump just called the Georgia Secretary of State to arbitrarily add nearly 12,000 votes to his total - along with variously insulting him and threatening legal action if he didn't. What makes you think a man like that cares about anything except winning?
A (Republican) governor could perfectly happily run an investigation into a mass fraud by the opposition. If true, it's an electoral goldmine for himself and the party across the whole country. Any potential notion of incompetence is nothing in comparison to showing the opposition are definitely cheats.
But here again, if you want to claim politicians are protecting themselves because they won't investigate, what makes you think they aren't protecting themselves when alleging fraud - because they too have "skin in the game". 70% of Republican voters believe the Democrats cheated. That's some powerful electoral maths for Republican politicians to support the accusation of fraud even if they believe there isn't a lick of truth behind it.
Shows how much you know about software developers, if you think that they must have complete understanding of every tool they use and how they work.
What I basically do is take a whole bunch of tools, usually open-source, that other people have made, and write code so that they all work together in a way that produces the desired result. I don't need to have a complete understanding of how email works in order to do that.
Perhaps you're confusing software development with IT, and treating it as some kind of tech-support job? The kind of guy people call up and complain to when something goes wrong?
Exactly. Why wouldn't he do this, if it were an option? If he has means, motive and opportunity, what's stopping him?
Unless, the answer to "what's stopping him" is "he doesn't actually have that power".
Which is why so many people, including Trump, are upset with Kemp, the Republican Governor of Georgia, because in their minds, he's complicit and willingly selling his constituents down the river.
The question is, why? Because he has investigated the evidence and found it lacking?
Last edited:
Guys, come on. It's been said on this thread multiple times: Houseman is not here for rational arguments. He is not here to hear opposing opinions. He is here to rile people up into replying to him and running them around in circles with irrational arguments for his own amusement. He has said so himself repeatedly. Stop feeding him.
I only said that following this drama and arguing about it is entertaining for me. That doesn't imply that the rest of what you said is true.
I've admitted to being wrong and I've been convinced multiple times in this topic.
We see you've selected the "context matters" walkback, carrying the implication that the statement had an implied but unspoken 'politics' subgenre. Unfortunately, 'politics' is a listed item in that statement, which throws the notion that it was an unspoken contextual piece.
Thank you for playing Walkback Your Lie, better luck next round!
As a bonus round you're trying to conflate my statements to mean ignorance meaning knowing absolutely nothing. Had you used any reading comprehension, you'd be aware the point repeatedly made is that you had educated yourself adequately to make technical and semantic arguments. Educating oneself being antithetical to claims of "remaining ignorant".
We look forward to your future scrambles to correct your misstep! Have a shitty day!
- Status