Will Joe Biden Drop Out of the Presidential Race

[crimson5pheonix]

What's real fun are the responses to the Dems writing their own obituary.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

If someone who works just to early morning shift says that every. single. person. at the plant had multiple jobs, they aren't being accurate. 0% chance.

You gonna be honest yet and admit that?

Admit what? That you're saying 'it can't be, I know it so because my senses tell me so!'?

At this point you've ignored every single data point and are now just trying to coerce people by insinuating that they're disingenous just because you think so. Go back, re-read and address those data points and how they relate to your attitude to overall poverty first instead of pretending to play the sceptic.

 

[tstorm823]

Admit what? That you're saying 'it can't be, I know it so because my senses tell me so!'?

At this point you've ignored every single data point and are now just trying to coerce people by insinuating that they're disingenous just because you think so. Go back, re-read and address those data points and how they relate to your attitude to overall poverty first instead of pretending to play the sceptic.

Your data points are immaterial to the doubt. There's no point in addressing them. I'm not now nor ever was saying "there aren't enough poor people statistically for your 3 anecdotes to be true." It's that all of them were suspicious. I called the bluff, and now the argument has ended, other than you continuing to defend someone else's anecdotes with tangentially related data.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Your data points are immaterial to the doubt. There's no point in addressing them. I'm not now nor ever was saying "there aren't enough poor people statistically for your 3 anecdotes to be true." It's that all of them were suspicious. I called the bluff, and now the argument has ended, other than you continuing to defend someone else's anecdotes with tangentially related data.

There's no point in addressing facts that show an anecdote to be systematically substantiated in terms of the quantity of Americans working multiple jobs and it not just being a seasonal aspect, and not a "0% likelihood"? Good to know, it means you just like deligitimising people's personal experiences with poverty just cause you feel like it cause you go into arguments with synthetic a priori judgements over what conditions can or can't be true.

In that case I redirect you to read Kant's criticism of this very sort of 'pure reason' so you stop embarassing yourself:

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf

 

[tstorm823]

There's no point in addressing facts that show an anecdote to be systematically substantiated in terms of the quantity of Americans working multiple jobs and it not just being a seasonal aspect, and not a "0% likelihood"? Good to know, it means you just like deligitimising people's personal experiences with poverty just cause you feel like it cause you go into arguments with synthetic a priori judgements over what conditions can or can't be true.

In that case I redirect you to read Kant's criticism of this very sort of 'pure reason' so you stop embarassing yourself:

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf

You understand that you aren't arguing with me, right? You're like walking off into the woods and yelling back as though we're still having the same conversation. Like, I'm no stranger to getting lost in barely related tangents, this whole thing sort of is that, but I don't consider it embarrassing when people ignore my tangents.