Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Phoenixmgs]

You know what's amusing? How you were more than happy to move on from that earlier. You were happy to make loads of subsequent claims, and promise sources for them.

It's only now that you've been challenged to actually provide them that you've decided, wait, you're unwilling to move on from this prior convo.

Almost as if this is just an excuse to avoid admitting that you can't provide a single one.

Because you never stay on point, and as I've said many times I'm not interested in what people say, I care about how things actually work. Where's your admittance of being wrong with the Trump ballot case?

Are you gonna start saying obese people are obese because of genetics because Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford said so and she's from the US government. Or can you just actually think for yourself?

 

[Silvanus]

Because you never stay on point, and as I've said many times I'm not interested in what people say, I care about how things actually work.

OK, but you're the one who said you could provide those sources. I don't care if you value sources or not. You said you could provide them, and I'm simply asking you to do so.

If you're completely unwilling to do so, why did you pretend you could provide them? It just wastes everyone's time when you make that up.

Where's your admittance of being wrong with the Trump ballot case?

Two seconds after you accuse me of not "staying on point", you shift from talking about diabetes to talking about the Trump ballot case as a deflection! It's indistinguishable from parody.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

OK, but you're the one who said you could provide those sources. I don't care if you value sources or not. You said you could provide them, and I'm simply asking you to do so.

If you're completely unwilling to do so, why did you pretend you could provide them? It just wastes everyone's time when you make that up.



Two seconds after you accuse me of not "staying on point", you shift from talking about diabetes to talking about the Trump ballot case as a deflection! It's indistinguishable from parody.

Again, first conservation first.

You never admitted being wrong in the other thread about it even though I said exactly what the law is in that case. It was pretty simple, but you had to go and say I have no understanding of the legal system. You never admit to being wrong on anything...

 

[Silvanus]

Again, first conservation first.

Why did you move onto making other claims and promising sources for them, then? Bit of a strange choice if you were actually unwilling to move past this other subject!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Why did you move onto making other claims and promising sources for them, then? Bit of a strange choice if you were actually unwilling to move past this other subject!

Previous subject first.

Also:
The impact of sugar on diabetes was independent of sedentary behavior and alcohol use, and the effect was modified but not confounded by obesity or overweight. Duration and degree of sugar exposure correlated significantly with diabetes prevalence in a dose-dependent manner, while declines in sugar exposure correlated with significant subsequent declines in diabetes rates independently of other socioeconomic, dietary and obesity prevalence changes. Differences in sugar availability statistically explain variations in diabetes prevalence rates at a population level that are not explained by physical activity, overweight or obesity.

 

[Silvanus]

Previous subject first.

Why did you move onto making other claims and promising sources for them, then?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Why did you move onto making other claims and promising sources for them, then?

Why can't you ever admit being wrong?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Why can't you ever admit being wrong?

 

[Silvanus]

Why can't you ever admit being wrong?

You've spent >45 posts now refusing to provide sources for a claim you made, and for which you said you could provide 6+ sources.

So It's frankly hilarious that you'd say that to anyone else. You are resolutely refusing to admit what everyone else here already knows: that you can't find a single damn source, not one, corroborating what you claimed; and that when you said you could, you were bullshitting.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've spent >45 posts now refusing to provide sources for a claim you made, and for which you said you could provide 6+ sources.

So It's frankly hilarious that you'd say that to anyone else. You are resolutely refusing to admit what everyone else here already knows: that you can't find a single damn source, not one, corroborating what you claimed; and that when you said you could, you were bullshitting.

You were wrong about the previous thing first and also Trump ballot case.

 

[Silvanus]

You were wrong about the previous thing first and also Trump ballot case.

I can provide over 12 expert sources directly proving I was right about them.

 

[Elijin]

You were wrong about the previous thing first and also Trump ballot case.

This is going straight on the fridge, with the other toddlers work.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I can provide over 12 expert sources directly proving I was right about them.

I can provide 9 Supreme Court justices that literally ruled exactly what I said they would rule. But I don't have basic understanding of law...

 

[Bedinsis]

I can provide 9 Supreme Court justices that literally ruled exactly what I said they would rule. But I don't have basic understanding of law...

All the people making predictions of the outcome predicted that.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

All the people making predictions of the outcome predicted that.

Not Silvanus...

They are taking Trump off the ballot based on a federal law, thus the states don't have power to do that.

You really don't understand your own country's legal framework, do you? Firstly, states have significant freedom to determine their own electoral rules. That too is guaranteed constitutionally. If the Supreme Court were to rule, they could easily rule that states may make their own determinations.

There are rationales available for the justices to do whatever they want. It doesn't depend on actual legal weight. It depends on what they personally want.

 

[Bedinsis]

Not Silvanus...

That was not a prediction of the outcome, that was an explanation of the legal framework.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That was not a prediction of the outcome, that was an explanation of the legal framework.

Which was wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

I can provide 9 Supreme Court justices that literally ruled exactly what I said they would rule.

I can provide over 9 saying otherwise.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I can provide over 9 saying otherwise.

So you still can't admit when you're plainly wrong...

 

[Silvanus]

So you still can't admit when you're plainly wrong...

Yes, this is the only adequate response to someone who promises sources they then won't provide, isn't it?

I've got over 9 sources saying I'm right. More than you. Trust me bud.