In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
And if one were to poll all the people that worked there, I'd venture it a safe guess that the vast majority (NOT ALL!!) are Christian or religious.
Most Americans are Christian, so probably. There's nothing religious about the organization though. Some religious groups volunteer there though. The reason my group is there at this shelter is because we were looking for some place to do something like this and they let groups use their commercial kitchen and serve their clients.
If any of you want to participate or donate, let me know. We try to raise $300 for each event to pay for the food. Two other 2p2ers are among the founders.
rick,
I didn't follow their exchange as well as I would have if I were part of it, but seems like BG said "all" and therefore Gorgonian can disprove that statement with a single anecdote, whereas anecdotes do not prove BG's statement.
Good for you...honestly.
You are obviously the minority. I also know many kind and loving Dem voters but generally Christians still do the most for the needy.
And of course a lot of Democratic voters are Christians.
But, and I'm saying this to everyone else, there is certainly some truth to religious people being more generous with charity and if you see someone attending to the most downtrodden, it is likely that they are religious. It's not guaranteed by any means, but it's likely. To some degree it's true that liberals think that they should pay taxes and the government should do the charity rather than have private charity.
There is no god though and there are no demons and hence there are no demonic religions. And charitable person or not, characterizing the billions of non-Christians as followers of "demonic religions" is hateful.
rick,
I didn't follow their exchange as well as I would have if I were part of it, but seems like BG said "all" and therefore Gorgonian can disprove that statement with a single anecdote, whereas anecdotes do not prove BG's statement.
I did not provide an anecdote to prove or disprove anything. What rickroll called an anecdote was simply an answer to a direct question. I was asked if I had fed or helped a homeless person in the last year, and I answered that I do it once a week, and explained in what capacity. It was not an anecdote at all. Just an answer to a question.
There was no further need to try to disprove the all thing. That was done almost immediately, as BGnight suggested, simply by googling.
The easier response to someone's absolute statement is simply "surely you don't mean all...."
When the response is "cite your sources. Prove it to me"
And then when they show examples that only the majority satisfies it, and you start victory lapping, it's childish.
Go with the easier, non-combative, less effort response. It's better for dialogue and not being a childish douche
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideo...
The answer a yes or no question challenge - IMPOSSIBLE edition
The easier response to someone's absolute statement is simply "surely you don't mean all...."
When the response is "cite your sources. Prove it to me"
And then when they show examples that only the majority satisfies it, and you start victory lapping, it's childish.
Go with the easier, non-combative, less effort response. It's better for dialogue and not being a childish douche
Are you almost finished masturbating to your imaginary internet points you think you're scoring here, or do we have to endure another dozen of your posts about this?
Are you almost finished masturbating to your imaginary internet points you think you're scoring here, or do we have to endure another dozen of your posts about this?
Next time, rather than starting a dumb argument about absolutes, that any reasonable person knows is not what was meant, simply ask the question, rather than looking like an idiot in an effort to prove someone wrong in your own head so you can add another load in your masturbatorium.
rick,
I didn't follow their exchange as well as I would have if I were part of it, but seems like BG said "all" and therefore Gorgonian can disprove that statement with a single anecdote, whereas anecdotes do not prove BG's statement.
he may have said "all" but we all know that is just a turn of phrase and not necessarily a statement declaring 100%
to ignore that he meant "the majority" and treat it like he said 100% is just a bad faithed strawman attack
Next time, rather than starting a dumb argument about absolutes, that any reasonable person knows is not what was meant, simply ask the question, rather than looking like an idiot in an effort to prove someone wrong in your own head so you can add another load in your masturbatorium.
So the answer is no, then. Carry on, I guess. jfc
and rickroll showing back up to prove that apparently nobody knows what a straw man is.
I love it that I treated him saying 100% as if he said 100%. And then accusing me of making a straw man. You can't make this up.
Don't you think we would've been seeing these DEI crashes consistently thru the years? Maybe the Other thing that just happened right before they started might be to blame.
But it is fun watch the colorblind gang blaming everything from fires to plane crashes on minorities in unison. MLK would be beaming with pride 😀
The easier response to someone's absolute statement is simply "surely you don't mean all...."
When the response is "cite your sources. Prove it to me"
And then when they show examples that only the majority satisfies it, and you start victory lapping, it's childish.
Go with the easier, non-combative, less effort response. It's better for dialogue and not being a childish douche
housenuts for mod!
The illiterate leading the illiterate. Solid plan.
Don't you think we would've been seeing these DEI crashes consistently thru the years? Maybe the Other thing that just happened right before they started might be to blame.
But it is fun watch the colorblind gang blaming everything from fires to plane crashes on minorities in unison. MLK would be beaming with pride 😀
Did we find out what race or sex the pilot that ignored the ATC instructions and crossed the runway is? We need to know so we will understand if they are qualified or not based on the color of their skin or the genitals they are packing.
he had by far the most accurate retelling of this thread
you have some weird kink for dunking on whichever right leaning poster that is not very good at arguing their points to the point that you fabricate arguments where none existed just to have more of them
you're a terrible poaster for that reason, just here to spar with people
I'm unsurprised that you think that, given that you are just as illiterate as he is. What neither of you are considering is his argument fell apart as soon he changed the word "all" to "majority." It had no meaning. It was a shot at democrats not caring for the homeless, and the only way he could prove that was to say they don't help the homeless. He tried to say the christians do all of that, so that leaves the democrats doing zero of it.
Change that to the christians do most of it, and suddenly there's plenty of room for other groups to do it too. It becomes irrelevant.
No, the ALL was the entire point.
And you both recognize the ABSURDITY of the claim. You just aren't literate enough to understand the pointless of the argument if he didn't intentionally lie about it being "all."
My personal hunch is he just guessed it was all or close enough to it no one would dispute him. He found out differently and a few posts later was agreeing that democrats do a lot.
So hey, not only was I right, but calling him out changed the entire argument.
But hey, stay mad.
yup nailed it, i can't read, got me good there
