Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 116 of 207 FirstFirst ... 1666106114115116117118126166 ... LastLast
Results 1,726 to 1,740 of 3105
  1. #1726
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by likemystylez View Post
    Not really..... a governor should not be able to decide what essential treatment consists of, and what procedures dont need to happen. This idea that people should have to argue and debate over every single little freedom we have in our lives is ruining our quality of life for average people. The fact that so many people are fine with a government deciding everything that should be important to every person is idiotic.... and really is against everything this country stands for. The government is here to serve the people..... not oppress people.
    I already agreed it should be more up to the medical experts in each situation.

    Superficial procedures that aren't necessary and take supplies and resources but could very easily wait should not be able to just demand they are done due to a selfish patient. This is like prom thing all over styles. Stop going to extremes about freedoms and understand when our freedoms put others at risk it is now an issue (aka we don't always have the freedom to do so without consequences).

    This isn't about oppressing people for fun it is making sure the safety/well being is the priority.

  2. #1727
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I have no idea what you mean about the video, that was an irrelevant aspect anyways to what is being said.
    Here is what you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I never said some haven't been vilified but the specific way you talk about hasn't been happening and even that video does not cover it.
    The video doesn't show what the judge specifically said, it only shows the woman's response to the judge who tried vilifying her for keeping her salon open. The offer was if she apologizes for being selfish, then she would receive no jail time.

    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    People not following the orders doesn't mean they all stop and we have very obvious examples of this happening when places opening up if you mean people reported the news I agree. Show the pictures/videos of restaurants and beaches not practicing them is different than saying they need to stop completely, it is showing that when you let people out they won't follow them. We need to slowly open things up because of this, we need to give places opening time to adjust and enforce restrictions and so on is what this means. I know you won't find the quotes because they support what I have been saying and show that you simply twist things to fit a narrative on a regular basis. At least pulling teeth is possible, getting you to respond to what is actually being said without twisting it to your narrative might actually be impossible. You were sensationalizing it by asking about a what if for 3 years when NO ONE who is taking this seriously has been pushing the idea of a lockdown like this for even 1. I want you to show who you are talking about and so on with these generalizations as they don't seem to fit the conversation when I jumped in. My initial point to you and Indy was simply that he was pointing out South Korea had it handled he wasn't saying we were the exact same (which you then fought because it would mean you were arguing straw man the whole time but now acknowledge we can do with your Sweden reference).
    I understand Indy's point. He brought up South Korea as evidence that it won't take 3 years. You and he are 100% stuck on this supposed claim I'm making that it would actually be 3 years. I made it abundantly clear that I wasn't sensationalizing the amount of time it would take by using 3 years as an example, I was just wanting an answer to my question on what it would take to reopen the economy. You don't think we are going in circles here?

    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I think you are a liar so I am not sure I trust your judgement on others, quote it or don't just means you provided proof or not for said claims. He might be someone who says crazy stuff but I won't just believe what you say.
    Fair enough, you probably shouldn't converse with a liar then. It's even more fruitless to correspond as we can't even agree on what sensationalizing is. You not understanding my point must mean I'm a liar though .

    Do yourself a favor, unless I respond to you (in the future), don't be the knight in shining armor and debate on someone's behalf. I don't think they need your help and you certainly aren't helping by selective reading and showing an ignorance of what strawman arguments are and what sensationalizing is.
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  3. #1728
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,320
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I already agreed it should be more up to the medical experts in each situation.

    Superficial procedures that aren't necessary and take supplies and resources but could very easily wait should not be able to just demand they are done due to a selfish patient. This is like prom thing all over styles. Stop going to extremes about freedoms and understand when our freedoms put others at risk it is now an issue (aka we don't always have the freedom to do so without consequences).

    This isn't about oppressing people for fun it is making sure the safety/well being is the priority.
    dont care what the reason is.... deciding our freedoms with no end date insight should be considered a concern. Its not what this country is about. People should absolutely have the freedom to lock down if they dont feel safe- but those who do feel safe should be able to live their lives. The locked down people wont be at any additional risk

  4. #1729
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    Here is what you said:


    The video doesn't show what the judge specifically said, it only shows the woman's response to the judge who tried vilifying her for keeping her salon open. The offer was if she apologizes for being selfish, then she would receive no jail time.
    Lol wtf? Ok and how is this relevant at all to what is actually being said, that still isn't showing them talking about us needing to stop all social distancing because we open. I literally admitted people are vilified in that first quote and now another one since mentioning it. It is like you don't read what I am writing and just argue against what some caricature might say.





    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    I understand Indy's point. He brought up South Korea as evidence that it won't take 3 years. You and he are 100% stuck on this supposed claim I'm making that it would actually be 3 years. I made it abundantly clear that I wasn't sensationalizing the amount of time it would take by using 3 years as an example, I was just wanting an answer to my question on what it would take to reopen the economy. You don't think we are going in circles here?



    Fair enough, you probably shouldn't converse with a liar then. It's even more fruitless to correspond as we can't even agree on what sensationalizing is. You not understanding my point must mean I'm a liar though .

    Do yourself a favor, unless I respond to you (in the future), don't be the knight in shining armor and debate on someone's behalf. I don't think they need your help and you certainly aren't helping by selective reading and showing an ignorance of what strawman arguments are and what sensationalizing is.
    I do think we are going in circles and I am not stuck on you making a claim it would last 3 years. I was providing context that you sensationalized the question and he answered to that question specifically (and avoided what you are saying was your main question but often when people sensationalize people will focus on that in response which is what he answered and lead to the SK discussion where I jumped in to point out what he meant since it seemed like you were twisting it). It's whatever, it seems we mostly agree it went down in this manner, I never was saying he responded in full to you at any point through our conversation though I was explaining why using SK made sense at the time initially to you. The circles got us here because you fought that simple idea.

    I can converse with people I don't trust and lol at you trying to tell me how to post. IF you don't want people to step in and point out simple realities then stop twisting to fit your agenda so often. I don't interact with this poster often and only stepped in because you couldn't understand/wouldn't acknowledge a simple point that SK would be an example this won't take 3 years.

  5. #1730
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by likemystylez View Post
    dont care what the reason is.... deciding our freedoms with no end date insight should be considered a concern. Its not what this country is about. People should absolutely have the freedom to lock down if they dont feel safe- but those who do feel safe should be able to live their lives. The locked down people wont be at any additional risk
    Lol the government always decides our freedoms. You are just mad right now they are deciding it different than how you want.

  6. #1731
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by likemystylez View Post
    dont care what the reason is.... deciding our freedoms with no end date insight should be considered a concern. Its not what this country is about. People should absolutely have the freedom to lock down if they dont feel safe- but those who do feel safe should be able to live their lives. The locked down people wont be at any additional risk
    That is exactly right.

    I was doing some work yesterday while listening to Joe Rogan's podcast with Elon Musk. I was freaking out when Elon Musk said almost exactly what you did. He believes our freedoms shouldn't be so easily taken, that if people feel they want to lock down that they should have that option but for those that want to take a risk and keep working should have that right as well. I know people gave him crap for some of his tweets, but it's refreshing to hear a non-natural born citizen who comprehends classical America's view of freedom.
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  7. #1732
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,760
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN22J3IM

    https://apnews.com/68ff635c752d056a3f6242fa555b163b



    Whistleblower complaint into our response. Could be some of the reasoning for our slow response time and overall political back and forth nature in America over this.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 05-08-2020 at 03:06 PM.

  8. #1733
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    21,320
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Lol the government always decides our freedoms. You are just mad right now they are deciding it different than how you want.
    Not a whole lot to do with what I want. Although- there are little things id like.

    when our government is deciding we dont have the right to liberty and to pursue happiness..... thats a freedom that should draw attention.

    The government saying 30 million people are not allowed to go to work in a legal company.... and so many people seeing no problem with that!!


    I get it, those rights are there as long as they dont impact others. Well the constitution doesnt guarantee that there wont be any chance of getting sick or contracting an illness. Its mother nature man! Yes- people should avoid coughing in one anothers face as common courtesy..... but that doesnt outweigh 400 years of inherent rights promised to us. LOL people shouldnt be expoected throw away their futures tp protect everyone.

  9. #1734
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by likemystylez View Post
    Not a whole lot to do with what I want. Although- there are little things id like.

    when our government is deciding we dont have the right to liberty and to pursue happiness..... thats a freedom that should draw attention.

    The government saying 30 million people are not allowed to go to work in a legal company.... and so many people seeing no problem with that!!


    I get it, those rights are there as long as they dont impact others. Well the constitution doesnt guarantee that there wont be any chance of getting sick or contracting an illness. Its mother nature man! Yes- people should avoid coughing in one anothers face as common courtesy..... but that doesnt outweigh 400 years of inherent rights promised to us. LOL people shouldnt be expoected throw away their futures tp protect everyone.
    The government isn't saying that they put restrictions in place to respond to a global pandemic. Yes many people have no problem with taking action to protect the people of this country which is why a large majority supported taking measures and it is just the more fringe/extremes that fought so hard against it.

    If you feel the government is impeding your right to liberty/happiness should you be allowed to put others at risk to stand up in what you believe in? Is this always the case for everyone or is it just ok now because you feel that way?

  10. #1735
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Lol wtf? Ok and how is this relevant at all to what is actually being said, that still isn't showing them talking about us needing to stop all social distancing because we open. I literally admitted people are vilified in that first quote and now another one since mentioning it. It is like you don't read what I am writing and just argue against what some caricature might say.

    I do think we are going in circles and I am not stuck on you making a claim it would last 3 years. I was providing context that you sensationalized the question and he answered to that question specifically (and avoided what you are saying was your main question but often when people sensationalize people will focus on that in response which is what he answered and lead to the SK discussion where I jumped in to point out what he meant since it seemed like you were twisting it). It's whatever, it seems we mostly agree it went down in this manner, I never was saying he responded in full to you at any point through our conversation though I was explaining why using SK made sense at the time initially to you. The circles got us here because you fought that simple idea.

    I can converse with people I don't trust and lol at you trying to tell me how to post. IF you don't want people to step in and point out simple realities then stop twisting to fit your agenda so often. I don't interact with this poster often and only stepped in because you couldn't understand/wouldn't acknowledge a simple point that SK would be an example this won't take 3 years.

    sen·sa·tion·al·ize : present information about (something) in a way that provokes public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy.

    1.) I wasn't presenting ANY information. I didn't state it would take 3 years; I asked a hypothetical question on what it would take to reopen the country.

    2.) You say he "answered" the question without answering my main question? I think you mean to say is he "responded" to the question without actually answering it. Rather than answer the question, he chose to create a paper tiger and focus on how it won't take 3 years eradicate the virus by citing South Korea as an example (as if South Korea's response to the virus is in any way similar to the US's). This will be the last time I'll do this, but I will go through pages and pages and show you the quotes if you don't believe me. It's ridiculous at this point.

    Do you now see why I say you have no idea what sensationalizing means?
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  11. #1736
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,015
    Tom to Bob: If you were to be put in prison for the rest of your life, what would you want to eat before going in?
    Bob to Tom: I'm not going to prison. I haven't even been arrested.
    Tom to Bob: Right, but like, hypothetically lets say you are, what would you want to eat knowing you're going to be locked up for the rest of your life?
    Bob to Tom: I "answered" your question.

    Do you see how silly Bob is being?
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  12. #1737
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    sen·sa·tion·al·ize : present information about (something) in a way that provokes public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy.

    1.) I wasn't presenting ANY information. I didn't state it would take 3 years; I asked a hypothetical question on what it would take to reopen the country.

    2.) You say he "answered" the question without answering my main question? I think you mean to say is he "responded" to the question without actually answering it. Rather than answer the question, he chose to focus on my using 3 years as an example by citing South Korea as an example (as if South Korea's response to the virus is in any way similar to the US's).

    Do you now see why I say you have no idea what sensationalizing means?
    You provided a question. You then provided a second question outlining information/specific time frame (3 years) that was meant to provoke and was not based on any sort of accurate data as nothing out there was saying it would take even close to that long. He answered the sensationalized question that was not accurate to point out it was extreme/sensationalized/not accurate. This is very simple, I never said he responded in full I just pointed out you sensationalized the question (with 3 year time frame) and he responded/it provoked an answer. After that it was the SK stuff and that is where I actually jumped in because you seemed to be twisting what he was trying to say.

    2. Yes. He answered the sensationalized question, it is not my fault you provoked him with an outrageous timeline that was easy to call out (so he did).

    No, I think you have no idea what sensationalizing means and before you said strawman but you stopped arguing when I clearly laid out the strawman/it's what I initially responded to. Now you focus on this because it's all you got left. You used a shocking timeline instead of an accurate one, that is sensationalism and it got a response. You can sensationalize a question and that is what you did and he responded to that specific question because of it.

  13. #1738
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    You provided a question. You then provided a second question outlining information/specific time frame (3 years) that was meant to provoke and was not based on any sort of accurate data as nothing out there was saying it would take even close to that long. He answered the sensationalized question that was not accurate to point out it was extreme/sensationalized/not accurate. This is very simple, I never said he responded in full I just pointed out you sensationalized the question (with 3 year time frame) and he responded/it provoked an answer. After that it was the SK stuff and that is where I actually jumped in because you seemed to be twisting what he was trying to say.

    2. Yes. He answered the sensationalized question, it is not my fault you provoked him with an outrageous timeline that was easy to call out (so he did).

    No, I think you have no idea what sensationalizing means and before you said strawman but you stopped arguing when I clearly laid out the strawman/it's what I initially responded to. Now you focus on this because it's all you got left. You used a shocking timeline instead of an accurate one, that is sensationalism and it got a response. You can sensationalize a question and that is what you did and he responded to that specific question because of it.
    LOL!!! So setting the parameters of a hypothetical question in an effort to get a direct answer is now considered "sensationalizing"? You're relieving all doubt about not knowing what this means.

    Stating it would take 3 years as information is not the same as setting parameters for a hypothetical situation. I don't even think you buy your verbal twisting/gymnastics you're trying to do right now to show I was "sensationalizing." You should have stuck to the lie that I was stating it would take 3 years to eradicate the virus... at least then you'd have a leg to stand on that it was sensationalizing... except for the fact that I never said that.
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  14. #1739
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    Tom to Bob: If you were to be put in prison for the rest of your life, what would you want to eat before going in?
    Bob to Tom: I'm not going to prison. I haven't even been arrested.
    Tom to Bob: Right, but like, hypothetically lets say you are, what would you want to eat knowing you're going to be locked up for the rest of your life?
    Bob to Tom: I "answered" your question.

    Do you see how silly Bob is being?
    Mngopher, so apparently you don't see anything wrong with Bob's dialogue? Tom was just "sensationalizing" by setting the parameters of a hypothetical situation where Bob is imprisoned forever... thus, Bob "answered" the sensationalized hypothetical question by stating he isn't going to prison forever? GTFO lol
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  15. #1740
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Redrum187 View Post
    LOL!!! So setting the parameters of a hypothetical question in an effort to get a direct answer is now considered "sensationalizing"? You're relieving all doubt about not knowing what this means.

    Stating it would take 3 years as information is not the same as setting parameters for a hypothetical situation. I don't even think you buy your verbal twisting/gymnastics you're trying to do right now to show I was "sensationalizing."
    What? Setting the parameters is different than pushing an extreme, I think you are the one that doesn't understand how asking questions works. If you ask two questions and one is sensationalized and they respond to the sensationalized question you shouldn't get mad and whine they haven't responded. They did, you just asked a much easier question to answer and they focused on that instead which lead to the SK thing from there. I never said he answered your question in full, I pointed out your sensationalism leading to answering the 2nd question with a specific (ridiculous) time frame mentioned.

    I never said you stated it would take 3 years, I just don't think you comprehend/read what others say. I stated you sensationalized the question by making it a 3 year time frame in asking it a 2nd time with that specifically inserted by you in the question. If you never do that he can never answer the way he did but his response did answer that specific 3 year (sensationalized question). That is what I have pointed out and agreed he never gave a specific answer/timeline of his own so don't respond with things I already said. What you did still happened/is relevant to the answers and none of it negates using SK as an example the way he did

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •