Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/13/11 05:14 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

That is the stupidest thing I heard you say. No, a fact is something that IS true, and beliefs do not affect them in any way.

sure it does.

*sigh* yes we did. I

to some the "fact" is that it staged and we didn't really go to the moon.

That's what they believe to be a fact, but guess what, they're fucking wrong.

can you prove it? that's the very point. what is "fact" is meaningless. many things that are "facts" are utter bullshit. Most people believe Abner Doubleday invented baseball.

Okay, THIS is the stupidest thing I heard anyone say.

nah, it's just that you're not smart enough to understand what I just said.

Let's take this fact: Normal grass, as seen by a healthy human eye will come out as green colored.

If you consider color blindness to be unhealthy, then yes. However, that is perception, not reality. you perceive the grass to be green. however, what color do you think Jumping Spiders see grass as? they have tetrachromatic vision. they can see the 3 primary colors we can, plus they can see ultraviolet light. which means what we would need a special device to see, they can see in plain daylight. they can perceive things we just can't see with our bare eyes.

Belief or perception have NO effect on evidence and facts. You suggesting otherwise really make me question the purpose of arguing with you since you do not seem to care about what is true or not.

again, that is your perception.

Again, facts are facts, they are universal, some people might believe in erroneous things, but that makes them fucking wrong. Also don't get me started with the Bush tax cuts.

apparently, you're not very old because you haven't learned a very important lesson in life. there's only 1 thing in life that is universal. death.

If you really believe anyone reasons like this it really shows with how much contempt you view other human beings.

blind faith is more prevalent than you think.

TYT just released a video where they defend bachmann on an issue.

he's not defending Bachmann. He's making a point that the mother shouldn't be pushing the child to say what he said. The child's doesn't understand what he's saying. He even agreed with the child's statement, just not the tactic his mother used.

At 12/13/11 05:31 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 12/12/11 04:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You think you got me figured out but you are wrong, and you are arguing against a straw man you made up for yourself. It might come up as a surprise to you but other people can also think critically.

except, you're not thinking critically. Given you didn't even know what bias was until Camaro explained it to you.

Not everything you see or hear is exactly what it appears to be.

I know that thank you very much, now you can stop with the smug act.

knowing it exists and being able to tell when things aren't what they appear to be are 2 different things.

You walk into a barn and find a man standing behind a cow with his pants down. what do you make of the situation?

At 12/13/11 05:31 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: See, but if you change a fact it's not one anymore.

No. It still is. Facts are EXTREMELY narrow. They only gain breadth when grouped together as a story.

If you lie about it it becomes (conveniently enough) a fucking lie.

No it doesn't. If I tell my kid, that the Moon is a circle because it is actually Gouda Cheese, that doesn't change the fact that the Moon is a circle. The story becomes a lie, but the fact stays the same, changed merely by the company it is with.

I know how differently you can treat an information to make it look different or to change public perception. I am studying in communications. It does NOT change the base facts of what happenned. Fox news' bias is outright lying and bullshit, other news media not so much. And sure they might ommit some stuff for various reasons but that's your job to check the information.

I know FOX plays fast and loose with the facts. No critical thinker can deny that. However, the facts that they do get right, i.e. 90%+ are the same exact facts that TYT uses. When two people use the same facts but get completely divergent stories, you have bias. FYI, the guy who legitimately questioned the word "is" wasn't in communications... There is one occupation that is much better at word play and semantics than communications majors are.

I was defending merely defending comparing tyt to fox news here, as I have not seen them lie about an issue in the way fox did and at least TYT have the honesty to show they have an opinion unlike the "straight" fox news anchors and the "no spin zone".

Now you're getting it. TYT has a bias.

You think you got me figured out but you are wrong, and you are arguing against a straw man you made up for yourself. It might come up as a surprise to you but other people can also think critically.

Then why are you trying to act as if TYT has no bias? If you can think critically, you'd know that they are knee deep in bias. That doesn't mean you have to disagree with them. But, until you realize their bias, they serve no purpose as a source for information.

At 12/13/11 06:49 AM, Korriken wrote:

can you prove it? that's the very point. what is "fact" is meaningless. many things that are "facts" are utter bullshit. Most people believe Abner Doubleday invented baseball.

Listen, facts and what most people believe are completely different things, even if everybody on this planet believed in something erroneous it would not be more of a fact. As for the moon landing thing, there is great evidence proving we in fact did but I wil not explain it here as this is not the main goal of the debate here.

nah, it's just that you're not smart enough to understand what I just said.

Believe me I totally understand what you mean, and it's stupid as fuck.

If you consider color blindness to be unhealthy, then yes. However, that is perception, not reality. you perceive the grass to be green. however, what color do you think Jumping Spiders see grass as? they have tetrachromatic vision. they can see the 3 primary colors we can, plus they can see ultraviolet light. which means what we would need a special device to see, they can see in plain daylight. they can perceive things we just can't see with our bare eyes.

Can't you read? I expressly said "human eye" and made the statement as specific as possible so you wouldnt be able to pull off shit like this, and you still did anyways. I know it's perception in that case, hence why I said that with a healthy vision, with normal lighting conditions, HUMANS PERCIEVE grass as green colored. That's a fact. It's a fact about how humans percieve grass in normal conditions. And then I gave the hypotetical situation of me tricking you into believing it was purple, (or it could be anybody else) and the fact you or other people tricked into believing it's purple wouldnt change the greenness of the grass.

But if you prefer I could have given other examples like: Getting stabbed in the eye is not a desirable situation.

again, that is your perception.

Show me one example where belief effect facts. Do it, I ducking double dare ya. Spoiler: You can't. But that wouldn't be your fault as nobody can because beliefs do not affect facts.

apparently, you're not very old because you haven't learned a very important lesson in life. there's only 1 thing in life that is universal. death.

I swear to god the amount of willpower it takes me to not call you an idiot every line of reply I make is superhuman, but you still manage to make me do it.

The fact anything alive will die at some point is a fact. Stop trying to sound deep. I am starting to believe I am getting trolled here. Really.

blind faith is more prevalent than you think.

Is that a fact or is that your perception? HURRRRR
See I can pull off bullshit like this too.

he's not defending Bachmann. He's making a point that the mother shouldn't be pushing the child to say what he said. The child's doesn't understand what he's saying. He even agreed with the child's statement, just not the tactic his mother used.

And he would be right. But you can see he's not just bashing bachmann every change he gets.

except, you're not thinking critically. Given you didn't even know what bias was until Camaro explained it to you.

Exept I did.

You walk into a barn and find a man standing behind a cow with his pants down. what do you make of the situation?

It was very likely he was about to... *get milked*.
YEAAAH!

At 12/13/11 12:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

No. It still is. Facts are EXTREMELY narrow. They only gain breadth when grouped together as a story.

Facts mean what they mean, the story around it does not affect the fact itself.
When I mean "facts" I mean "hard evidence". You could invent any story around the fact the sun procuces light, it does not affect the core fact.

No it doesn't. If I tell my kid, that the Moon is a circle because it is actually Gouda Cheese, that doesn't change the fact that the Moon is a circle. The story becomes a lie, but the fact stays the same, changed merely by the company it is with.

The moon is still percieved as a circle yes. But you merely showed you can use facts accompanied with wrong statements to make an erroneous story.

A story comprised only of facts would be true.

I know FOX plays fast and loose with the facts. No critical thinker can deny that. However, the facts that they do get right, i.e. 90%+ are the same exact facts that TYT uses. When two people use the same facts but get completely divergent stories, you have bias.

If you give the same facts to any group of people, and that these people know the meaning of those facts (aka they are not too complicated to understand) and all the groups' goal is to convey these facts as accurately as possible to other groups, the stories should be relatively similar.

I mentionned this simply because fox is nothing but conservative propaganda and that their bias comes from personnal interest. And that this is the reason why you cannot say TYT is on the same level. Or any other reputable news outlet for that matter. I wasn,t necessairly defending TYT here just bashing Fox.

FYI, the guy who legitimately questioned the word "is" wasn't in communications... There is one occupation that is much better at word play and semantics than communications majors are.

Communications deals with how people convey information (put very simply), which is what we are talking about I believe.

Now you're getting it. TYT has a bias.

If you take this definition: a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

I would say it's questionnable because I believe the anchors from TYT to be as impartial as possible.

But if you mean bias in the sense of previous experiences affecting your opinion, then everybody has bias, you and me included. And it would be silly to deny it.

At 12/13/11 02:16 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

Listen, facts and what most people believe are completely different things, even if everybody on this planet believed in something erroneous it would not be more of a fact.

if everyone believed it, it would be considered fact. at one point it was a fact that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that if you sailed too far in any direction you would fall off the face of the earth, literally.

Believe me I totally understand what you mean, and it's stupid as fuck.

you have no idea.

Can't you read? I expressly said "human eye" and made the statement as specific as possible so you wouldnt be able to pull off shit like this, and you still did anyways. I know it's perception in that case, hence why I said that with a healthy vision, with normal lighting conditions, HUMANS PERCIEVE grass as green colored.

Grass is green, unless its not green. Wheat is a grain, which is a type of grass and its brown. the sky is blue unless the sun is in the right position,then its a golden or even red color. at night the sky is black (or a seriously dark shade of blue) with white speckles. to say the sky is blue is folly.

That's a fact.

that's perception. to a person with color blindness, which a friend of mine has, regular yard grass and red apples are the same color.

It's a fact about how humans percieve grass in normal conditions. And then I gave the hypotetical situation of me tricking you into believing it was purple, (or it could be anybody else) and the fact you or other people tricked into believing it's purple wouldnt change the greenness of the grass.

your point being? "under normal lighting conditions?" I'll put it like this. grass is green because you see it as green. in a pitch black darkness, grass is invisible... you simply cannot see it.

But if you prefer I could have given other examples like: Getting stabbed in the eye is not a desirable situation.

that's an opinion.

Show me one example where belief effect facts. Do it, I ducking double dare ya. Spoiler: You can't. But that wouldn't be your fault as nobody can because beliefs do not affect facts.

Sure I can. Watermelons are red on the inside, yes? answer truthfully now.

I swear to god the amount of willpower it takes me to not call you an idiot every line of reply I make is superhuman, but you still manage to make me do it.

That's because you fail to grasp the concept. I'll put it like this. take an object. any object (well something, say, a large tree near your home) make a description of the object on a piece of paper. hand someone else a piece of paper and have the describe the same object. compare papers. you won't get the same notes. some things may be in common, but the papers will have differences. it's an example of how your perception affects your view of reality.

The fact anything alive will die at some point is a fact. Stop trying to sound deep. I am starting to believe I am getting trolled here. Really.

and that is the only constant to the universe. if it lives, it WILL die. Planet Earth is not a constant. it will someday be no more. you are not a constant. you will die. Everything else is temporary. I'm not trying to sound deep. I'm just making my point.

blind faith is more prevalent than you think.

Is that a fact or is that your perception? HURRRRR
See I can pull off bullshit like this too.

I suppose that would be a question of your perception rather than mine, given that you don't seem to think blind faith exists within you as you lap up Cenk's every word without questioning his motive for saying what he says.

And he would be right. But you can see he's not just bashing bachmann every change he gets.

he would be right? do we have some sort of empirical data to suggest being gay is in fact, normal and doesn't need fixing? If not, then you just made my point for me. thanks.

except, you're not thinking critically. Given you didn't even know what bias was until Camaro explained it to you.

Exept I did.

you didn't.

You walk into a barn and find a man standing behind a cow with his pants down. what do you make of the situation?

It was very likely he was about to... *get milked*.
YEAAAH!

nah he was just taking a piss on the dirt floor. it was mere coincidence he was behind the cow. he was facing the corner of the barn. you drew a wrong conclusion from the single fact i gave you.

At 12/13/11 03:58 PM, Korriken wrote: if everyone believed it, it would be considered fact. at one point it was a fact that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that if you sailed too far in any direction you would fall off the face of the earth, literally.

yes it would be "considered" a fact, considered is the jey word here. These people were wrond and it was never a fact the earth was flat as it always was a sphere, truth is these people didn't know any better.

you have no idea.

You are arguing that facts are determined by people's beliefs and concensus. Which is not the definition of a fact.

In fact what you are saying is so ridiculous I am seriously wondering if I am getting trolled.

Grass is green, unless its not green. Wheat is a grain, which is a type of grass and its brown. the sky is blue unless the sun is in the right position,then its a golden or even red color. at night the sky is black (or a seriously dark shade of blue) with white speckles. to say the sky is blue is folly.

That's a fact.

that's perception. to a person with color blindness, which a friend of mine has, regular yard grass and red apples are the same color.

Again, I said "healthy" human eye. And I was obviously speaking of common grass. You are trying way too hard (or again, maybe I am just getting trolled).

your point being? "under normal lighting conditions?" I'll put it like this. grass is green because you see it as green. in a pitch black darkness, grass is invisible... you simply cannot see it.

You know what, fuck this, if you do not have the brain power to understand my point by now I am wasting my time.

But if you prefer I could have given other examples like: Getting stabbed in the eye is not a desirable situation.

that's an opinion.

Okay now I am sure, I am getting trolled, you got me real good.

Show me one example where belief effect facts. Do it, I ducking double dare ya. Spoiler: You can't. But that wouldn't be your fault as nobody can because beliefs do not affect facts.

Sure I can. Watermelons are red on the inside, yes? answer truthfully now.

They are a pinkish hue of red. And now you will say I percieve them as that, I know the color of things is mere reflected light on my pupil. but my belief on the color of watermelon does not change the color of watermelon.

That's because you fail to grasp the concept.

Once again, I do, your point is just very wrong and very fucking stupid.

I'll put it like this. take an object. any object (well something, say, a large tree near your home) make a description of the object on a piece of paper. hand someone else a piece of paper and have the describe the same object. compare papers. you won't get the same notes. some things may be in common, but the papers will have differences. it's an example of how your perception affects your view of reality.

Yet what we write doen on the pieces of paper does not affect how the tree looks in any way, see my point? I know people have different perceptions and views, but facts are not affected by them.

and that is the only constant to the universe. if it lives, it WILL die. Planet Earth is not a constant. it will someday be no more. you are not a constant. you will die. Everything else is temporary. I'm not trying to sound deep. I'm just making my point.

The fact everyone dies does not support your point in any way.

I suppose that would be a question of your perception rather than mine, given that you don't seem to think blind faith exists within you as you lap up Cenk's every word without questioning his motive for saying what he says.

Go fuck yourself.
.

he would be right? do we have some sort of empirical data to suggest being gay is in fact, normal and doesn't need fixing? If not, then you just made my point for me. thanks.

Show me empirical data proving being gay NEEDS fixing. because there is no obvious harm done if you are a gay individual living a healthy consensual relationship with another gay person.

nah he was just taking a piss on the dirt floor. it was mere coincidence he was behind the cow. he was facing the corner of the barn. you drew a wrong conclusion from the single fact i gave you.

See, I knew you were going to say that, hence why I just replied with a joke, obviously people can sometimes draw wrong conclusions from things that are seen. Even more so when it's a situation described to you partly by some idiot on a forum doing so in a desperate attempt to give some validity to his ridiculous claims.

I recomend that the people in this topic come take a look at this.

I'll post the important part here, its a letter to the guys other cartoonist friend who seems to be a tea party supporter as opposed to the man who sent it, a reluctant OWS supporter. excusing the imo less than funny cartoon.

"I know you and I are located at roughly orange and indigo on the political spectrum but I can't help but feel the Tea Party really ought to be down there demonstrating alongside all the insufferable nosering-wearing anarchists [of Occupy Wall Street]. The Tea Party formed when enough conservatives felt the Republican Party had betrayed or abandoned them; this demonstration seems like proof that a critical mass of progressives now feels the same way about the Obama administration. The one consensus in this country is that things are fucked up. We both agree that absolutely no one in the government cares what we think about anything. It seems to me that the main difference between Left and Right anymore is that you guys blame The Government for everything while we blame Corporate America. It's past time we all noticed that there's no difference between these two anymore; they're all exactly the same people. They're all former classmates and golf partners. In other words the great ideological divide between us increasingly looks like a false dichotomy, and about the only thing keeping us from forming that formidable coalitionthat political philosopher Charles Daniels called "the cowboys and the hippies, the rebels and the yanks," is our mutual distaste. But look: I despise those feckless hippies and their goddamn drum circles, and I'm still going down there every day, because I feel like I can't not be there. Even if you're not going, let me know what you think about all this. We may be the only two people on our respective sides who are in any contact with each other and as such we are like diplomats from two great powers at war. We should keep the lines of communication open."

basically he says OWS happened because the Democrats betrayed the people who supported them, while Tea party started because the Republicans betrayed the people who supported them. Both sides are equally concerned that this country is moving toward despotism in one way or another yet both sides hate each other on made up comedic ideological differences and wardrobes, both of which are nothing more than strawmen who lack the intelligence to organise events as impacting as these two, think about that.

At 12/13/11 11:12 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

basically he says OWS happened because the Democrats betrayed the people who supported them, while Tea party started because the Republicans betrayed the people who supported them. Both sides are equally concerned that this country is moving toward despotism in one way or another yet both sides hate each other on made up comedic ideological differences and wardrobes, both of which are nothing more than strawmen who lack the intelligence to organise events as impacting as these two, think about that.

I think he's mostly right, man if OWS and the tea party would team up they would start kicking some serious ass. I believe the tea party isn't necessairly against corporations but I'm sure if someone passes the message and makes them understand how: "funding a campaign or hiring a representant when he gets out of office can make for a nice motivation to serve the rich and not the people". if this message gets trough, oh man.

If both sides can let go of their differences to ally that would be the shit.

At 12/13/11 10:30 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

yes it would be "considered" a fact, considered is the jey word here. These people were wrond and it was never a fact the earth was flat as it always was a sphere, truth is these people didn't know any better.

which reinforces my point that even "facts" are a matter of perception. Also. earth isn't a sphereeither.

You are arguing that facts are determined by people's beliefs and concensus. Which is not the definition of a fact.

In fact what you are saying is so ridiculous I am seriously wondering if I am getting trolled.

If I was being ridiculous all the liberals would be pouncing all over me... and it's not happening.

Again, I said "healthy" human eye. And I was obviously speaking of common grass. You are trying way too hard (or again, maybe I am just getting trolled).

color blindness doesn't indicate an unhealthy eye any more than curly hair indicates unhealthy hair.

You know what, fuck this, if you do not have the brain power to understand my point by now I am wasting my time.

Okay now I am sure, I am getting trolled, you got me real good.

whether something is desirable or not is an opinion. whether something is good or evil is an opinion. whether something is pretty or ugly is an opinion. whether something is tasty or not is an opinion.

They are a pinkish hue of red. And now you will say I percieve them as that, I know the color of things is mere reflected light on my pupil. but my belief on the color of watermelon does not change the color of watermelon.

you sure about that? your "fact" that watermelons are red is in fact, not a fact. you never seeing a watermelon that is NOT red on the inside leads you to believe that water melons are red on the inside. it's also a vegetable and not a fruit like most people believe to be "fact"

Yet what we write doen on the pieces of paper does not affect how the tree looks in any way, see my point? I know people have different perceptions and views, but facts are not affected by them.

The fact everyone dies does not support your point in any way.

it's the only constant in the world. the one "fact" as you put it.

Go fuck yourself.

guilty as charged eh?

Show me empirical data proving being gay NEEDS fixing. because there is no obvious harm done if you are a gay individual living a healthy consensual relationship with another gay person.

you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

See, I knew you were going to say that, hence why I just replied with a joke, obviously people can sometimes draw wrong conclusions from things that are seen. Even more so when it's a situation described to you partly by some idiot on a forum doing so in a desperate attempt to give some validity to his ridiculous claims.

point is, what you call "fact" is meaningless. I run up to a person can say, "I caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy!" If i fail to mention he was pissing in the corner of the barn, most people are going to draw the wrong conclusion based on this one "fact".

now for the town news man to spin this one "fact" in many different ways.

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! he was facing the other way, but I bet he was getting ready to do something unsavory with that cow!"

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! I wouldn't say he was going to do something unsavory though, looks like he might have been relieving himself."

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! is the missus not making Jim happy anymore?"

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! I bet he was reminiscing about the girl he saw in town yesterday."

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! Let's not be too hasty in drawing a conclusion on this one, folks."

"Bob says he caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy... what was he doing in farmer Jim's barn? and why did he happen to notice farmer Jim's willy out? was he trying to see it? was he spying in farmer Jim? and why is this even news?"

At 12/14/11 09:09 AM, Korriken wrote: which reinforces my point that even "facts" are a matter of perception. Also. earth isn't a sphereeither.

If by "reinforcing" you mean utterly shatters it. Then you would be accurate. As for the earth not being a perfect sphere, it's a mere detail and you know what I mean. Please stop trying to use small useless details to try to hide the fact you have in fact no tangible arguments.

If I was being ridiculous all the liberals would be pouncing all over me... and it's not happening.

What's the logic behind that statement?

color blindness doesn't indicate an unhealthy eye any more than curly hair indicates unhealthy hair.

It's a defect it affects vision in anegative way, unlike curly hair. Stop using such weak arguments like they are of any value.

whether something is desirable or not is an opinion. whether something is good or evil is an opinion. whether something is pretty or ugly is an opinion. whether something is tasty or not is an opinion.

No, getting stabbed in the eye is not a situation that should be desired by anyone, even if you really want to get stabbed in the eye it is not a good thing. It is empirically a negative thing to get stabbed in the eye, you are stupid. And while taste and beauty are affected by perception and different things can be beautiful or tasty in different ways, there can be clear difference between something extremely tasty and extremely disgusting; and something extremely beautiful and something extremely ugly.

you sure about that? your "fact" that watermelons are red is in fact, not a fact. you never seeing a watermelon that is NOT red on the inside leads you to believe that water melons are red on the inside. it's also a vegetable and not a fruit like most people believe to be "fact"

That word, "fact" you keep using it, however I don't think it means what you think it means.

it's the only constant in the world. the one "fact" as you put it.

I can think of other constants, if you walk off a cliff with no means of keeping you from falling, you will fall. There are also ten thousand other examples I will not bother naming.

guilty as charged eh?

No, the comment you made (and this one too) was so insulting to my intelligence and just showed utter contempt and was so untruthful that it made me mad. If you ever trolled me anywhere in this exchange we had and you had to point where it worked the most, that would be there.

you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

No, you made the claim there was something wrong with being gay.

But if I must: There is no factual evidence whatsoever pointing in the direction that being homosexual is "wrong" in any concievable way.

point is, what you call "fact" is meaningless.

No, a fact is information or knowledge based on real occurances. It's everything BUT meaningless.

I run up to a person can say, "I caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy!" If i fail to mention he was pissing in the corner of the barn, most people are going to draw the wrong conclusion based on this one "fact".

Yes because you would do the error or not mentionning this vital part of information.

now for the town news man to spin this one "fact" in many different ways.

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! he was facing the other way, but I bet he was getting ready to do something unsavory with that cow!"

In this one, the news reporter would be spinning the information by adding a comment which has no base in reality, just his opinion, he is mixing the fact the farmder was behind the cow facing in the wrong direction with a complete non-fact, a lie.

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! I wouldn't say he was going to do something unsavory though, looks like he might have been relieving himself."

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! is the missus not making Jim happy anymore?"

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! I bet he was reminiscing about the girl he saw in town yesterday."

"Bob caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy! Let's not be too hasty in drawing a conclusion on this one, folks."

"Bob says he caught farmer Jim with his willy out behind his cow Old Bessy... what was he doing in farmer Jim's barn? and why did he happen to notice farmer Jim's willy out? was he trying to see it? was he spying in farmer Jim? and why is this even news?"

Again, the only factual information here is that the farmer was in the barn with his cow (with his dick out), that's the "fact". Anything else around it is commentary and not necessairly a fact. The farmer is really in a suspicious position and it is understandable that it raises concerns. But these conclusions could simply be erroneous.

Now a good reporter would say:

"Farmer Jim was surprised in the barn behind his cow with his penis exposed, at first the witness was led to the conclusion the farmer might have intended to abuse the animal, but the farmer assured he was only relieving himself in the viscinity."

so do we have any agreed upon facts, or perceived external stimuli, that we can utilize in a discussion on the OWS topic?

At 12/14/11 01:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so do we have any agreed upon facts, or perceived external stimuli, that we can utilize in a discussion on the OWS topic?

Neither TYT, FOX News, or any other source's reports or 'facts' about OWS should be taken at face value.

Oh, and the recent Occupy Oakland protest cost over $10 million dollars in lost business (a HUGE chunk of that being money that regulars Joes couldn't earn because they were being blocked from work by people who claim to be protesting in their favor...)

At 12/14/11 01:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so do we have any agreed upon facts, or perceived external stimuli, that we can utilize in a discussion on the OWS topic?

Dude, I agree this tangent has gone for way too long, I think I have proven my point about it too.

At 12/14/11 01:17 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

If by "reinforcing" you mean utterly shatters it. Then you would be accurate. As for the earth not being a perfect sphere, it's a mere detail and you know what I mean. Please stop trying to use small useless details to try to hide the fact you have in fact no tangible arguments.

What's the logic behind that statement?

you haven't been around here long enough to know what I mean. give it time.

It's a defect it affects vision in anegative way, unlike curly hair. Stop using such weak arguments l

like they are of any value.
so homosexuality is a defect too then? if color blindness if a defect that stops a person from seeing in "normal" colors, then homosexuality is a defect that causes a person to desire the wrong gender.

No, getting stabbed in the eye is not a situation that should be desired by anyone, even if you really want to get stabbed in the eye it is not a good thing.

whether its good or not is an opinion. Obviously its bodily harm, but if someone wants an eye put out and a leg cut off they can put on a peg leg and eye patch and be a pirate, that's them.

It is empirically a negative thing to get stabbed in the eye, you are stupid.

didn't your momma ever tell you calling names is mean? not to mention pointless.

And while taste and beauty are affected by perception and different things can be beautiful or tasty in different ways, there can be clear difference between something extremely tasty and extremely disgusting; and something extremely beautiful and something extremely ugly.

it's STILL an opinion. Some guys go nuts for the porn star look, it turns me off completely. I find it repulsive.

That word, "fact" you keep using it, however I don't think it means what you think it means.

sure I do.

it's the only constant in the world. the one "fact" as you put it.

I can think of other constants, if you walk off a cliff with no means of keeping you from falling, you will fall. There are also ten thousand other examples I will not bother naming.

as long as earth maintains its gravitation pull yes, but if a massive meteor hits the earth and rips it to pieces, then your argument is invalid. Also, if something happens and earth's gravitational pull is nullified, then no you won't. it's not a constant.

No, the comment you made (and this one too) was so insulting to my intelligence and just showed utter contempt and was so untruthful that it made me mad. If you ever trolled me anywhere in this exchange we had and you had to point where it worked the most, that would be there.

so, there are times you think about what Cenk says and say, "that's doesn't make any sense" or "that's a half truth."?

you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

No, you made the claim there was something wrong with being gay.

no, you said you agreed with Cenk that there is nothing wrong with gays. you made the first claim.

But if I must: There is no factual evidence whatsoever pointing in the direction that being homosexual is "wrong" in any concievable way.

unless you take the natural instinct of procreation into consideration. Homosexuals very rarely procreate (and only if they do end up having sex with someone of the opposite sex)

No, a fact is information or knowledge based on real occurances. It's everything BUT meaningless.

or perceived to be real occurrences. Many things we believe to be "fact" today are false. we just haven't figured out otherwise... yet. which is the VERY point I'm making. what we call "fact" is what we perceive to be true. Sometimes perception and reality match up. However, many things you believe to be true simply are not true. you only perceive them to be true.

If what I am saying was stupid, or untrue, or just plain trolling I would have been called out on it already.

Again, the only factual information here is that the farmer was in the barn with his cow (with his dick out), that's the "fact". Anything else around it is commentary and not necessairly a fact. The farmer is really in a suspicious position and it is understandable that it raises concerns. But these conclusions could simply be erroneous.

Point is, the "fact" itself has no value without the rest of the story to figure out exactly what happened. "Farmer Jim was caught with his willy out behind a cow." so then what happened? we don't know. no one ever said what he was doing. Naturally, the human mind will come up with a conclusion on its own.... usually.

also, what if Bob was lying? Unless someone exposes his lie, it's still considered a "fact" if everyone believes that it is true.

At 12/14/11 02:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Neither TYT, FOX News, or any other source's reports or 'facts' about OWS should be taken at face value.

Oh, and the recent Occupy Oakland protest cost over $10 million dollars in lost business (a HUGE chunk of that being money that regulars Joes couldn't earn because they were being blocked from work by people who claim to be protesting in their favor...)

OWS has got to be the biggest irony I've ever seen. OWS crews go and block off ports so goods can't get in to "feed the corporate machine" and the people that suffer are the regular people just trying to make ends meet. then the OWS crowd goes for Starbucks and to recharge their Iphones.

At 12/14/11 01:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so do we have any agreed upon facts, or perceived external stimuli, that we can utilize in a discussion on the OWS topic?

that as long as the topic of the discussion contains OWS, then intelligent discussion is impossible.

At 12/14/11 02:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/14/11 01:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

Oh, and the recent Occupy Oakland protest cost over $10 million dollars in lost business (a HUGE chunk of that being money that regulars Joes couldn't earn because they were being blocked from work by people who claim to be protesting in their favor...)

Talk about the irony, the protesters who talk about being in the workers favor, {the 99%, as they say.} are responsible for taking away money that the workers need to feed their families. They say that they are fighting against the corporate machine, when it's the "corporate machine" that allows the workers to make an honest living, something most of the Occupy protesters haven't heard of. I would like to know what type of spin the pro-Occupy supporters would say about something like this.

As if the sight of Starbucks coffee, iPhones/iPads and brand-name T-shirts everywhere isn't hypocritcal enough for these bastards.

At 12/14/11 09:13 PM, orangebomb wrote:

Talk about the irony, the protesters who talk about being in the workers favor, {the 99%, as they say.} are responsible for taking away money that the workers need to feed their families. They say that they are fighting against the corporate machine, when it's the "corporate machine" that allows the workers to make an honest living, something most of the Occupy protesters haven't heard of. I would like to know what type of spin the pro-Occupy supporters would say about something like this.

Doing stuff like that is definitely a mistake, and ahould be avoided, however they didnt do it that often, and for the occupy oakland port block they went away to let the workers work. It's not all bad.

As if the sight of Starbucks coffee, iPhones/iPads and brand-name T-shirts everywhere isn't hypocritcal enough for these bastards.

There is nothing hypocritical about being an OWS protesters and drinking starbucks and owning an iphone. It's about corporations buying politicians and getting richer with the money of the population of america while the population itself gets nothing. it's not against corporations.

At 12/14/11 08:12 PM, Korriken wrote:

so homosexuality is a defect too then? if color blindness if a defect that stops a person from seeing in "normal" colors, then homosexuality is a defect that causes a person to desire the wrong gender.

I should have expected such an argument from captain red herring.

You make two mistakes:
1. color blindness stops people from seing some colors, not "normal" colors.
2. On what evidence do you base yourself to say hmosexuals desire the "wrong" gender?

whether its good or not is an opinion. Obviously its bodily harm, but if someone wants an eye put out and a leg cut off they can put on a peg leg and eye patch and be a pirate, that's them.

Yes but a person that would want to mutilate themselves in order to do that most likely has mental health problems and even if they want to do it, it is NOT a desirable thing to happen to you.

it's STILL an opinion. Some guys go nuts for the porn star look, it turns me off completely. I find it repulsive.

First of all I suspect you of being hyperbolic here with that statement, second you would still agree that a port star is sexier than a woman who has been burned on 100% of her body. Extreme examples, but it's to show you there are some peaks on the beauty landscape, there might be different equal peaks, but these peaks exist.

sure I do.

I have been reading your posts, and you don,t know what "fact" means. Please, go look it up.

it's the only constant in the world. the one "fact" as you put it.

as long as earth maintains its gravitation pull yes, but if a massive meteor hits the earth and rips it to pieces, then your argument is invalid. Also, if something happens and earth's gravitational pull is nullified, then no you won't. it's not a constant.

But what if I invent a chemical that makes me regenerate and not get old, making me effectively immortal?

so, there are times you think about what Cenk says and say, "that's doesn't make any sense" or "that's a half truth."?

There are times where I might disagree with him, times where I think he's exagerrating. But you see the guy's got his heart in the right place and when someone mentions something innacurate he says it, even if it's against people like newt gingrich for example. Something Fox news would not do.

no, you said you agreed with Cenk that there is nothing wrong with gays. you made the first claim.

Yes buy I am arguing there is no problem, so I need no evidence. If you say there is a problem you need to find what is that problem with being gay.

unless you take the natural instinct of procreation into consideration. Homosexuals very rarely procreate (and only if they do end up having sex with someone of the opposite sex)

You know sex is also for fun right?

No, a fact is information or knowledge based on real occurances. It's everything BUT meaningless.

or perceived to be real occurrences.

No, stop, no, stop right there, THAT part, is entirely wrong. THis is what you are getting wrong, facts are irrelevant of perceptions.

Many things we believe to be "fact" today are false.

It just makes those things not facts, and makes us wrong.

we just haven't figured out otherwise... yet. which is the VERY point I'm making. what we call "fact" is what we perceive to be true. Sometimes perception and reality match up. However, many things you believe to be true simply are not true. you only perceive them to be true.

I know what you fucking mean, I know sometimes people call facts what are not facts or are partially wrong. But that just makes them wrong. Facts are always true by definition. A fact which is wrong, is simply not a fact. An innacurate fact is an oxymoron.

If what I am saying was stupid, or untrue, or just plain trolling I would have been called out on it already.

I don't think that much other people care about our little personnal debate. But you did get called on it, by me.

Point is, the "fact" itself has no value without the rest of the story to figure out exactly what happened. "Farmer Jim was caught with his willy out behind a cow." so then what happened? we don't know. no one ever said what he was doing. Naturally, the human mind will come up with a conclusion on its own.... usually.

The fact means what it means, the guy was in his barn behind his cow with his dick out. If you want to know more you need to fucking IVNESTIGATE and dig up MORE FACTS not invent a fucking story around it. See what I mean?

also, what if Bob was lying? Unless someone exposes his lie, it's still considered a "fact" if everyone believes that it is true.

It might be believed as true by some. it's not going to be a fact if it is a lie tough. It might be sonsidered as such by some. But they would be wrong.

At 12/15/11 02:03 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Doing stuff like that is definitely a mistake, and ahould be avoided, however they didnt do it that often, and for the occupy oakland port block they went away to let the workers work. It's not all bad.

It goes to show the group has no clue what they are trying to do, nor how to accomplish it.

There is nothing hypocritical about being an OWS protesters and drinking starbucks and owning an iphone. It's about corporations buying politicians and getting richer with the money of the population of america while the population itself gets nothing. it's not against corporations.

Now that's total garbage and you know it. The point of the port blockings were to "hit the coporations where they make their money". Saying "fuck you!" to the corporations out of one side of the mouth and with one hand is ironically complimented by a corporate green starbucks straw in the other side of the mouth and an iPhone in the other hand. Well, OWS, are you sticking it to the corporations or aren't you?

OWS needs some leadership, goals, and most of all some brains. Protesting just to show how angry you are won't get you anywhere. All they are doing is creating further enemies and digging themselves further down into a pit of isolation and lack of attention. Won't somebody who has a clue how things are done please help these lost children out?

At 12/15/11 01:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/15/11 02:03 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Doing stuff like that is definitely a mistake, and ahould be avoided, however they didnt do it that often, and for the occupy oakland port block they went away to let the workers work. It's not all bad.

It goes to show the group has no clue what they are trying to do, nor how to accomplish it.

Well, VenomKing you've already admitted it was a mistake for the OWS to block the port for the workers, and even though they did try to rectify their mistake, in the long term, that only alienated the workers from ever supporting the cause, especially since it would be hypocritical on their part to join in on the protests, since they are part of the corporate machine or whatever buzzword these guys like to use. Remember, it only takes one dumb move on their part to further isolate themselves farther and farther away from the people.

There is nothing hypocritical about being an OWS protesters and drinking starbucks and owning an iphone. It's about corporations buying politicians and getting richer with the money of the population of america while the population itself gets nothing. it's not against corporations.

Now that's total garbage and you know it. The point of the port blockings were to "hit the coporations where they make their money". Saying "fuck you!" to the corporations out of one side of the mouth and with one hand is ironically complimented by a corporate green starbucks straw in the other side of the mouth and an iPhone in the other hand. Well, OWS, are you sticking it to the corporations or aren't you?

Exactly, with their Starbucks and iPhones and corporate goods in their hands, they are feeding the same corporations that these guys are protesting against. It's one thing to be anti-corporate, that's fine and dandy, but it's quite another to be a hypocrite, and to sabatoge your own message. The OWS movement wants to have it both ways, and it doesn't work that way, especially when they have corporate goods that some working people, {y'know the 99% that they say their for.} couldn't afford.

OWS needs some leadership, goals, and most of all some brains. Protesting just to show how angry you are won't get you anywhere. All they are doing is creating further enemies and digging themselves further down into a pit of isolation and lack of attention. Won't somebody who has a clue how things are done please help these lost children out?

If they had true leadership, and not try to act like a fringe group populated by socialist wanna-bes, career protesters, and naive hippies, then they can have some legitmacy among the people. But as of now, they're simply nothing more than annoyances, simply wasting time bitching and moaning about change when they have no reasonable idea on a course of action other than what I just said.

At 12/15/11 10:57 PM, orangebomb wrote:

Well, VenomKing you've already admitted it was a mistake for the OWS to block the port for the workers, and even though they did try to rectify their mistake, in the long term, that only alienated the workers from ever supporting the cause, especially since it would be hypocritical on their part to join in on the protests, since they are part of the corporate machine or whatever buzzword these guys like to use. Remember, it only takes one dumb move on their part to further isolate themselves farther and farther away from the people.

But wait, weren,t they with unions when they did this? Also I agree with the second part, as a movement it is imperative not to alienate the public. So far I don,t think they did for the most part even if part of the media successfully did make it seem like if they were lazy hippies.

Exactly, with their Starbucks and iPhones and corporate goods in their hands, they are feeding the same corporations that these guys are protesting against.

Exept not. They are fighting against banks and speculators and the corporations that produce nothing and will buy politicians so politicians represent these big companies and not the public.

It's one thing to be anti-corporate, that's fine and dandy, but it's quite another to be a hypocrite, and to sabatoge your own message. The OWS movement wants to have it both ways, and it doesn't work that way, especially when they have corporate goods that some working people, {y'know the 99% that they say their for.} couldn't afford.

Where your argument falls apart is... where right at the beginning, OWS is not anti-corporate. OWS has nothing against big corporations and getting rich.

HOWEVER, when a big corporation uses it's power to rig the system in their favor NOW there's a problem.

If they had true leadership, and not try to act like a fringe group populated by socialist wanna-bes, career protesters, and naive hippies, then they can have some legitmacy among the people. But as of now, they're simply nothing more than annoyances, simply wasting time bitching and moaning about change when they have no reasonable idea on a course of action other than what I just said.

There were so many people and they were so different, you simply cannot call them a fringe.

At 12/16/11 12:52 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: But wait, weren,t they with unions when they did this? Also I agree with the second part, as a movement it is imperative not to alienate the public. So far I don,t think they did for the most part even if part of the media successfully did make it seem like if they were lazy hippies.

Havi g worked inshipping I can tell you that the stevadore and longshore worker unions will strike and the drop of hat, or when the hat doesn't drop. They need no reason whatsover. The Port of Oakland is notorious in the industry for striking. Shit, COGSA has a special clause just for strikes because this shit is pulled so often by them.

Exept not. They are fighting against banks and speculators and the corporations that produce nothing and will buy politicians so politicians represent these big companies and not the public.

Except not. If they were truly fighting the financial system they'd be blocking bancks, not ports. They are blocking ports where tangible goods (like Starbucks Coffee and iPhones) are imported. They're trying to stick it to "the corporations" not "the banks". You can try to warp their words to soften the stupidity of their actions all you want, but the noose OWS is hanging itself with is one of its own words.

Where your argument falls apart is... where right at the beginning, OWS is not anti-corporate. OWS has nothing against big corporations and getting rich.

The why are they trying to stick it to "the corporations"?

HOWEVER, when a big corporation uses it's power to rig the system in their favor NOW there's a problem.

If this was ruly the case, why is OWS indiscriminately attacking all corporations of all sorts?

There were so many people and they were so different, you simply cannot call them a fringe.

They are a fringe. They do not represent the 99% anymore. They did during the first few days of anger. Now they represent the very small % who have no job and no need for a job, plus a few unions. The rest of us rely on corporations and money to live. While we may be friendly to their base cause, we sure as hell don't agree with 99% of what the movement does or what it has become.

OWS needs a brain. Until then their % is going to shrink and shrink until they merely represent the 2% while misusing my 99% for their image.

At 12/16/11 03:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Havi g worked inshipping I can tell you that the stevadore and longshore worker unions will strike and the drop of hat, or when the hat doesn't drop. They need no reason whatsover. The Port of Oakland is notorious in the industry for striking. Shit, COGSA has a special clause just for strikes because this shit is pulled so often by them.

Again, this is just shit taken right out of your ass, no thanks, provide evidence and come back.

Except not. If they were truly fighting the financial system they'd be blocking bancks, not ports.

That's what they have been doing most of the time, protesting banks and stuff. Pay attention.

They are blocking ports where tangible goods (like Starbucks Coffee and iPhones) are imported. They're trying to stick it to "the corporations" not "the banks". You can try to warp their words to soften the stupidity of their actions all you want, but the noose OWS is hanging itself with is one of its own words.

The why are they trying to stick it to "the corporations"?

They are talking to the corporations buying the government.

If this was ruly the case, why is OWS indiscriminately attacking all corporations of all sorts?

They are not.

At 12/16/11 08:05 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

The why are they trying to stick it to "the corporations"?

They are talking to the corporations buying the government.

Ok so you say they are protesting "corporations that buy influence and power in washington" and they say they represent the "99%".

well, in that case, they have no business buying apple products at all! now, before you go trying to bash me in the head, read this.

yeah, Google, Apple, and other hired one hell of a lobbyist to lobby congress for a tax holiday on offshore profits. Apparently, last time this happened, Apple used the saved money to buy back some of their stock, and not to create jobs. and yet, OWS supports them rabidly by buying up their products.

Starbucks though... not so bad (as far as I can tell) I can't find much on them, except for their rather extreme leftist agenda, which reminds me why I refuse to buy their products (beyond them being way too overpriced). Of course, not many of the "99%" can afford a $5 cup of coffee, and have to settle for McDonalds coffee for $1 (which is just as good).

^ you don't have to live in poverty to be negatively influenced by government corruption. Here's some food for thought, they live with their parents because jobs are too scarce to find in a timely manner, and the jobs they can find aren't very secure, and really hug minimum wage. add this with how much rent costs and the probability that their parents need them to help pitch in and they are kind of stuck. I also refuse to buy from certain companies and Apple is included in those for their use of slave labour in Africa, but some times your morals weigh more than your wallet can handle so I'm not in a position to boycott everyone who does something morally questionable. I need to eat and put gas in my car damit. Yes there is also probably a good amount who wasted their money on useless degrees, my advice to them is if they got an art degree, get a job at McDonalds and sell your art on Ebay until you can live your super awesome dream of money women/men and fame. I however support what their base cause is and have a ticket in a skill trade. Can't really find a smarter investment when you didn't get the best grades in school. I'll have a better job than some of the people who did better than me.

You could argue that cutting the corporate tax rate would give them the hand up that they desperately need but that is useless without sufficient competition and demand. So they are only seeing one half of the issue, that's not a good thing but the Tea party is only seeing the other half and nothing else as well. One side blames the pimp, the other blames the guy who bought his whores. aaaand finally see pic.

At 12/16/11 08:58 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/16/11 08:05 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

The why are they trying to stick it to "the corporations"?

They are talking to the corporations buying the government.

Ok so you say they are protesting "corporations that buy influence and power in washington" and they say they represent the "99%".

well, in that case, they have no business buying apple products at all! now, before you go trying to bash me in the head, read this.

yeah, Google, Apple, and other hired one hell of a lobbyist to lobby congress for a tax holiday on offshore profits. Apparently, last time this happened, Apple used the saved money to buy back some of their stock, and not to create jobs. and yet, OWS supports them rabidly by buying up their products.

First of all, let me question your use of adjectives. "rabidly" While Occupy Wall Street does not boycott Apple but they do not "rabidly" support them either. While this piece of information is very regrettable. I do not thing it removes any waight from the OWS statement, as they have seen the main problem, and remember that the news you posted is fairly recent too. Remember that not all OWSers are apple hipsters with an art degree.

Starbucks though... not so bad (as far as I can tell) I can't find much on them, except for their rather extreme leftist agenda,

Extreme leftist agenda? Are you calling Starbucks communists now? You are ridiculous.

which reminds me why I refuse to buy their products (beyond them being way too overpriced). Of course, not many of the "99%" can afford a $5 cup of coffee, and have to settle for McDonalds coffee for $1 (which is just as good).

I'm sure all the OWS protesters religiously go to starbucks. /irony

You have no statistics to show if they go on starbucks more than any other place, and even if they do it doesnt change anything. You are desperately trying to grasp at straws and it is very amusing to me.

The problem is the these corporations have stuff located very conveniently, and rather cheaply. Unless you're rich or very crafty, there's no way you're going to be able to make your own clothes, phone, computer, grow and harvest coffee, etc. For now, we kinda have to make due with what we've got unfortunately.

At 12/16/11 09:25 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: aaaand finally see pic.

Way to completely miss the point while making yourself feel really smart with these pics...

At 12/16/11 08:05 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: That's what they have been doing most of the time, protesting banks and stuff. Pay attention.

I know they have blocked a few banks here and there. But if that was truly their goal, they'd do that exclusively, and they would do it better.

They are talking to the corporations buying the government.

Really? Cause Evergreen Shipping, and Starbucks, and Apple, and the Port of Oakland, and Hanjin, and Union Pacific bought the government at all... Oh wait...

They are not.

Yes they are. They merely want to eat the rich. If they had any target, they would be targetting that target, not just whatever was within wlaking distance of their shanty camp.