- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:29 pm to DelU249
quote:
fricking liberal weanie
don't forget "radical" and "bat shite"
also "unhinged", "moonbat", and "loon".
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:30 pm to asurob1
As much as I like to poke fun at you guys in our many various debates.
This reminds me how much I appreciate this place.
At least I know when we launch into our latest debate you guys actually back your shite up with facts and not liberal fancy filled BS that you believe because you live in an echo chamber.
This reminds me how much I appreciate this place.
At least I know when we launch into our latest debate you guys actually back your shite up with facts and not liberal fancy filled BS that you believe because you live in an echo chamber.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:31 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:
I've learned my lesson from Facebook arguments. There is no convincing anyone of anything. No one comes to that argument to listen.
So I chose the route of unfollowing anyone that espouses dumb ideas. It is not the same as defriending and they never know about it. Least painful way to simplify your life.
Smart and a policy I will follow in the future.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:31 pm to Radiojones
quote:
I would change this to say "most people are morons" or a personal favorite of mine "the masses are asses".
This is accurate. My dad - staunch uber conservative - loves to send me and my brothers chain e-mails constantly. Most of them are bullshite. I used to send him the snopes link showing why it was bullshite, but I just stopped reading the e-mails instead.
I am a Libertarian and think Obama is the worst president we have ever had. But I found myself in the odd position of defending Obama to my dad in response to one of these chain e-mails. It showed Obama on a tarmac holding the book by Fakaria called "The Post American World" or somesuch. I already knew about the book and almost read it myself. To the initial writer of the e-mail, it meant that Obama was reading a book by a muslim (the name did look arab) that promoted destroying America, which was not at all the purpose of the book. I corrected my dad on this fact and explained to him what the book was actually about. I don't think I got a response, which meant he knew I was right.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:32 pm to LeonPhelps
Can we get a sticky?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:34 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:
I corrected my dad on this fact and explained to him what the book was actually about. I don't think I got a response, which meant he knew I was right.
lol...as soon as she started threatening me with a block I knew I had her.
And so did she.
I have to admit it was kind of glorious. I'm use to you guys kicking my arse around here...
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:36 pm to asurob1
quote:
it floored me to see just how little she knew or understood about what total war actually meant.
I don't have a problem with someone being ignorant on a subject. There are many subjects that I am completely ignorant of, hence why I don't post in every thread on here. However, when you don't know what the hell you are talking about you should shut the #@%& up and listen. Unfortunately social media has given the truly ignorant a platform to speak on all kinds of this that they know nothing about.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:41 pm to asurob1
quote:That is a stupid and obviously false statement.
There were no civilians in world war 2.
I don't know, man, I'm thinking that maybe this lady isn't as stupid as you think she is.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:42 pm to HonoraryCoonass
quote:
Who's going to say it?
OK I'll say it. WE TOLD YA SO.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:43 pm to Bard
quote:Yes, this. It's usually pretty obvious when a Wikipedia article is going off the reservation.
With some things, it's credible and with other things it's not. I like the check the sourced material from the references before making use of it in an argument to back my beliefs.
I think Wikipedia can't be beat as a secondary reference. People who shite on it don't realize how much worse the rest of the Internet is.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:46 pm to Iosh
quote:Agreed. Wikipedia is, generally speaking, a really good source for information. It's at its best when articles are well-written and supported with thorough references. If you doubt any of the information presented, you can just check the references and see if they are relevant and properly used.
Yes, this. It's usually pretty obvious when a Wikipedia article is going off the reservation.
I think Wikipedia can't be beat as a secondary reference. People who shite on it don't realize how much worse the rest of the Internet is.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:50 pm to asurob1
Jazzyjeff will be here shortly to call you a war criminal.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:54 pm to asurob1
Most people have no clue what WW2 really was.
It was something so awful that anybody who lived through it went above and beyond to make sure it never happened again in their lifetime. I don't think most people understand how destructive it was and just how plain evil people were in that time. It's almost in unbelievable. The A bomb was the best thing that could have happened... That entire debacle needed to be ended and the A bomb was the only way to do it without dragging the war on
It was something so awful that anybody who lived through it went above and beyond to make sure it never happened again in their lifetime. I don't think most people understand how destructive it was and just how plain evil people were in that time. It's almost in unbelievable. The A bomb was the best thing that could have happened... That entire debacle needed to be ended and the A bomb was the only way to do it without dragging the war on
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:54 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
There were no civilians in world war 2.
That is a stupid and obviously false statement.
I don't know, man, I'm thinking that maybe this lady isn't as stupid as you think she is.
Maybe you don't understand what total war actually is.
There are victims of war and there are combatants.
But there are no civilians.
People today freak out about combat footage showing corsairs strafing the hell out of fishing boats off the coast of Japan.
How could we (you know, the good guys) be party to killing of "civilians".
Those "civilians" were supporting the Japanese war effort with their fish.
Sure maybe they were feeding family members who just happened to work in munition factors, or digging trenches, or maybe their kid was about to head of to the naval academy.
Those fishermen were a legitimate target that were supporting an empire who was bent on the conquest of the all of asia.
Watching liberal weanies cry now about what we did then.
Hell that's entertainment I can't pay enough to see.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:54 pm to asurob1
quote:If you're trying to persuade someone, and they want to verify your claims with independent sources, it's very counterproductive to declare that you are the source and that you don't need to provide independent sources. This applies even to historical facts, because it's very easy to make up plausible-sounding statements that are completely false.
Again I pointed out how wrong that was and was attacked with my lack of sources. Who needs to source historical fact.
I am a subject matter expert on World War 2, specially the Pacific War. I have forgotten more about the topic then most people know.
I am the fricking source.
Why should she take your word? I wouldn't expect anyone to just take my word on something, no matter how knowledgeable I might be about the subject.
It should be easy to point someone toward a source about a historical fact. Why wouldn't you just tell her about one of the books you've read? At that point, it's her responsibility to either look up the fact, or take your word for it and continue the debate, or withdraw from the debate.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:55 pm to asurob1
quote:
does anyone actually consider wikipedia a serious source?
No. It is not recognized in academia. I teach a graduate level course and I remind my students - "Wikipedia is effectively just some anonymous person or persons' threaded essay (or textbook if voluminous enough) - if you knew who the author(s) was, you could cite it solely for that purpose. However, many wiki articles ARE (but many aren't) very well referenced. Those references are often primary sources - so if you can get what you want from the sources, it is akin to building off someone else's research."
I'm certain this practice is so common, it cannot even be considered plaigarism - because normally, you CAN'T cite it.
I wouldn't allow wholesale ripping of the text from wiki articles if I knew about it, though.
(ETA: And I didn't miss the irony of you placing your opinion over a wiki article that is very likely to at least have been referenced.)
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:56 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Agreed. Wikipedia is, generally speaking, a really good source for information. It's at its best when articles are well-written and supported with thorough references. If you doubt any of the information presented, you can just check the references and see if they are relevant and properly used.
Well that's the thing. My wife, the pinko journalist, would never use a wiki article as a primary source.
Watching this moron cite wiki article after wiki article as her sources...
...well that made my job easier.
Wiki on it's best day makes for a great secondary source...or a way to find actual sources.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 1:59 pm to deltaland
quote:
The A bomb was the best thing that could have happened... That entire debacle needed to be ended and the A bomb was the only way to do it without dragging the war on
but but but...think of the hospitals, the civilian cities, the babies we murdered!!!!
chickie was fricking ignorant and anyone who says the use of the atom bomb wasn't necessary is stupid.
The Japanese were not going to be starved out. We weren't bombing them out with conventional bombers. And the russian entry wasn't changing anything but giving the commies more territory. (She actually said they were surrounded by the ...lol...Russians.)
They were searching desperately for an "honorable" peace. Well you don't get one of those when you start a war, murder millions of people, and torture and starve (and in some cases eat) POWs all over the map.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 2:02 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
It should be easy to point someone toward a source about a historical fact. Why wouldn't you just tell her about one of the books you've read? At that point, it's her responsibility to either look up the fact, or take your word for it and continue the debate, or withdraw from the debate.
oh i did...i actually took a photo of my book shelf which has between 50 to 75 thick arse books of the Pacific War.
To me, and perhaps this is my debating style. Screaming for links in a debate, is akin to saying you can't counter what I'm saying and are deflecting.
I can source each and every fact if I need to, but by the time we reached that point in the debate. I couldn't be asked to care to. Pacific war knowledge to me is like baseball (or football) stats are to a lot of sports fans. It's shite I just know and have for years...
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 2:05 pm
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News