Very possible i got this the wrong way around, or that I’m incorrect entirely.

Wasnt it so that it was easier for the woman to do up the man’s buttons for them?

Because, real men don’t button their own clothes.

Cauterisation with extremely hot metal works to seal a wound (and as far as upfront costs go, is cheaper).

Doesn’t mean modern medical care isn’t the preference.

smug prick.

I was going for sarcasm, but i can see the interpretational difference.

I suppose game recognises game.

“On this site, they are one and the same.” sounds like something a condescending, smug prick might say as an opener.

but by all means, tell me more about what everyone on this public forum thinks.

You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?

Point me in their direction, i shall have words…big ones…like wherewithal …or extrapolation…prestidigitation…etc.

Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn’t even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day…illogical plebeians.

Edit : more salt that I’d expect for zero actual counters

i’m of the opinion that if someone has done their best* ^[1] to consider the consequences of an approach and chooses to take that approach while accepting the potential outcomes, then that is an acceptable decision making process.

In some cases escalation might be a potential outcome and as long as the person understands that, then them choosing that option is their considered choice.

In the same way that freedom of speech* ^[2] isn’t freedom from consequences, freedom of choice isn’t freedom from other peoples choosing to act against you.

If you want to make what seems like a poor choice from my point of view, i might advise against it, but ultimately it’s up to you.

However, i’m also free to try and stop you if that’s what i choose. In this case i’m not looking to curtail your choices, but i am pitting my choice against yours.

Custom printed.

The front rack grills, keystone panels and thinkcentre mounts are from a website but all the other printed parts are custom.

i’m not utilising it nearly as much as i should which is why i haven’t gotten around to the failover cluster yet.

a bunch of ebay specials with more ebay parts scavenged over time + some 3d printing.

The centre tower has a miniitx mb and PSU behind those panels to run the NAS, and the drive bays are in the bottom.

The right is a failover cluster that isn’t finished yet.

If you reach 20 companies that aren’t ad-centric for-profit companies you can qualify for the false equivalency pro-league.

It’s up there with mental gymnastics in the bad-faith Olympics, a lofty achievement.

well. i’ll give you ad-guard , canonical is also making great strides towards ad-centric so that one too.

Or the avocado is bland? not all avocado are built equally.

I would hedge that the penis consists of more than just regular skin there is a fair amount of erectile tissue in there as well, though i can’t vouch for a scientific difference is the taste experience.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, I’m on the default but i’ll explore the other ones now, see if there is anything i prefer.

You’re making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.

I’ve clearly stated what i’m referring to and how i got there, if you think there is an unsupported statement then reference it directly and i will respond.

That being said, fuck, i think i’ve seen two posts next to each other and missed where it changed from them to you.

That’s entirely my bad and i apologise, my response was supposed to be for the other person.

“You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.”

Though it is occasionally possible to point out how their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny and get them to engage on it.

Only works with the ones not doing it on purpose, however.

key words there are discourse and discussion.

As is explained in a few responses to your paradox of tolerance reply (that you seem to have conveniently not replied to so far), the kind of discussion or conversation they are referencing requires both parties to be working in good faith.

from your own reference

as long as we can counter them by rational argument

If one party can’t or won’t provide logic or reasoning to their side of an exchange, that’s not a discussion because there is nothing to discuss with someone not willing to engage in good faith.

There are absolutely places that are ideological echo chambers, despite claiming otherwise, but banning someone for the inability (or unwillingness) to engage in good faith isn’t a removal based on ideology it’s a removal based on not adhering to the basic tenets of how discussions are supposed to work.

If it just so happens that most of that kind of banning happens to people with ideologies you subscribe to, perhaps it’s worth considering how you can help these people understand how to have an actual conversation.

That all being said, from what i’ve seen here I’d guess you’re on the purposeful bad faith side of things so I’m not expecting any reasonable consideration, but feel free to surprise me (or block me, i suppose).

You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff

I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn’t arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren’t related to the message you were replying to.

The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights

Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren’t going to agree on interpretation so let’s just agree to disagree on this one.

… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.

A somewhat valid point… in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.

You don’t seem to understand what satire is.

I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that’s my interpretation.

Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you’d go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.

Even more strange is that you’d argue against positions never taken, but we’ve already been over that.

Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying

All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.

I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.

That’s a more complicated discussion and i don’t disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn’t apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn’t take in the actual situation, see my original translation.

I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.

I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.

Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.

TL;DR;

Your reply doesn’t make sense because it seems you didn’t understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)

Ah, so you just picked a subject that was gun related but not actually related to the reply, to be angry about.

That could still be you missing the point accidentally i suppose.

OK, how about i lay out what was said, and you can see how your reply doesn’t relate to it at all.

This is the exact moment the 2nd amendment was meant for. Now behold ! Literally 0 of the 2nd amendment guys will do anything about it…

Translation:

The 2nd amendment people are loud about protecting their right to guns, a large part of which is the need for said guns to be available in the case of a corrupt government arising that would require armed resistance, a “well regulated militia” , so to speak.

And yet here we are with the government shooting civilians in the streets and the 2nd amendment people are nowhere to be seen.

So, let check you reply for relevance against the original statement:

2nd amendment isn’t just for the 2nd amendment guys. Attacking gun rights when the left will likely need them in the coming years is short sighted.

Nobody was attacking gun rights.

To attempt satire by saying that a right wing facist advocating for gun rights, is also expected to advocate for my rights is weakness in the face of aggression.

Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else’s rights.

The right doesn’t laugh at the satire, they laugh at you.

I’m not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.

I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone’s opinion of me, laughter included.

You undermine your own defense with others on the left.

As we’ve established above, this is also unrelated.

Also, “anybody who doesn’t agree with me is a lefty” is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.

OK so, benefit of the doubt.

You know that statement wasnt asking for protection right?

@mods The rest of this chain was offensive, but this comment consisting solely of a personal attack is not ?