ThreePointTakedown

Sorry that you can't admit your lack of 100% truth on every topic. Considering how upset you get when someone simply asks you to defend an idea more than you are use to.

So 25% of that could be attributed to someone else.

Might be a fine line between encouraging and pressuring social media to edit content. But misinformation is dangerous and people with great reach should be held to higher standards. Much like public figures having a higher bar to clear to sue for defamation.

What makes you feel better and faster, finding someone that already agrees with you or finding unbiased sources that may challenge your opinions? Sunken cost vs Dopamine hit

So, your point is that every issue can be massaged to fit your preconceived notion? There is no need for the pursuit of knowledge, evidence, research, or discussion of a topic. Just whatever you were taught as a kid, to believe, despite the flawed nature of the teachers. But you're gonna say, 'what about the flaws in science and the gathering of evidence, today?' I'll say, 'there are flaws, true. But what makes it better is people trying to make it better.' If all you want is the comforting lie that you were taught as a kid so you don't have think ill of a family member for not knowing in the first place. Fine. But that's on you. You've given up. There's too much accredited information out there. Its not hard to find. Is it difficult to read and comprehend? Sure. There in lies the quandary. How much energy to commit to something and what is the return? Sunken cost. If you can honestly say you've tried to find objective, unbias sources of information consistently then there is nothing else that can really be done. Do I feel this is the case? No.

And I have it on good authority that its RICO not RICCO. Would hate to look like a hypocrite and not correct a like minded member.

Again, she's right.

You're the hero of your own story. I am biased towards people with less power and influence. I don't feel as bad for those that have already made it. They should be considerate of how they got there and who helped them and give back. Not everything, of course, but maybe help the next person climb the ladder. If they made it by dishonest means, they should be held accountable. If there are no laws or mechanisms for accountability for each situation, they need to be put in place as they arise. How is that controversial ? Picking apart someone's choice of words or spelling just indicates that you are searching for a reason to disagree. Rather than a reason to agree. You're being ruled by your emotions and a spitefulness that is not constructive. Have you asked yourself why that is? What has gotten you to a point where you dislike someone and call them stupid because they have a powerful voice against your ideas? Might be worth a look.

You can massage it to fit your meaning all you want would expect nothing less. But you don't get arrested for RICO. You get arrested for a crime. The RICCO 'law' helps investigators and prosecutors to charge the same crime to multiple people. There is no sentencing matrix for RIICO. Show me a headline that reads, 'Rudolph and Yukon were sentenced 5-10 years for RICOO, and must report to the Island of Misfit Toys to begin their sentences.' Also, if you're going to rationalize it this way, and you are. Being so star spangled silly for your own party. The Emoluments Clause was a law broken by someone, A LOT, I'll let you guess who took millions from foreign governments. Money went right into their pocket by way of hotel and conference room rentals. Who owns hotels and was president recently?

Here comes the realization that someone you trust gave you bad info and now you have to reconcile THAT! Nah. Lash out at the person trying to help or at a representative that is correct and has the unfortunate position of disagreeing with you.

So, again, she's correct.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law (codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68) targeting organized criminal activity and racketeering. RICO enhances existing criminal punishments and creates new causes of action for acts done as a part of an organized criminal enterprise. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/racketeer_influenced_and_corrupt_organizations_act_(rico)#:~:text=The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt,of an organized criminal enterprise. The line under the blue, I feel, is the most important. Emphasis on 'existing'. Gotta have a crime before RICCO can apply.

Go back and watch Batman Begins.

She's correct.

He doesn't stick up for the little guy? Fight against intolerance? Are we watching different movies? Also, one of the things brought up in the movies is that his remedy for just about any situation is to punch. That's not always the best course of action. Only being able to see things as black or white can often be hinderance rather than a benefit and only having a hammer does not a good carpenter make. You should consider that too?

Right, sure, whatever you say. I totally believe you came away from that understanding the nuance. But your loaded questions aren't evidence of anything either. Just that you were convinced by some bad arguments and now you are trying to pawn it off onto others. Get a better method that isn't so easily debunked.

Whose valuations of the properties do they trust to cover the amount? The already agreed to fudged amount that no one should trust or an 'independent' appraisal that you won't trust anyway. Vae Victis Lots of things happened on the long road to now. Different choices could've been made to avoid it but seems like it was inevitable considering the temperament and unethical nature of the defendant.

Being a martyr for your cause is success in a way. Not the ideal way. They were. Some still are. Just so you know, in case you haven't seen the vast amount of evidence in this and other similar threads, when someone pushes against the group, the group defends itself. Sometimes unjustly. They try to make the hold out; either leave or assimilate. Using a bunch of different tactics. They think having someone going against, what they feel, is the best interest of the group is dangerous. In so doing, justify harsher and harsher treatment of the minority of that group. Here, you can't actually do physical harm to me but still I won't relent. So its all in words and veiled or more obvious insults. Trying to downplay my responses or opinions without trying to read or understand them. You feel its not worth your time to engage. 'A dumb person surrounds themselves with smart people. A smart person surrounds themselves with smart people that disagree with them.' (remember, I'm rubber and you're glue) You have someone that disagrees with you. What is the point of calling me names? Other than to put on display for the world how, truly, weak your arguments are. I've pointed out each fallacy used over the various threads/discussions and at no point has anyone tried to remedy them or make different points/ arguments. Weak sauce. Do better.

Of course you came away with that. You still don't know what a 'straw man' is despite utilizing the argument consistently? That tracks. Driving you crazy by using your own tactics to point out the hypocrisy in your point of view was fun. Glad you were here to participate. And now for something completely different.

To summarize the summary, your response is the point. You took my loaded question and tried to figure out the point I was trying to make by asking it. That's not the way to ask an honest question. If your goal is to get an honest answer. It was however actual things that happened that we are and have been paying the price for either actively or passively for years. We don't acknowledge or try to make amends. We get in our durangos, wearing our wranglers, point our guns at the border and threaten the victims of, more or less, our actions from decades ago. 'But no one today was alive when all that happened so what do we have to apologies for?' My answer is, you're an idiot for even thinking that in a lame attempt at comforting yourself.

Now you get the importance of offering tangible evidence. Well done. Pew Pew Pew!

That's hilarious. So you agree that one person might benefit from it. So it shouldn't be eliminated entirely. Glad we agree. Its cute that you think its funny. I'll bet you chuckled to yourself a bit when you thought it up. Smacks of early 90's kids calling each other the f word, the other one. May have been innocent when you're a kid and don't know better. You have no excuse or you might considering other conversations and comments you've made. Mildly transphobic. Glad you can be your best self on this forum. Say the things you really think. Glad you're weighing in. But medical professionals disagree with you. England is rolling it back for now. Glad they kept the door open for case-by-case basis. Which should be the norm. So glad every case may be allowed to continue with their preferred line of treatment. How is it you cannot see yourself on the wrong side of history? Every marginalized community in the history of this country that has had to fight for their legitimacy has won and everyone that fought against them, struggled with the weight of their unjustified opposition(and it always is unjustified). Some made it through the other side and some doubled down on their hate.

That I understand why you use dishonest tactics and that I can recognize them. Again, sorry that you may have been convince by someone using them. Its a bummer. But you're not stuck. You can find your way out. If you want to, that is.

There's not one person that could benefit from this kind of care?