ThreePointTakedown

Tell me where your slippery slope ends? If true, its a bad guy. A bad guy that got caught. Those are the best kind. It seems as though you are finding isolated incidents associated with a group of people you happen to dislike. You'll find them. That's not surprising. What is your point? How is this not a tactic that can be used to shut down, literally, everything? If it is, and it is, why should we take this or any of them seriously? Because they almost always represent a vanishingly small percentage of the group. Then ms is going to say, 'where is your post for every little bad thing that happens ever?' as if its a point for anything. It isn't. They are just mad they don't have the CS to know the difference. And shutting down a conversation that you're losing is better than admitting you don't have a coherent point.

Care to try again?

Was there 'no trauma' or was it just not related to the cause of death? Jack Reacher would have something to say to you about details. Watch out for the big guy!

I have always felt that the CS factor usually works against a productive conversation. People feel they are smart enough to have a grasp on just about every issue and declaring their opinion is usually the thing that holds them to it. No the facts. Just trying not to admit that they've been tricked in so many words. Its why fraud scams work so well. People are embarrassed to admit they were took. Delay in reporting allows for the scam to work again.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/kansas-provides-compelling-evidence-of-failure-of-supply-side-tax-cuts Waste could and should be curtailed.

You'll have to reread, they're still there. Trustworthy and honesty is roughly the same, not try to purposefully being deceptive in collecting or disseminating info. Again, you can reread the thread to find them, they're there. Believed because they point out discrepancies in the data collection method that has not been refuted. If the resource is honest and interested in being taken seriously they should work to prove that their info is true and honest despite the refutation. You're moving the goal posts. You and/or they have not done the same. Nor have you asked them for the same. When you do that or insist upon it, then and only then, will I take your request seriously. Other than that you are trying to muddy water so as to make it easier for yourself to deflect from the reality that you come by information in a faulty manner. Reliability goes back to honesty and trustworthy but over a longer time line. Reconcile conflicting information: great question. Its not easy. Firstly don't trust the thing that you want to be true right off the bat. Look at primary sources. Then secondary sources. Are they from transcripts of testimony or opinion pieces by bias media networks. Love this question. I can go on and on because it is incredibly nuanced and important and something we don't do or try to do nearly enough. Once again, great question. Skepticism leading to discoveries: all of science. No model is accurate, some are useful. We only get better models by not believing that the one we currently use is best. What makes it better? More and better science. Author: tricky, memory is malleable and unreliable. An author's depiction of something they wish to portray as accurate should always be viewed with skepticism. They are trying to sell you something. Needs corroboration from other sources. Philosophically something can be understood to be true but still needs to be put into practice to be sure. I try not to use the most bombastic or flashy articles or sources to make a point. I can be tricked. Its happened. Over zealous with my support of an issue or two. But I like to think that I do it for a good reason. To punch up not down. To support those that need it but would otherwise not get it. I'm sure I've been wrong. Sometimes I take it fine and sometimes I need a minute. My personal biases are that I like to think that people are naturally good but are also the heroes of their story. They feel they are doing what they feel is good and right. When those things do not agree is where I see issues. Its difficult to reconcile treating people a certain way as a benefit to humanity as a whole. Some disagree. That's when I ask them, why? So many people out there with so much info to be searched. I would be hard pressed to think of a topic that doesn't have some sort of study dedicated to it. I'm not familiar with particular sources. But when a source is called into question, it should be taken seriously until it is addressed or called out as hokum. Motivation. Given enough time and material its not difficult to understand the motivation of a particular author, editor, publisher, or orator. Figure out what it is and you'll be able to figure out the distinction in those terms(mis, dis, and legit info) Thanks for the questions.

As I've mentioned and continue to mention. You and your sources are not trustworthy. Type words all you want. Blah blah blah. You don't argue/discuss honestly. So I have no reason to believe you aren't the same way off line. If you do good things. Great. Keep doing them. Until you do them in my neighborhood I have no reason to trust your word.

Oh this is gonna be good. Can't wait to see the details of this one. Is MTG on the trail yet?

Tell me what was insinuated by three words that, from the begin, were true in every sense?

https://tinybuddha.com/blog/how-to-stop-reacting-in-anger-when-youre-triggered/ Break the cycle.

Where have they been questioned as not credible? Would love to see your detailed breakdown as your judgement is impeccable.

And you haven't put up. So shut up. By your own words.

What should we all take away from this?

Says the person that has recently used questionable sources and lashes out when questioned about them. Pity party, table for one.

That's sad.

How is someone suppose to do that? Sorry you don't answer questions that feel like attacks. Considering you haven't done it either and would rather not. There's the truth of it. You won't be led by anyone that doesn't already agree with you. Let alone to sympathy and empathy for your fellow humans. No member of a cult has ever thought that. I feel bad for you. Having to tell people what you you are is a clear indication that you don't believe it.

Do you ever search for the opposing arguments of your own ideas? Doesn't seem like it. These are easy to find and debunk. Your resources are crap. Your reasoning is crap. Your ideas are crap. I'm sorry. It must not feel good to be so bad at this.

Touché I will counter your BS(216 instances) with a fact checking of it, like I did before that you refuse to admit, that you probably won't read, I'll leave the reasoning to you. Here is the link if you want to click and cry: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-216-instances-of-factual "On Monday evening, prominent right-wing activist Michael Shellenberger, known for pushing anti-scientific views, released what he dubbed "the WPATH files." In this highly editorialized document, select decontextualized images of forum posts from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health were made public. The document, replete with 37,569 words of editorial commentary before even presenting the so-called leaks, leans heavily into opinion and pseudoscience, urging readers to view it as a "groundbreaking scandal." However, a closer inspection of the actual messages, achievable only after wading through the equivalent of a novella's worth of editorial content, reveals rather mundane and often almost dull exchanges between doctors, psychologists, and therapists. These professionals are seen asking about edge cases and seeking advice from colleagues on patient circumstances. Despite attempts to cast the messages in a negative light, the report significantly misses the mark. In a thorough fact-check of the document, I have uncovered 216 instances of factual inaccuracies, erroneous citations, misinterpretations of what is “leaked,” and purposeful omissions contradicting the authors central editorialized claims. " I know you won't change your mind because you believe this crap. you can't change your mind now. You're too sunk into the cost of believing false things.

And we're back to this again. We're going down a road that you lead us to but you don't want to keep going because it might take us in a direction that your mind won't allow you to accept. I've tried to guide you by the hand to more sympathy and empathy on this topic. But I sense they are not things you come by easily. I hope that changes.

So you don't have any points or solutions just gripes? People you don't like are coming here so that needs to stop. People here are suffering but you don't want to see them helped if it inconveniences you. Don't cut the defense budget because the world is after us. Don't help the world because we need to take care of ourselves first. Don't add money to Jimmy Carter's education department because of, pick your boogeyman of the day; book bans, Statanic clubs, evolution, rainbow flags, CRT, or any other stupid ass thing their scared of today that will turn out to be nothing, again. Don't tax corporations or rich people because they obviously earned it. Don't help the less fortunate because they need to just work harder. Your cognitive dissonance is astounding. And because you don't read articles in links that refute your talking points: Cog. Dis: he state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. This is you to a T! Again, must be exhausting doing the mental gymnastics to avoid absorbing new information.

Great. Glad we agree on that. We agree that we want to be able to spend the money to help people. Lets find it. Where to look? I have a few suggestion but you can go first.

I have a hard time believing that you are serious at this point. The conversation started off great. You had number, then I came back and said your numbers are probably not accurate. No refutation or stop and think time. Now what's their name is jumping in to not read the thing that I posted and getting emotional because I'm challenging their view on an issue. Never once calling names. Just asking follow up questions. And it devolves into the same name calling tripe that it usually does. Why can't you just log off and think about the info and come back? I don't get the urge to lash out and yell at the person asking you questions. I mean, I'm not surprised. Like I said, its old hat at this point. You all don't have any other club in the bag.

Here's the link that debunks your math. https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed

Also brutally hot. Seems like you're fine with people suffering as long as they don't bother you. Why is that?

Not being an expert in immigration law makes my questions stupid? Your statement would lead someone to believe you knew what it was or where to find it. Is it out of line to ask? If the person doesn't know who SL is, it would help if they knew the sport you were talking about. Seems your getting angry at being asked for the receipts you tried to make me think that you had. What is the statute? If you know the language where can I find it? There are a whole lotta laws out there. Any help would be appreciated.