I got something stupid like a 96 on the ASVAB and I just told the first air force guy I smoked a lot of weed and I never heard from any military again lmao

It was tempting when they offered me to go right into a program to become a satellite operator starting off making $125k/year immediately after boot camp… but I don’t regret not taking that offer. Who knows what would have actually materialized, anyways. Probably would have been 6 years deep dreaming of hopefully seeing 6 figures one day while I end up managing logistics or something.

Lmao you are actually incapable of good faith, probably because of how obviously angry you are hahaha

You are still trying to argue that your idealized theoretical version of communism is what needs to be accepted, but that a corrupted and condemned version of capitalism is what capitalism is inherently at its core. By your own standard, communism is equally abhorrent because of how it has been actually implemented in the past.

A company getting bailed out is not capitalism. It is socialism. A capitalist society implementing corporate socialism is a corruption of the core ideology of capitalism. I will agree that it is the end goal of corporatism, but corporatism is a corruption of capitalism.

And wow you really still don’t get the “no true scotsman” thing… I mean you probably do but once again, you are only putting bad faith forward. Since you clearly need it spelled out in detail, let me just copy this excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “No true Scotsman”:

The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:[7][3][4]

not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified assertion

offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample

using rhetoric to hide the modification

Oops, you accidentally did all those things. You never retracted your assertion, you modified the assertion with further qualifiers, and tried to downplay that further qualification. You actually pulled a “no true scotsman” on a statement about someone being a scotsman. It’s so on the nose that you MUST be a troll lmao

I think you may have read the wrong comment, because nothing you have said makes any sense in response to my comment. I’m not irritated in the slightest and nothing I have said even suggests that lmao

But please go ahead and project more

Capitalism is absolutely not functioning as intended and has 100% been corrupted… if capitalism worked as intended, then why have companies been “bailed out” from failing naturally under capitalism? Capitalism has failed just as much as everything else has failed, and has been corrupted by the people in charge just the same. Communism doesn’t work, Capitalism doesn’t work, nothing we have right now works.

And you literally still don’t understand the concept of “no true scotsman” lmao. It is also known as the “appeal to purity”. Let me be more clear:

If someone has Scottish ancestry, is born in Scotland, naturalises to Scotland, or is born and raised within largely Scottish culture, they are Scottish. It doesn’t matter where that person was born or where they live. To say that someone cannot be Scottish unless they fit your specific definition and criteria is the exact fallacy being referenced, and you actually just doubled down on that thinking that it somehow makes you not guilty of that fallacy? Wild.

Lmao what side are you on? Your entire rhetoric is equally critical of and applicable to communism. If communism is allowed to be viewed as an ideology that has been corrupted, then capitalism is exactly the same. You don’t get to cherry pick and say “you have to look at A with rose-colored glasses and you only get to accept the idealized version of it, but you must only look at the bad things that have come from B and don’t get to accept its ideals!”

Also you literally went full “no true scotsman” at the end, literally verbatim lmao. You actually just tried to say that one of the most well known fallacies is not a fallacy hahaha wtf is wrong with you

Why and how would the electronics in an airplane be melted? Airplanes are naturally a Faraday cage, and all the components are going to be EMF shielded anyways.

The only thing an airplane would need to worry about with a solar storm is the increase in radiation exposure, and even then it’s only relevant for the Flight crew who have limits on how much radiation they can be exposed to per OSHA.

Planes wouldn’t just fall out of the sky anyways lmao. Even if planes lost communications completely they are still operational flying machines. It would just be very difficult to coordinate planes landing at that point. I don’t know about the protocols, but I’m sure there exist failsafes to coordinate air traffic in the event of radio communication loss.

When you declare a genocide on a group of people don’t be surprised when they fight back.

So, to be clear here, you are condemning Israel here, correct? The ones who are actually perpetuating a genocide?

Yeah here is the comment https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/3861724

Yeah, it literally isn’t. An insult is not mutually exclusive to a good faith argument, but you wouldn’t know that because you clearly dont understand the concept. Go look up what bad faith argumentation is.

Yeah, because you clearly need it. You dont even know what bad faith is. Bad faith arguing is when you aren’t actually working towards the resolution of the argument, but instead just making frivolous contradictions that you yourself probably dont even believe in, just to try and keep the other side from making a point. Insulting you is not bad faith. So, yeah, go back to school and actually pay attention this time.

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.

Need that one more time? Here ya go

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.

Maybe if you read it ONE MORE TIME it will click for you

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.

Cognitive dissonance is the existence of nonfitting relations among cognition, not the feeling of discomfort arising from that. It is what you are suffering from right now. You have the evidence laid clearly in front of you, but you cherry pick one TINY tidbit and interpret it incorrectly so as to suit your needs. You KNOW you are wrong, and you are arguing in bad faith.

Oh, I see, you’re fucking brain dead. Now this whole conversation makes sense. You literally cannot admit you are clearly wrong. Please go touch grass, you are pathetic.

And I’m saying YOUR usage is the colloquial usage. Just look at the very source of the term, Leon Festinger’s “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” from 1957. here is a link

Chapter 1, page 3.

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right. By the term cognition, here and in the remainder of the book, I mean any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one’s behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction.

He makes it clear that cognitive dissonance is the status of holding incongruous beliefs, NOT the status of discomfort. He states that cognitive dissonance CAUSES discomfort, and that people tend to seek to resolve that discomfort, but cognitive dissonance is not the discomfort itself. It is “the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions”.

The argument against your claims? I’m informing you that cognitive dissonance refers to the simple state of holding incongruous beliefs. Read these, doofus:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive dissonance

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cognitive-dissonance

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001/acref-9780199976720-e-318

Go back to grade school and learn reading comprehension again, please. Just because I said that colloquialisms are descriptive, does not mean that I said that all dictionary definitions are prescriptive. Get your red herring straw man bullshit out of here. You clearly lost the argument if you are at this point.

Where did I say that? Keep your straw men to yourself.

No, that is literally a dictionary definition, not a colloquialism. A colloquialism would necessarily be informal and descriptive, not prescriptive.

You should go back to your quotes, its pretty obvious that we are discussing the idea of holding a belief while simultaneously categorizing that belief as impossible.

cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance /ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/ noun PSYCHOLOGY the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change

Nothing to do with a feeling of discomfort or reconciling the beliefs. Not sure where you got that idea from.