Yeah, but you don’t have more than two options for president of the united states. You have the one supporting unions and the weird racist loony hater one. Anyone suggesting something else might happen this year is lying to you.

BoTH SiDes

Removed by mod

Not voting for Kamala is helping Donald “best president for Israel in the history of the world” Trump win. Why do you pretend you want to stop genocide when you clearly support it.

Removed by mod

That took him a while.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to cause offence at all, I just assumed that in a poly relationships the boundaries were open for negotiation, and that like you say open communication would be key. I didn’t know he went behind her back, I know nothing about this story other than what I read on this thread.

I get that in a conventional relationship, leaving someone for their best friend or their sibling would be a particularly heinous betrayal, but didn’t assume that that would be the same for someone in a poly relationship. I didn’t mean to offend anyone by asking and I apologise for any and all offence caused.

If he’s poly and and she’s poly and everyone knew everything, is it still awful of him to have sex with her sister? Seems like it’s OK if it’s OK with everyone, even if other people find it gross?

I misread that as “Where are the leftist Pope fans at?” and thought Europe, but then I realised my mistake.

If only I were able to click some sort of link to be able to meet with hot Catholics in my area. Oh well.

I insulted you because you invited me to and I found it so hard to resist, but actually, I just said

OK, you’re a right winger who spends his time online defending racist liars who post inflammatory lies stirring up hatred and violence in my country and you won’t listen to reason and literally deny logic.

Which was all very factual. So no, you’re not claiming it isn’t true because I kept it so factual, I didn’t feel you needed any more insulting than the straight up facts about our conversation. But then I afterwards went for an insult for which the evidence wouldn’t stand up in court for here:

And I think I know why you’re spending the best part of a week online defending racist liars.

And here you go again with the invitation:

But yes go ahead and insult me, there’s not point in me denying it

(Because it’s true, of course), and because you find it so hard to follow really, really simple, millennia-old logic like “A is true. If A is true B is true. Hence B is true”, I’ll spell the conclusion out for you: you support racist liars online because you yourself are a racist liar.

You missed this bit:

you’re a right winger who spends his time online defending racist liars who post inflammatory lies stirring up hatred and violence in my country

And I think I know why you’re spending the best part of a week online defending racist liars.

Username checks out.

I hate this even more than the original one. At least the original one had a horizontal line of symmetry to calm me a bit.

But sure, just insult me instead

OK, you’re a right winger who spends his time online defending racist liars who post inflammatory lies stirring up hatred and violence in my country and you won’t listen to reason and literally deny logic.

Sigh. Iceblade, we’ve been over this, two days ago. You came up with excuses then and you’ll come up with excuses now. I attributed it initially to naivety, but I realise now it’s actually determination. It’s clear to me that you will strive to find any reason you can think of to defend this racist liar and her violence-suggesting tweet.

I see where you stand and I think I know why, and I can see I won’t ever convince you she did wrong. I give up.

You’re not prepared to change your mind, you’d rather contradict literally thousands of years of logical thinking. 2+2=3. Got it. I really really wasted my time talking to you.

I disagree with you. On almost every point. And your example includes no reference to violence. Don’t propose violence online, folks, you can go to jail. And I’m not sorry if you do.

No she wasn’t. She already unequivocally stated A.

My friend has a UK driver’s licence.

If she has a UK driver’s licence, she must be at least 17.

Now, can you honestly claim I’m sceptical about whether she has a driver’s licence or whether she’s over 16?

Please Google modus ponens before coming back again. She even used it in the classical form.

Their credibility and factual reporting metrics are off wry British newspapers in my experience. The bias seems not as far off on British papers if you take an American “centrist” point of view, but firstly, no, the bot isn’t up front about that perspective in its posts at all, and it’s not really up front about that perspective unless you count two or three clicks deep from one or other of the words in the footer. Secondly, the American Overton window is very far to the right on any international scale and the democratic party is pretty centrist or centre right by European standards. To be undecided between the batshit crazy loony alt right “alternative facts” authoritarian compulsive liar Trump and the Democrats isn’t a good basis for establishing the credibility of your bot or your website.

They criticise British newspapers for reporting the results of a survey about private renters’ opinions, on the basis that the survey should have compared their views with those in different housing situations and hence wasn’t factual, and then on their website they have news stories whose headlines baldly just say that Trump said a thing, and the thing, as usual, isn’t even close to true.

No, I don’t buy their credibility ratings, their factual reporting ratings and I have no reason to suppose that their bias ratings are correct for American sources partly because a bunch of people keep saying that it’s absurd that they claim that some source is left of centre, and most of the things it says about things I know about are incorrect and pretty much wholly in line with what a British Conservative would say.