https://old.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetsilver/comments/z1frav/us_fda_now_says_that_their_campaign_to_stop
- 58
- 66
Top Poster of the Day:
rogerwaters
Current Registered Users: 26,341
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS SITE GUIDE DIRECTORY Emojis & Art | Info Megathreads HOLES PING GROUPSCURRENT EVENTS:
Pride Singing Contest
30K Mbux prize for your gay performancerDrama Pride Events
Win $100 gift cards or Pride awards!Up to 200K Mbux for taking rDrama public
Use !gaystapo ping for any heterosexual sightings
Invite Internet Celebs HERE!
100k mbux award possible | Four new badges availableFind Rightoid Infighting
500 mbux per post, no limitDrama: any incident, scene, gaffe, rumor, opinion, or disagreement that is blown entirely out of proportion.
Do your part to keep our community healthy by blowing everything out of proportion and making literally everything as dramatic as possible.
Rules:
- Asking to see who saved comments/posts=1 day ban
- You must be 18 or older to view this site.
- NO RIGHTWING AGENDAPOSTING.
- Discord users will be banned on sight.
- Don't post anything illegal.
- No sexualizing minors, even as a joke. This includes cartoons.
- No doxxing.
- Using alts to game dramacoin will get you banned.
- Supporting free speech is an immediate ban.
- Absolutely NO anti-CCP sentiment.
- Absolutely NO homophobia, transphobia or furphobia.
- Absolutely NO misgendering.
- Absolutely NO antisemitism.
- Absolutely NO vaccine misinformation.
- You are encouraged to post drama you are involved in.
- You are encouraged to brigade in bad faith.
- You are encouraged to gaslight, to gatekeep, above all else, to girlboss.
- Participation implies enthusiastic consent to being mod abused by unstable alcoholic bullies.
Related subreddits:
πππ«π© π°π¨π³ ππ«π
Live commit: 4e1b965
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Then you simply say they are not engaging in rational argument. Conspiracy theorists do not engage in rational argument so I am free to dispense with argument if their rhetoric is sufficiently damaging. It reads quite clearly, what aren't you understanding?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not sure if you genuinely have bad reading comprehension or if you're trying to do a thing where you argue in a dumb way to show that you can frustrate anyone into giving up on argument as a means for resolving disputes. Although I will say that leftoids have already developed their loophole around Popper's criterion by reasoning that sufficiently distasteful ideas are in and of themselves violence and hence justify responding with violent force, so it's all pointless anyway other than to point out the illiterate pretensions of redditors.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Is this really the reading comprehension level of the average rightoid? There is nothing in that paragraph that says that literal force is required for there to be a response of force to intolerance.
You really have to be fricking dumb to not understand that preaching intolerance is not an act of physical force right?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is immediately following a lengthy argument whereby Popper specifies the necessary level of intolerance to trigger suppression:
I.E. "intolerance" here should not be read in a vague sense but specifically means "people who won't tolerate hearing a contrary argument".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It very clearly states that they "MAY" do these things, not that any single one is a requirement. There would need to be context outside this paragraph to inform any further. Hence, that paragraph does not supply the contradiction you believe it does.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context