Imperialism and illicit drugs commonly go together. However, with Taliban opium eradication efforts in full effect, heroin is in short supply, and experts fear that a new fentanyl crisis could be brewing in the US.
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate Mint Press Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the publication of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience anti-Israel propaganda, poor sourcing, failed fact checks, and false claims.
Mint Press News is an independent Minnesota-based news website launched in 2012 by Mnar Muhawesh. It covers political, economic, foreign affairs, and environmental issues. According to their about page, “We focus our coverage on issues relating to the effects of special interest groups, big business and lobbying efforts and how they shape policies at home and abroad, including American foreign policy. Through the lens of social justice and human rights, we report on how these dynamics drive our foreign affairs and impact the world, and examine the effects they have on our democracy and freedoms as defined by the constitution.”
Analysis / Bias
Mint Press presents news with a strong left-leaning bias in story selection. Headlines and articles use moderately loaded language like this: NFL Freezes Policy Barring Players From Kneeling During Anthem. This particular story is republished from the conspiracy website ZeroHedge. Typically, Mint Press sources their information, but sometimes it is from Mixed factual or conspiracy websites. In general, story selection moderately favors the left, such as this Trump Administration Opens Door for Corporate Attack on Vulnerable Wildlife.
also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline...
do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
notice how i didn't prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that's because i didn't use any. ditto this post.
are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party 'bias checker' (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
We all understand how exaggeration works. @meth_dragon@hexbear.net linked the article, clearly indicating it's not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @meth_dragon@hexbear.net was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made
careful you don’t sprain something with those mental gymnastics!
We all understand how exaggeration works
clearly you know how to lie badly in an attempt to cover another pile of lies, but not how to lie well enough to convince someone smart than a small woodland creature— or yourselves.
you know what would be impressive? if any of you could just admit you made a mistake and dropped this whole charade.
What more do you want than "I was exaggerating"? Once that was said, this whole BS could've just stopped. You then say "ok, now that we're clear that you were exaggerating, how different are these articles?" But we never got there, because you derailed.
Request an edit if you really think it's so misleading, I'm sure @meth_dragon@hexbear.net would've initially just edited if you were so concerned that this "lie" would mislead others. Now I doubt it, because you've proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion, but you had that chance.
Also they seem to have 7 likes on a lot of comments, or just above it. Get the feeling there's some real bot/alt account stuff going on because I cannot imagine anyone liking it lol, let alone a consistent number as you go down the chain.
since it was an obvious lie - not an "exaggeration" - not lying about it for hours and hours would be a nice place to start.
But we never got there
because I’m not stupid enough to believe such a feeble lie.
Request an edit if you really think it’s so misleading, I’m sure @meth_dragon@hexbear.net would’ve initially just edited if you were so concerned that this “lie” would mislead others
I that were true, they would have after I confronted them rather than doubling down, again and again, with one lie to cover another. for hours.
Now I doubt it, because you’ve proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion
refusing to accept such an obvious and feeble lie is not “acting in bad faith”. you coming here to try to gaslight me into believing that lie, however, IS:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
I have been offline for a while and just now dealing with these people. They jerk off over everything, it's insane. Like, I fucking know they have nothing going on in real life because you don't have saved pictures of logical fallacies to show off to girls at parties or your friends at work. Hell, even the debate club would find that tacky if you used it over text.
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it's not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.
Of course it’s not the exact same article.
so you even admit that they lied
The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.
America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.
are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?
I’m not here to draw conclusions, just to present the facts (and object to when my words are twisted, when logical fallacies are used to argue against the facts, etc.), which is all I have done.
Suggesting someone needs to twist themselves up in knots to blame the us for opium production during the occupation implies that the United States isn’t clearly responsible for opium production during the occupation.
Unless theres another reason someone would have to twist themselves up in knots to get there, of course.
That’s a conclusion. Now I’m not trying to get a gotcha or own or something here. I understand that sometimes when you get to talkin about something you might say things you don’t mean to. My question is how’d you get there?
Suggesting someone needs to twist themselves up in knots to blame the us for opium production during the occupation implies that the United States isn’t clearly responsible for opium production during the occupation.
had someone actually made such a suggestion, that would be interesting. when and where did that happen?
Unless theres another reason someone would have to twist themselves up in knots to get there, of course
I’m not here to speculate.
That’s a conclusion
ok,, goodbye!
I understand that sometimes when you get to talkin about something you might say things you don’t mean to.
I understand, and if you wish to apologize for twisting the things I said to try to win an argument, I’ll forgive you.
My question is how’d you get there?
probably the same way you did; using a web browser.
So, how’d you come to the conclusion that the us isn’t to blame for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan?
because there are zero facts to support it.
Show
you argument is fundamentally flawed. no matter how many ways you twist yourself up, twist my words, or twist anything else, you’re never going to successfully argue against the facts.
you lost this argument hours ago. you’re just torturing yourself at this point.
first, as I’ve said, I’ve presented facts. I’m no here to discuss your straw man r be drawn into any rhetorical “traps” you might try to get me to admit something you can twist into something you can claim as a ‘win”— and I know that’s all you’re after here.
I’m obviously not going to engage with you when I know you’re arguing in bad faith an from a flawed premise.
it’s clear that you’re after some sort of catharsis - something to prove your hours of trolling was worth it, and I’m going to tell you now: you won’t get it from me.
Lol believe me, the only thing I’ve gotten or expect to get from this interaction is a headache.
I’m not using any strawmen or rhetorical traps (what even is that?) or twisting your words. If you feel attacked just tap out, there’s nothing to win or lose and a conversation on the internet isn’t worth getting heated over.
What you said and I quoted a couple of times way earlier implies you don’t think the us was responsible for opium production during the occupation and I want to understand your viewpoint. Do you think the us was responsible for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan?
Lol believe me, the only thing I’ve gotten or expect to get from this interaction is a headache.
you have only yourself to thank for that. after all,. you made the decision to come and troll my comments, and you’re the one who refuses to stop. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m not using any strawmen or rhetorical traps (what even is that?) or twisting your words.
except for the many, many times I clearly show you were, you said “nah-uh!” and we keep going around in circles.
all because you refuse to admit you’re wrong and keep hatefully trolling me due to your deep-seated insecurities. because you just can’t walk away due to some hangup about what an internet stranger happens to think.
but go on and deny that, too, and I’ll just keep repeating the same thing again and agin until the end of time.
tired of losing yet? because I’m happy t keep telling you this forever.
You said there were zero facts to support blaming the us for production during the occupation, so does that mean that the production didn’t happen or it wasn’t the occupation governments fault?
There’s no wrong answer here. I’m not gonna send the stasi to break down your door for being a lib, I just want to understand how someone who clearly values logic and rhetoric came to that conclusion.
so does that mean that the production didn’t happen or it wasn’t the occupation governments fault?
have fun on that journey of discovery!
There’s no wrong answer here
except for those which had no evidence to support them.
I’m not gonna send the stasi to break down your door for being a lib
you keep calling me names because it makes you feel better for trolling and bullying me, but you don’t know me at all nor what I believe because ii have said anything other than providing and debating the established facts. I could be communist or fascist or something in between, but all I’ve argued is the facts. nothing personal.
I just want to understand how someone who clearly values logic and rhetoric came to that conclusion.
I’ve said it hundreds of time, and you’re going to ignore it this time too: THE FACTS as supported by THE EVIDENCE.
So you’re not going to explain how you came to the conclusion that the us occupation government in Afghanistan wasn’t responsible for opium production while it was in power and you’re also not gonna provide any source for the facts that led you to that conclusion?
So you’re not going to explain how you came to the conclusion that the us occupation government in Afghanistan wasn’t responsible for opium production while it was in power and you’re also not gonna provide any source for the facts that led you to that conclusion?
I never said that. why do you think lying, especially when there’s evidence of what I DID say, will win you any “points” or whatever you’re after here?
I drew no conclusions as there was no evidence to support such a conclusion.
you’re welcome to prove - with evidence - how you came to that conclusion. As of now, none has been provided to support that conclusion. Someone asserted that and provided some link, but the evidence did not back up their claim.
so, keep raging, but you’re wasting your time trying to twist my words into something I never said.
twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
The thing people are blaming the us for is increased opium production under the occupation of Afghanistan.
So are you suggesting that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts?
twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
so you admit that you lied about what I said, even quoting wha I actually did say to PROVE you lied, yet...
The thing people are blaming the us for is increased opium production under the occupation of Afghanistan.
you misrepresent a handful of commenters as “people’ making it seem like this is a commonly-held argument that rational people actually believe — without any evidence to back it up… or any evidence that it’s even true.
so, based on these lies and bad-faith twisting of the argument, why should I engage with this discussion further knowing full well you’ll just continue to lie and twist my words because that’s exactly what you’ve been doing this whole time?
So are you suggesting that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts?
see? you couldn’t even make it to the end of that comment before you did it again!
can you not control it? is the lying a compulsion for you? I mean… the evidence of what I said is right there yet you insist I said something I clearly didn’t. it’s… very strange.
You won’t tell me what I’ve lied about. You won’t clarify your position. You won’t confirm or deny what statements of fact you accept. You won’t accept the other posters in this thread as people (???).
You asked why you should engage in this discussion any further. I don’t believe you should. You seem to have nothing to say even when asked clear, direct questions intended to give you a platform to speak. There is no discussion here.
If, on the other hand, you do want to keep going (you do not have to. You can just not respond. No one will judge you.):
Based on your statement
twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts
Which was made in the context of other users blaming the United States for production of opium during the occupation of Afghanistan, I surmised you meant that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts.
Was I wrong in that? If so, what blame being placed on the us isn’t supported by the facts?
I’m not trolling. I haven’t insulted or accused you of anything and I’ve tried my level best to treat you with the kindness of Christ and patience of Job.
I’d like to know what you meant by
twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts
I took a look at the context, which was users blaming the us for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan, and surmised you meant that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts.
Was that a wrong assessment? If so, what blame being placed on the us isn’t supported by the facts?
I want to understand what you meant. Ive refined my question to be as straightforward and clear as possible over our entire conversation.
If you think you’re being trolled then just don’t respond. Look away. Do something else.
If you are willing to have a conversation based on the thread topic:
I’d like to know what you meant by
twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts
The context is users blaming the us for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan, and surmised you meant that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts.
Was that a wrong assessment? If so, what blame being placed on the us isn’t supported by the facts?
Hi guys, it's pissy dickle here. This is one of my lost alts. They seem to be misbehaving. This is sad because I taught all my alts not to use logical fallacies such as:
can you not control it? is the lying a compulsion for you? I mean… the evidence of what I said is right there yet you insist I said something I clearly didn’t. it’s… very strange.
Why do you need to insult soneone who has veen nothing but respectful in their interaction with you? You refuse to commit, you are not discussing anything, you are provocing and trying to put down your conversation partner.
It means they peddle far-left conspiracy theories like Palestinian children needing water and food to survive which is something that Israeli scientists have debunked
Others are arguing with facts, you aren't paying attention, you're showing clip art of the scarecrow's phallus. We're not in debate club, you're not a teacher, I don't respect you. The fact that you keep trying to turn your nose up doesn't make you look like a genius, it makes you look more like a fucking liberal. cause you are, that's what you. And you'll achieve jack shit because of it. have fun ing
borrowed form another comment: “nuh-uh!” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus
wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes
that said, if you can’t debate your way around “clip art” and the best you have is the argument of a 5-year-old, that’s just an admission that you have no valid argument at all. that explains the whining and childish insults.
wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes
holy shit, this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. also "I'm not arguing with you." "Wow, your arguments are shit." what a brilliant dialogue. like leonardo da vinki wrote it.
Holy shit is this a bit? Do people on here really still believe in a neutral or unbiased press? Shouldn't virtually every event from the Iraq war onward have already disillusioned you of that?
from MediaBiasFactCheck.com
Read more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com
time ran the exact same article, what is your point?
shame on Time?
also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline...
do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
oh, so when you get caught in a lie, you just hurl insults rather than admit to it. hardly a surprise…
notice how i didn't prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that's because i didn't use any. ditto this post.
are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?
woooow
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party 'bias checker' (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
this is just sad.
We all understand how exaggeration works. @meth_dragon@hexbear.net linked the article, clearly indicating it's not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @meth_dragon@hexbear.net was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made
I honestly think this guy might be some kind of troll. every single exchange he has with people results in him reusing these points.
careful you don’t sprain something with those mental gymnastics!
clearly you know how to lie badly in an attempt to cover another pile of lies, but not how to lie well enough to convince someone smart than a small woodland creature— or yourselves.
you know what would be impressive? if any of you could just admit you made a mistake and dropped this whole charade.
What more do you want than "I was exaggerating"? Once that was said, this whole BS could've just stopped. You then say "ok, now that we're clear that you were exaggerating, how different are these articles?" But we never got there, because you derailed.
Request an edit if you really think it's so misleading, I'm sure @meth_dragon@hexbear.net would've initially just edited if you were so concerned that this "lie" would mislead others. Now I doubt it, because you've proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion, but you had that chance.
should have just called him names to begin with, this was one of the most pathetic interactions i've had online in recent memory
although i guess it's possible he's like 11 and can't really come up with anything else
Also they seem to have 7 likes on a lot of comments, or just above it. Get the feeling there's some real bot/alt account stuff going on because I cannot imagine anyone liking it lol, let alone a consistent number as you go down the chain.
since it was an obvious lie - not an "exaggeration" - not lying about it for hours and hours would be a nice place to start.
because I’m not stupid enough to believe such a feeble lie.
I that were true, they would have after I confronted them rather than doubling down, again and again, with one lie to cover another. for hours.
refusing to accept such an obvious and feeble lie is not “acting in bad faith”. you coming here to try to gaslight me into believing that lie, however, IS:
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
"for hours" lol fuck off loser it's the fucking internet, where interactions take a while.
And "gaslight" and "abuse"? Jesus Christ kid, that's some shit. I'm not replying anymore, so goodbye, you are being ridiculous and pathetic.
way to prove my point with a swear- and insult-filled tantrum.
gee, ya promise? lmao
deleted by creator
how does one have such a punchable face over the internet oh my god
I have been offline for a while and just now dealing with these people. They jerk off over everything, it's insane. Like, I fucking know they have nothing going on in real life because you don't have saved pictures of logical fallacies to show off to girls at parties or your friends at work. Hell, even the debate club would find that tacky if you used it over text.
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it's not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.
so you even admit that they lied
so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.
America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.
What conclusion do these facts support?
that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.
you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.
here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.
are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?
You, in this post:
So what conclusion do the facts support if not that the us is to blame for opium production during the occupation?
I’m not here to draw conclusions, just to present the facts (and object to when my words are twisted, when logical fallacies are used to argue against the facts, etc.), which is all I have done.
Suggesting someone needs to twist themselves up in knots to blame the us for opium production during the occupation implies that the United States isn’t clearly responsible for opium production during the occupation.
Unless theres another reason someone would have to twist themselves up in knots to get there, of course.
That’s a conclusion. Now I’m not trying to get a gotcha or own or something here. I understand that sometimes when you get to talkin about something you might say things you don’t mean to. My question is how’d you get there?
had someone actually made such a suggestion, that would be interesting. when and where did that happen?
I’m not here to speculate.
ok,, goodbye!
I understand, and if you wish to apologize for twisting the things I said to try to win an argument, I’ll forgive you.
probably the same way you did; using a web browser.
Allow me to repeat myself:
You, in this post:
So, how’d you come to the conclusion that the us isn’t to blame for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan?
because there are zero facts to support it.
you argument is fundamentally flawed. no matter how many ways you twist yourself up, twist my words, or twist anything else, you’re never going to successfully argue against the facts.
you lost this argument hours ago. you’re just torturing yourself at this point.
Quick response!
Would you say that the United States is responsible for governing industrial and agricultural output during its occupation?
first, as I’ve said, I’ve presented facts. I’m no here to discuss your straw man r be drawn into any rhetorical “traps” you might try to get me to admit something you can twist into something you can claim as a ‘win”— and I know that’s all you’re after here.
I’m obviously not going to engage with you when I know you’re arguing in bad faith an from a flawed premise.
it’s clear that you’re after some sort of catharsis - something to prove your hours of trolling was worth it, and I’m going to tell you now: you won’t get it from me.
Lol believe me, the only thing I’ve gotten or expect to get from this interaction is a headache.
I’m not using any strawmen or rhetorical traps (what even is that?) or twisting your words. If you feel attacked just tap out, there’s nothing to win or lose and a conversation on the internet isn’t worth getting heated over.
What you said and I quoted a couple of times way earlier implies you don’t think the us was responsible for opium production during the occupation and I want to understand your viewpoint. Do you think the us was responsible for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan?
you have only yourself to thank for that. after all,. you made the decision to come and troll my comments, and you’re the one who refuses to stop. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
except for the many, many times I clearly show you were, you said “nah-uh!” and we keep going around in circles.
all because you refuse to admit you’re wrong and keep hatefully trolling me due to your deep-seated insecurities. because you just can’t walk away due to some hangup about what an internet stranger happens to think.
but go on and deny that, too, and I’ll just keep repeating the same thing again and agin until the end of time.
tired of losing yet? because I’m happy t keep telling you this forever.
You said there were zero facts to support blaming the us for production during the occupation, so does that mean that the production didn’t happen or it wasn’t the occupation governments fault?
There’s no wrong answer here. I’m not gonna send the stasi to break down your door for being a lib, I just want to understand how someone who clearly values logic and rhetoric came to that conclusion.
have fun on that journey of discovery!
except for those which had no evidence to support them.
you keep calling me names because it makes you feel better for trolling and bullying me, but you don’t know me at all nor what I believe because ii have said anything other than providing and debating the established facts. I could be communist or fascist or something in between, but all I’ve argued is the facts. nothing personal.
I’ve said it hundreds of time, and you’re going to ignore it this time too: THE FACTS as supported by THE EVIDENCE.
So you’re not going to explain how you came to the conclusion that the us occupation government in Afghanistan wasn’t responsible for opium production while it was in power and you’re also not gonna provide any source for the facts that led you to that conclusion?
I never said that. why do you think lying, especially when there’s evidence of what I DID say, will win you any “points” or whatever you’re after here?
I drew no conclusions as there was no evidence to support such a conclusion.
you’re welcome to prove - with evidence - how you came to that conclusion. As of now, none has been provided to support that conclusion. Someone asserted that and provided some link, but the evidence did not back up their claim.
so, keep raging, but you’re wasting your time trying to twist my words into something I never said.
Here I go repeating myself again:
You, in this post:
The thing people are blaming the us for is increased opium production under the occupation of Afghanistan.
So are you suggesting that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts?
so you admit that you lied about what I said, even quoting wha I actually did say to PROVE you lied, yet...
you misrepresent a handful of commenters as “people’ making it seem like this is a commonly-held argument that rational people actually believe — without any evidence to back it up… or any evidence that it’s even true.
so, based on these lies and bad-faith twisting of the argument, why should I engage with this discussion further knowing full well you’ll just continue to lie and twist my words because that’s exactly what you’ve been doing this whole time?
see? you couldn’t even make it to the end of that comment before you did it again!
can you not control it? is the lying a compulsion for you? I mean… the evidence of what I said is right there yet you insist I said something I clearly didn’t. it’s… very strange.
So let me summarize:
You won’t tell me what I’ve lied about. You won’t clarify your position. You won’t confirm or deny what statements of fact you accept. You won’t accept the other posters in this thread as people (???).
You asked why you should engage in this discussion any further. I don’t believe you should. You seem to have nothing to say even when asked clear, direct questions intended to give you a platform to speak. There is no discussion here.
If, on the other hand, you do want to keep going (you do not have to. You can just not respond. No one will judge you.):
Based on your statement
Which was made in the context of other users blaming the United States for production of opium during the occupation of Afghanistan, I surmised you meant that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts.
Was I wrong in that? If so, what blame being placed on the us isn’t supported by the facts?
more trolling, I see
I’m not trolling. I haven’t insulted or accused you of anything and I’ve tried my level best to treat you with the kindness of Christ and patience of Job.
I’d like to know what you meant by
I took a look at the context, which was users blaming the us for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan, and surmised you meant that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts.
Was that a wrong assessment? If so, what blame being placed on the us isn’t supported by the facts?
trolly troll...
I want to understand what you meant. Ive refined my question to be as straightforward and clear as possible over our entire conversation.
If you think you’re being trolled then just don’t respond. Look away. Do something else.
If you are willing to have a conversation based on the thread topic:
I’d like to know what you meant by
The context is users blaming the us for opium production during its occupation of Afghanistan, and surmised you meant that the claim that the United States is responsible for opium production during the occupation of Afghanistan isn’t supported by the facts.
Was that a wrong assessment? If so, what blame being placed on the us isn’t supported by the facts?
Hi guys, it's pissy dickle here. This is one of my lost alts. They seem to be misbehaving. This is sad because I taught all my alts not to use logical fallacies such as:
*removed externally hosted image*
what am I waking up to?
grow up
*removed externally hosted image*
lol
Why do you need to insult soneone who has veen nothing but respectful in their interaction with you? You refuse to commit, you are not discussing anything, you are provocing and trying to put down your conversation partner.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
this should help
Lol what is this even supposed to mean
It means they peddle far-left conspiracy theories like Palestinian children needing water and food to survive which is something that Israeli scientists have debunked
Ah, I see
I suspect it’s just a typo and should say:
anti what propaganda, I don't see a word there
Thank you whiskeypickle, that's really helpful!
huh?
Again; we know what you are doing, adroidBalloon.
I think you replied to the wrong comment
Sure you do lol
Removed by mod
I just reported this exact same phrase from Whiskey Pickle for ableism. Is that your alt? Anyway, don't be ableist.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Don't be an asshole. And maybe I should take my own advice, and not feed the troll.
says the troll
How are you not banned yet?
says the troll
I am going to disengage.
says the troll
I do think it was their alt.
fucking liberal
can’t argue based on facts, so you just hurl insults. typical
Others are arguing with facts, you aren't paying attention, you're showing clip art of the scarecrow's phallus. We're not in debate club, you're not a teacher, I don't respect you. The fact that you keep trying to turn your nose up doesn't make you look like a genius, it makes you look more like a fucking liberal. cause you are, that's what you. And you'll achieve jack shit because of it. have fun
ing
😠
borrowed form another comment: “nuh-uh!” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes
that said, if you can’t debate your way around “clip art” and the best you have is the argument of a 5-year-old, that’s just an admission that you have no valid argument at all. that explains the whining and childish insults.
rage on, sad kid.
holy shit, this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. also "I'm not arguing with you." "Wow, your arguments are shit." what a brilliant dialogue. like leonardo da vinki wrote it.
I think subtly the voros twins' best bit was calling Timon from the lion king "time-on"
I knew your standards were low, but wow
I have higher standards and I think you're more pathetic than funny
Is that better?
Removed by mod
I embrace the far left bias
if you don't, I wonder which bias you accept
We need a bot for this. Synopsis should be added to the tldr-bot or something.
deleted by creator
it's just a test of how much the position agrees with the people running the website haha
there's no such thing as "bias-free" propaganda, and propaganda isn't inherently subversive
why? read the article, and if you can't tell the bias that's on you.
ya know, I’ve looked into it. one of the biggest problems with bots is that they have to be hosted from somewhere. that’s my first hiccup.
I’d LOVE to make this a bot, but I don’t know where I’d host it from.
Learn to read. If you can't be assed to actually read the article you're commenting on then go back to le 100 wholesome keanu reddit.
Holy shit is this a bit? Do people on here really still believe in a neutral or unbiased press? Shouldn't virtually every event from the Iraq war onward have already disillusioned you of that?
Removed by mod
Appeal to Authority. Genetic Fallacy.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Damn, this website really gets your goat doesn't it?