• bauhaus@lemmy.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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?

    • meth_dragon [none/use name]
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        oh, so when you get caught in a lie, you just hurl insults rather than admit to it. hardly a surprise…

        • meth_dragon [none/use name]
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            • meth_dragon [none/use name]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                ·
                1 year ago

                you expressed confusion

                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.

                • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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

                  • MORTARS@lemmy.ml
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I honestly think this guy might be some kind of troll. every single exchange he has with people results in him reusing these points.

                  • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

              • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

    • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration?

        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.

        • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
            ·
            1 year ago

            What conclusion do these facts support?

            that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.

            Show

            • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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?

                • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You, in this post:

                  twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.

                  So what conclusion do the facts support if not that the us is to blame for opium production during the occupation?

                  • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    So what conclusion do the facts support

                    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.