Comment by ericmay
10 hours ago
> My dude - I did not say that.
You didn’t say what?
> When you put words in my mouth it's called "straw-manning".
What words did I put in your mouth?
> You shouldn't do that. It's considered bad form.
Not reading what others wrote is considered bad form too. So are comments like: “not even my AI can figure it out”.
Have to reply here - we've filled the queue below.
> It wasn’t faked though so your point is invalid.
You understand your statement is equivalent to arguing that the Statue of Liberty did actually disappear, right? You have no more evidence to back up this show than you have to back up Copperfield’s.
> If you have to use AI to parse my sentences you might have a problem.
I was good-faith trying to understand you. I fed it to software that examined it. Software tells me it does not parse. I invite you to go argue with that software, not me.
> You understand your statement is equivalent to arguing that the Statue of Liberty did actually disappear, right? You have no more evidence to back up this show than you have to back up Copperfield’s.
Ok then whatever claims you’ve made against Elon I can deny since it’s just Copperfield unless I’ve seen it myself lol.
> I was good-faith trying to understand you. I fed it to software that examined it. Software tells me it does not parse. I invite you to go argue with that software, not me.
No. Get a grip.
> You didn’t say what?
My god you’re being dense. You should consider the possibility you’re suffering from an intense case of cognitive dissonance.
You said:
> you’re now saying things that happened, didn’t happen.
I did not say that. You are ascribing certainty to me where I indicated none, and then mocking me for it.
What I did say: this whole show could have easily been faked. And given the man putting on the show, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least.
And it’s obviously true.
> Not reading what others wrote is considered bad form too. So are comments like: “not even my AI can figure it out”.
I did read what you wrote. Or rather I tried to. Can you tell me which word in there is meant to be the main verb? And regarding the AI, I’m just stating a fact: your sentence does not parse.
It wasn’t faked though so your point is invalid.
If you have to use AI to parse my sentences you might have a problem. The points are very elementary and shouldn’t require intelligence augmentation to understand.
You are playing semantic games by using the language of possibilities to infer probabilities. "Could have easily been faked" establishes possibility, not probability, and "raises the chances significantly" is an assertion without supporting evidence. These linguistic motte-and-bailey tricks are pure debate bro.
You also construct your own straw man with "Are you trying to argue that the CEO doesn't influence his company?" The insults ("dense", "cognitive dissonance") and silly demands for agreement ("Please tell me yes") are playing to an audience which has already left the chat.
Perhaps instead of trying to find the words to make yourself feel good when pressing 'reply', find words that have some hope of actually changing the other person's mind, by taking into account their own priors.
> Nah they can be faked.
Heh... you're not a very rational fellow, are you? That's ok - better to stop the facade. Be true to yourself, you'll be happier.
> Incorrect statement. Try your AI again and see if you get a different result.
You know what they say - it takes a big man to admit his mistakes. Guess what that means of one who can't?
> Heh... you're not a very rational fellow, are you? That's ok - better to stop the facade. Be true to yourself, you'll be happier.
Rationality is a myth. Humans are emotional creatures. But with that being said there isn’t anything less rational about believing court documents can be faked than to believe a YouTube video widely recorded and shared by official and legitimate sources is fake.
> You know what they say - it takes a big man to admit his mistakes. Guess what that means of one who can't?
I think it means you aren’t admitting to your stakes lol
> Sorry your references are not sufficient proof
You don’t trust court records? That’s odd. I think maybe the cognitive dissonance thing is getting worse.
> I don’t need to show how. I just say you’re wrong and then that is the truth. You can’t argue against it.
Probably also why your sentence was messed up.
> You don’t trust court records? That’s odd. I think maybe the cognitive dissonance thing is getting worse.
Nah they can be faked.
> Probably also why your sentence was messed up.
Incorrect statement. Try your AI again and see if you get a different result.
> Rationality is a myth. Humans are emotional creatures. But with that being said there isn’t anything less rational about believing court documents can be faked than to believe a YouTube video widely recorded and shared by official and legitimate sources is fake.
LOL. You're talking about a guy who lies all the time.
And he's killed how many people with his DOGE chainsaw?
What on earth causes someone to be a bootlicker for someone that horrible. It's mind blowing.
> Ok then whatever claims you’ve made against Elon I can deny since it’s just Copperfield unless I’ve seen it myself lol.
You misunderstand - I’m claiming the opposite - your eyes are not sufficient proof. Just because you saw a flying car does not mean there was a flying car. See also: David Copperfield.
And I can cite references for all my claims about Elon. Do you need to see them?
> No. Get a grip.
Your sentence doesn’t parse, full stop. If it does, please show how. Every time you dodge the question of the main verb, you provide more evidence against yourself.
> And I can cite references for all my claims about Elon. Do you need to see them?
> your eyes are not sufficient proof
Sorry your references are not sufficient proof
> Your sentence doesn’t parse, full stop. If it does, please show how. Every time you dodge the question of the main verb, you provide more evidence against yourself.
I don’t need to show how. I just say you’re wrong and then that is the truth. You can’t argue against it.
Check mate