LilB0kChoy
@LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
- Comment on Grandma is on her own 7 hours ago:
you’re as dumb as the person I did reply to originally
I called you dumb. You just called yourself an idiot.
- Comment on Grandma is on her own 1 day ago:
I don’t even know why I’m engaging with you. I just realized you’re not who I responded to originally.
If you post your anecdotal experience about a hunting cabin and then go on to argue against exemptions to a tax targeted at real estate hoarders you’re as dumb as the person I did reply to originally.
- Comment on Grandma is on her own 1 day ago:
I didn’t say progressive taxes are authoritarian. Your suggestion is. Applying a blanket tax without regard to impact or circumstance is authoritarian and the kind of thing a dictator would do.
It’s un-democratic.
I don’t especially think an exception clause is reasonable, I believe they will just be abused.
This is in effect no different than saying the tax shouldn’t be implemented because it might unfairly impact certain people, like z5 families sharing a hunting cabin.
If your goal is mental masturbation then it doesn’t matter but if you are talking real world, practical solutions yours doesn’t work.
- Comment on Grandma is on her own 1 day ago:
I thought it was a serious suggestion but your solution is impractical and authoritarian.
- Comment on we are creators 2 days ago:
I’m glad you’re starting to use a thesaurus. You’re about to experience a whole new world of language! Maybe now you won’t struggle with the tougher words.
- Comment on How much spacing while stopped at a red light? 3 days ago:
I’ll keep driving legally
Wrong again. It’s like it’s intentional.
- Comment on we are creators 3 days ago:
Buddy you picked one (one) sentence from my original comment, decided that was the only relevant bit of information, and then blabbered on about what it means to move the goalposts.
I’m not your buddy. As I said, I don’t care about your opinion, which the rest of your original comment I responded to was. I addressed the question you asked which has basis in fact. What good did the moon landing do for the average man? Lots of good.
The reason I pointed out you copy/pasting the definition is because you clearly wanted it to look like you came up with that yourself. You didn’t put it in quotes and you didn’t add a link (unlike your other comments where you either provided a source or put a statement in quotes).
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were the head of the MLA (that’s the Modern Language Association, I’ll let you click the link to work out why I referenced it). Let me cite something else for you:
You aren’t consistent, it makes you a bad writer.
Or maybe I start with casual language because this is a message board and then get real specific with my language when dealing with people like you. Either way, that’s your opinion and, as established, I don’t care about your opinion.
- Comment on How much spacing while stopped at a red light? 3 days ago:
Wrong.
“You are required to use your turn signal anytime you are changing direction in your vehicle,” he said.
- Comment on we are creators 3 days ago:
Are you not “moving the goalposts” by focusing solely on me making fun of your language and the definition of the phrase instead of the original discussion? You are dismissing my claims and demanding I talk about how smart you tried to make yourself sound.
Do you need the definition provided again? I’m responding to the insult you started your last reply with. I addressed the parts that I had something to say about. I don’t really care what your opinion on the moon landing is. Certainly not enough to argue with you about it; just your garbage question.
And the reason I pointed out your language is because it sounds so different than your first comment that it’s obvious that you took it from somewhere else
My first post which was a quote and two links? I’m sorry you struggle to use longer words but not everybody does.
(you literally copy/pasted Wikipedia’s definition of “moving the goalposts” you aren’t slick lol)
I did. Do you get mad when people provide a definition from a Dictionary too?
- Comment on what 3 days ago:
Why not switch to a different platform? The screenshot in the post looks like eBay and I’m pretty sure you can disable the offers option there.
- Comment on we are creators 3 days ago:
Bro it doesn’t make you sound smart to use words like “fallacy” and “tacitly” 💔
I’m sorry I have a vocabulary? You should let people know you struggle with big words.
I don’t need “moving the goalpost” defined to me.
You clearly do since you didn’t recognize when you did it.
- Comment on How much spacing while stopped at a red light? 3 days ago:
Trooper Steve was asked by a viewer named Lisa, “Are turn signals required in Florida? I see them not being used all the time – and never being enforced.”
Trooper Steve started by saying that the answer to first part is plain and simple.
“You are required to use your turn signal anytime you are changing direction in your vehicle,” he said. “Florida Statue 316.155 talks very specifically about when you are supposed to indicate a turn or change of lane.”
- Comment on we are creators 3 days ago:
I don’t see how I could’ve “moved the goalpost” any more than you are doing right now.
This right here is moving the goalpost:
I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.
Where in my comment that consisted of quoting your question and providing two links that answer that question did I address any of this?
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed (the links provided to address the specific quotation from you) and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded (“how the scientific achievements required going to the moon”).
Who’s to say the technology would’ve been made w/out the moon landing?
I assume you meant wouldn’t have been made without the moon landing? Either way, this is tacitly acknowledges the technological improvements made as a result which would be “good for the average man”.
See how this is a pointless argument we’re both making?
I’m not arguing with you. You asked the question and I provided links with answers to counter the allusion you were attempting to make that it didn’t do “the average man” any good.
As I already stated, what you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion. I have no interest in arguing that with you or anyone because it happened and that’s not going to change.
And btw the first question isn’t an argument or my main idea. It’s a question added for emphasis.
Yea, and it’s a poor question, which is why I addressed it specifically. The moon landing and the space race leading up to it led to numerous advances and improvements for everyone, including “the average man” (sexist language by the way).
Using that question for emphasis is disingenuous and attempts to minimize all of the advancement that occurred as a byproduct.
- Comment on Grandma is on her own 3 days ago:
Here’s a thought, maybe instead of blindly following the original commenters idea and repeatedly posting the same thing, refine the idea to account for people the “fringe” case mentioned?
Maybe, in addition to the multiple house ownership and residence status conditions add one that factors in income/earnings (including any capital gains) and if you exceed a threshold then additional home taxes apply?
Maybe scale the additional taxes based on income/earnings so everyone is taxed but done so appropriately for their situation?
Or maybe adopt a system like some other countries have where the first house you own isn’t taxed but additional homes are, then adjust other taxes in accordance? Under this system 5 families sharing a hunting cabin is not only easier for them but more economic and efficient than five families owning five separate cabins.
You’ll never please everybody but laws and regulations should take into account all those they effect and serve the greatest number reasonably possible.
- Comment on we are creators 3 days ago:
Both of those focus on political and cultural achievements, which in my opinion, do not help the average man. They were achievements in propaganda and leave out a large part of our population.
Might want to work on your reading comprehension.
Technology developed during the Apollo Mission has made everyday life easier – and safer.
That’s the first paragraph from a section on one of those links that’s about technological advances.
I also struggle to see how the scientific achievements required going to the moon (Besides learning about earth/moon origin). The other achievements like wireless tools and head seats did not require a moon landing.
Maybe not, but that wasn’t the question you posed, it’s where you moved the goalpost to. The US went to the moon, that happened already; but there were any number of achievements that resulted in life improvements for everyone while it happened.
What you seem to want to debate is whether it should have happened and your about 60 years late for that discussion.
- Comment on we are creators 3 days ago:
- Comment on How much spacing while stopped at a red light? 3 days ago:
Wow! You’re wrong again!
No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided
Even in your nonsense “direct course” argument “no person may turn a vehicle from a direct course” until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal.
That literally means you have to signal when turning from a direct course. The last part, “in the manner hereinafter provided” is inclusive. It means every one of those clauses applies.
You are a great example of why people should be retested regularly.
- Comment on You can only bring back one. Which do you choose? 3 days ago:
Yes please!🙏
- Comment on This is the dumbest idea ever 4 days ago:
Guess I won’t have to see any of your unsupported, emotional nonsense in my feed.
- Comment on This is the dumbest idea ever 4 days ago:
I know the answer now, it’s an arbitrary idea you pulled from nowhere.
I thought a short response was what you wanted but it seems you just don’t want to overtly state your premise is arbitrary.
I do have another question. Is your ego so fragile that you have to accuse others of the things you do when questioned?
You accused me of a strawman and then engaged in it yourself. You accused me of being aggressive for asking questions to understand what reasoning you used to arrive at your premise but then engaged in personal attacks. You repeatedly engaged in deflection. You might want to work on your mental maturity.
I’d fully support your idea if it was practical and data supported at all but it’s clearly not. Pointing that out seems to upset you.
The joke is on me for assuming you actually had sound reasoning based on information that would be new to me rather than just your feelings.
- Comment on This is the dumbest idea ever 4 days ago:
I’m not going to read your essay.
I’ll just assume it’s arbitrary and pulled out of your ass since you keep deflecting instead of answering questions.
- Comment on This is the dumbest idea ever 4 days ago:
Is your idea for a written and practical test every 10 years supported by any data or is it arbitrary?
- Comment on This is the dumbest idea ever 4 days ago:
Is your idea for a written and practical test every 10 years supported by any data or is it arbitrary?
Deflection is a defense mechanism characterized by redirecting a conversation away from a challenging topic or issue to something less emotionally charged. It can manifest in various ways, such as changing the subject, asking a question, making a joke, or even becoming defensive or aggressive.
- Comment on This is the dumbest idea ever 4 days ago:
I’m not reading
You could have stopped there. Why comment if you’re going to get so bent out of shape about simple questions that you resort to projection and deflection?
Perhaps you should be looking in a mirror when you throw around claims like engaging in a strawman and being aggressive.
- Comment on How much spacing while stopped at a red light? 4 days ago:
Wrong.
Minnesota (this is a state in the US) traffic code 169.19 Subd. 5 Signal to turn:
A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. A person whose vehicle is exiting a roundabout is exempt from this subdivision.
- Comment on How much spacing while stopped at a red light? 4 days ago:
Wrong.
Minnesota (this is a state in the US) traffic code 169.19 Subd. 5 Signal to turn:
A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. A person whose vehicle is exiting a roundabout is exempt from this subdivision.
- Comment on How much spacing while stopped at a red light? 4 days ago:
Wrong.
Minnesota (this is a state in the US) traffic code 169.19 Subd. 5 Signal to turn:
A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. A person whose vehicle is exiting a roundabout is exempt from this subdivision.
- Comment on How much spacing while stopped at a red light? 4 days ago:
Minnesota (this is a state in the US) traffic code 169.19 Subd. 5 Signal to turn:
A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning. A person whose vehicle is exiting a roundabout is exempt from this subdivision.
You’ve been wrong every time you’ve said you don’t need to signal.
- Comment on All downhill from there 4 days ago:
- Comment on All downhill from there 4 days ago:
(ง’̀-‘́)ง
