Asura.Kingnobody said: »
fonewear said: »
who the hell is Bernie Sanders
So some guy from Vermont is going to defeat the Hillary machine let me know when that happens !
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
A Vermont independent. If memory serves me correctly, he was the only independent in the Senate. Well, democrat in independent's clothing. So some guy from Vermont is going to defeat the Hillary machine let me know when that happens ! So he is an independent that most people don't know. He is off to a good start !
fonewear said: » So he is an independent that most people don't know. He is off to a good start ! If you've been living under a rock, maybe... Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » And it's a sad state of affairs when people use satire as facts. Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Oh, so biased satire then. And it's a sad state of affairs when people use satire as facts. At least when it started (I haven't watched it in a long time) The Daily Show tore apart both parties with frequency. Do you even understand what satire is? Satire can't exist without facts to base it upon... Edit: Beaten by Flav! Last I checked, opinions and viewpoints do not equal facts.
[+]
Well in P and R land opinions are facts. Facts are just things that get in the way of your opinion !
[+]
That's not what satire is...
Asura.Kingnobody said: » You mean when people use comedy to impose their opinions and viewpoints against another person or political party? Last I checked, opinions and viewpoints do not equal facts. So the asnwer to our question is "no". That's okay, satire is hard. It's what Jon Stewart uses to appear smart while actually not having a real viewpoint. His only viewpoint is I'm a comedian don't ask me !
We just mock people cause actually standing for something is difficult !
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: » That's not what satire is... Seraph.Ramyrez said: » So the asnwer to our question is "no". That's okay, satire is hard. Quote: sat·ire ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/ noun noun: satire the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Actually, I don't think either of you two know what satire means, until now that is. Maybe a little education will go a long way. Or will either of you two decide to alter the definition to throw "the usage of facts" into it, just to save face? It doesn't matter if satire is based on facts. The satire in Cracked is frequently based on facts/ideas that they can't even get straight to begin with, so the point is moot. It's not a site known for its historical accuracy.
[+]
If you're speaking about the Daily show in general, while they do use satire, it is not a tool "to impose their opinions and viewpoints" as it is just a tool to mock or criticize others opinions and viewpoints. Do they convey their viewpoints and opinions? Sure they do. That isn't the satirical part of the show.
You might be surprised at how much research or how knowledgable they actually are on the topics at hand. Would I recomend getting all your news from that source? No. Even the daily show says you should not do that. Do I applauf them for creating a form of media that gets people interested in and makes people aware of important issues and compels them to look for more answers themselves? Most certainly.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » It doesn't matter if satire is based on facts. The satire in Cracked is frequently based on facts that they can't even get straight to begin with, so the point is moot. It's not a site known for its historical accuracy.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » It doesn't matter if satire is based on facts. The satire in Cracked is frequently based on facts that they can't even get straight to begin with, so the point is moot. It's not a site known for its historical accuracy. You need a credible source like Huff Post. I use it for all educational references. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Or will either of you two decide to alter the definition to throw "the usage of facts" into it, just to save face? That you're purporting that you can't understand how facts play into that makes little sense and I suspect you're attempting to be hyper-literal and feign ignorance of the concept to scavenge a win here. Or maybe you just don't get it. It's hard to tell sometimes. You have some serious blinders. (Go ahead with your hypocrisy counter, I'm already expecting it.) Asura.Kingnobody said: » Actually, I don't think either of you two know what satire means, until now that is. Maybe a little education will go a long way. Or will either of you two decide to alter the definition to throw "the usage of facts" into it, just to save face? Maybe you should take up your own suggestion on getting a decent education? It's like everyone is in English class all over again. Today's lesson look up random words in the dictionary !
[+]
Or maybe we can stick to the point without discussing what the meaning of the word "satire" is? Seriously.
[+]
I paid 30,000 dollars and all I got was a vast vocabulary of words most Americans have to look up in the dictionary ! Thanks English degree.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Or maybe we can stick to the point without discussing what the meaning of the word "satire" is? Seriously. What's the point? People clinging to their feelings that gay marriage is bad because big man in the sky said so, so we should deny them the right to marry the partner of their choosing? Tell me again how denying people rights based on religious context is any better than the things we supposedly dislike ISIS and similar groups for? The difference between denying rights and murder is noted, but it's not different; it's just a matter of the degree to which you go to force your views. Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Or maybe we can stick to the point without discussing what the meaning of the word "satire" is? Seriously. People clinging to their feelings that gay marriage is bad because big man in the sky said so, so we should deny them the right to marry the partner of their choosing? Tell me again how denying people rights based on religious context is any better than the things we supposedly dislike ISIS and similar groups for? The difference between denying rights and murder is noted, but it's not different; it's just a matter of the degree to which you go to force your views. Is anybody here arguing against gay marriage? The only thing we've been doing is talking about your crappy source material and you guys are getting all defensive about it.
[+]
Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Or will either of you two decide to alter the definition to throw "the usage of facts" into it, just to save face? That you're purporting that you can't understand how facts play into that makes little sense and I suspect you're attempting to be hyper-literal and feign ignorance of the concept to scavenge a win here. Or maybe you just don't get it. It's hard to tell sometimes. You have some serious blinders. (Go ahead with your hypocrisy counter, I'm already expecting it.) Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Actually, I don't think either of you two know what satire means, until now that is. Maybe a little education will go a long way. Or will either of you two decide to alter the definition to throw "the usage of facts" into it, just to save face? Maybe you should take up your own suggestion on getting a decent education? Let me help: Asura.Kingnobody said: » And it's a sad state of affairs when people use satire as facts. Asura.Kingnobody said: » people use satire as facts. Asura.Kingnobody said: » satire as facts. Asura.Kingnobody said: » satire as facts.
[+]
You slashed somebody's tire with an axe? Speak up, sonny, you're not talking loud enough.
[+]
Back to the marriage bit...
As late as the 1600s marriage was considered profane (as in the opposite of sacred) and not allowed inside of church. Yes, so you said. I get what you're driving it. But the core concept is completely going over your head (and you're going to say the same of me). But as Raev said, arguing definitions ad nauseam is pointless too, so I'm going to let it go.
It's time for an agree to disagree and move on. Let's discuss something more fun*. Baltimore death sparks protests in New York, Boston, Philly Quote: NEW YORK (AP) — Hundreds of people rallied and marched in New York and Boston to protest the death of a Baltimore man who was critically injured in police custody as Philadelphia activists prepared for their own demonstration. At least 60 people were arrested in New York on Wednesday night after police on a loudspeaker warned them they would be taken into custody if they marched in the street. Protesters first rallied in Manhattan's Union Square, where they chanted "no justice, no peace" and "hands up, don't shoot," a reference to the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, last year. Hurray! Now we're getting protests everywhere again that would never turn into more rioting or looting, right!? Really will never understand (in the grand scheme, I literally understand on a micro level how shitty people can be) why people go along with the whole groupthink/hive mind/"let's all riot and cause destruction that doesn't actually hurt anyone who might be responsible, but instead a bunch of innocents" mindset. I mean, props for it being over an injustice (perceived or real) vs. a *** sporting event, but still...
[+]
Yeah, it's rough when you have this horrible connection between protests (totally okay) and riots (totally not okay). You can absolutely accomplish positive things without riots. Anyone remember that Gandhi fella?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Yeah, it's rough when you have this horrible connection between protests (totally okay) and riots (totally not okay). You can absolutely accomplish positive things without riots. Anyone remember that Gandhi fella? Seriously. You get a few bad seeds in a crowd and then the collective outrage kicks in and, "Whoops! I accidentally a burning cop car, lol what do I do!?" is vandalism a greater crime than 200 years of systematic oppression?
So, what will happen if they find out that Freddie Gray actually caused his own death, and not the police officers who these riots are against?
Will the next set of riots intensify, or will it not be as bad?
[+]
Siren.Mosin said: » is vandalism a greater crime than 200 years of systematic oppression? Wow, are we seriously going there? I'm sure I can find ancestors that were systematically oppressed, does that mean I can vandalize your house? If so, I'll be right over. Edit: Actually, I'm 1/8th Cherokee. That was easier than I thought. Let me grab my crowbar.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.