jakee

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    24,926

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by jakee

  1. jakee
    No. Zombie was saying that a person who was convicted multiple times for theft and fraud, and is the current leader of a violent domestic terror group could be trusted implicitly, but a person who once helped convict other criminals is a rat, a liar and cannot be trusted at all. I disagree with that idea. Not the way it was presented or the words used to describe it, the idea itself. The semantics started later after he got all pissy about black and white ideas right after having posted a black and white idea.
  2. jakee
    Why are you still so butthurt over that? I asked you to be honest about something once (and it wasn't even an attack by the way, I was fully expecting that you would be) and it pissed you off so much you followed around every thread I posted in for week making digs about it, and apparently you're still carrying the same grudge months later. For someone who so obviously prides himself on having a sense of humour you should probably stop being so damn uptight. And what came to my mind at that moment was exactly what you said one post earlier. Funny that. But what about you? If you think it's important, how often do you post opinions you have to defend? You like guns and you don't like Trump, beyond that I'd be hard pressed to think of anything obvious that you stand for despite your thousands of posts here.
  3. jakee
    Let's be fair though, you ran away from the Capitol attack thread after running out of ways to defend the outrageously racist thing you said then. Kinda means the video making fun of attacking non-racists for being racists really is a non-sequitur, doesn't it? And speaking of running away, are you going to address the sheer perfidy of your post claiming to show that lockdowns don't work?
  4. jakee
    You think? I wonder how many Peace Prize laureates you've ever heard of? The nomination process for a Nobel prize is astonishingly open. A huge number of people can nominate potential recipients. That said, what's your problem? BLM has helped bring about a truly extraordinary change in how race relations are viewed and discussed across most of the western world and beyond.
  5. jakee
    When the national Republican party thinks it's acceptable to play such a sick joke on the citizens they represent, you really do have to wonder what it is they actually stand for.
  6. jakee
    I can find fault with this. I do sometimes post topics, but because they'd usually be about UK politics no-one really cares. However, if you are being honest instead of just trying to find fault with how I post you'd admit that I do post and defend my political opinions on a regular basis.
  7. jakee
    Terriers are cute. I'll take it!
  8. jakee
    Anyone who thinks only in black and white? Do you honestly think it's even possible for such a person to exist, or have you just not bothered to think about it at all? Wow! Do you want a cookie?
  9. jakee
    No, you said 'Once a rat, always a rat'. You can play all the word games you want, but that is a black and white statement. I can accept that you have no clarified that you didn't mean it to be black and white, however you really should then rethink your black and white stance of having no time for anyone who you think has made a single black and white statement, don't you think? Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were so special. In that case, carry on.
  10. jakee
    So when someone is a criminal, we have to assume they could have changed, but when someone is a criminal who hekped bring other criminals to justice - well then he needs to prove to you that he's changed otherwise you'll never trust him ever? It seems odd that those are the order of your priorities. Right. So you can make a simple black and white statement and we all need to trust that you didn't actually mean it as a black and white statement, you actually meant something different and more nuanced. But if you think someone else has made a black and white statement, well fuck that guy! You have no time at all for those people, and that's your position in black and white. Right?
  11. jakee
    Of course you know what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure it's why you suddenly decided to abandon your own lockdown thread.
  12. jakee
    We had this conversation in April. You know what else happened in April? The article you're currently leaning on to support your lockdown stance was published, and claimed covid was fading away all on its own.
  13. jakee
    And that's as deep as your analysis goes, is it?
  14. jakee
    How many people were dying in the third quarter? How many in the 4th quarter? How many now? (And bonus question, how many in April when your source said the virus was fading away?) And by the way, be serious - Trump was not responsible for the development of a vaccine.
  15. jakee
    Do you think it's because he read an article from April which said the virus had peaked and was about to fade away?
  16. jakee
    And why is an article from April which said Covid was about to fade away completely a reliable source on whether lockdowns work?
  17. jakee
    I'll be honest - at this point I genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
  18. jakee
    ?? That’s just quibbling the semantics of the word fault. People can make mistakes they didn’t mean to make but it’s still their fault. If it makes you happier replace fault with responsibility or whatever.
  19. jakee
    So you’re saying once a rat, not always a rat? Interesting. That was quite literally your stated position. How much thinking did you do about it?
  20. jakee
    Everywhere is a fraudster’s office.
  21. jakee
    How do you commit fraud while being honest?
  22. jakee
    Speaking of cut and paste, I really would like to know why you're basing your opposition to lockdowns on a paper published in April by a guy whose interpretation of the data was that covid was about to fade away on its own in a matter of weeks.
  23. jakee
    The reason not to trust him is that he's a criminal. He was on trial for fraud when he cut a deal for information.
  24. jakee
    His current argument can't be true if his initial argument was true. He took a hard line stance, and clarified several times that it was precisely what he meant, that all responsibility for interpretation falls on the writer. Yet now he's saying that readers need to ask other readers what they think the writer may have meant in order to find out what the writer meant? The idea that these two arguments fit with each other is absurd. Personally I think both he and Joe were wrong. There is obviously scope for error from both reader and writer and in any situation it is entirely possible that either or both of them are responsible for any mistakes. Fault can only be determined on a case by case basis. But Bigun doesn't think that, he thinks it's always the writer's fault. There is no discussion around that, and indeed we are not having that discussion.
  25. jakee
    But we're not assuming. Bigun said the writer was responsible for the reader's interpretation. The scholar of the writings is not the writer.