I think you might be too obsessed with me to even have serious talks with other people.
He's asking you about your reluctance to take in outside information, and you follow up with your opinions on people and how lazy you are.
I think you might be too obsessed with me to even have serious talks with other people.
He's asking you about your reluctance to take in outside information, and you follow up with your opinions on people and how lazy you are.
Well. He brought you up. I had something to say. And it answers his questions.
Not only did I specify my answer, I gave him a real world example.
He brought me up as a random example to illustrate an idea, then you just saw 'TC' in his post and lost your shit again.
Really dude, the obsession's pretty bad.
Yeah but you're more than a random example, and in this case your antics has been useful in explaining what I do when I know someone is wrong.
You cry obsession, but no. I delivered real a world example. Which is better than hearsay.
Anyway, I should let you get back to talking to Legga about the actual topic, rather than your obsession derailing yet another topic.
You were supposed to do that already.
He brought you up, then I had a REAL CASE EXAMPLE. Out of sight out of mind.
Surely your own actions make you feel stank which is why you're claiming I'm obsessed with you, but TC what I have to say is in regards to your lying and slandering and obsessive behaviors. Really, I had no reason to ignore the path of least resistance.
Bro stop obsessing, let Legga have a chance to reply, jeez.
What is there to be obsessed about when it comes to you ? I'm not inspired by you, and you don't have anything good to offer. Inspired for what ?
You don't think I find you attractive do you ? I think you look cool but it's not like I check you out or anything.
I assure you I keep your images in a place where I won't have to see them.
Interesting.
Let me see if I've fully understood your answer. Would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe credibility does matter in your assessment of the truth but that you would anyway go forward and research the topic even if you believed it would be a waste of time, and even if you were confident that the person is lying, untrustworthy, and almost certainly wrong, and credibility would almost never be a reason for you to simply not bother researching the topic? If my understanding is correct, I find that to be a strange epistemology, and I have some doubts about you actually following through with it, if someone actually made incredibly untrustworthy claims.
My second question, since you brought up LiYang, is how many of his claims have you researched? Do you have concrete evidence that you follow through with your epistemology?
My final question which relies on the answer to the first question being `yes`: If I now debated your stance on weed with the conditions that you outlined, would you agree to debate me? I.e., you have to follow the conditions that you outlined and research every claim I make, irrespective of my credibility in making those claims.
Okay but this is just getting stupid when you’re comparing Tony to Liyang. I can’t believe people don’t see weed as a miracle drug, when it obviously is. We have yet to see the vaccine cause significant harm to the planet but I will make my “Liyang was right about everything” thread as soon as the vaccine starts being seriously detrimental to humanity. If we all just smoked weed and ignored the vaccine we’d be in a better spot.
