Greta gives us advice regarding covid 19

[Rev. Rye]

---

... instead you just spent it reposting an excerpted CNN article about Greta Thunberg, and ridiculing her admonition that the people should listen to experts in major crises like that’s self-evidently wrong. 

Sorry but that is an incorrect assumption. 
It's not her that im ridiculing, it's the people that added her to this panel, the people that are taking a child and using her for political reasons, the people that glorify her

Okay, I think you have a point there, that Greta wasn't exactly relevant to the issue, since she's just an activist signal boosting the current medical consensus on COVID. That said, you were too focused on posting ROFL emojis to actually make that clear. Given that you added it to lines like:

• Teen activist Greta Thunberg is urging the world to listen to scientists
  
• Thunberg self-isolated anyway because, she said, it was "the right thing to do."
  
• "We're talking about washing our hands and staying home
  
• People are starting to realize that we are actually depending on science and that we need to listen to scientists and experts. And I really hope that stays," she said, adding that she hopes it will apply to other crises "such as the climate crisis and the environmental crisis."
  
  

And not pointing out the absurdity of CNN treating a climate change activists as an expert (an impression that even that CNN article you linked to points out is a strawman,)  it's hard to come away with a different impression. And no, adding the emoji to "Appearing on a CNN Town Hall" does not make it clear.

[brewer]

I watched, having Greta on was silly, saving her until the end was viewer manipulation.

What she said was not silly, but it was not integral to the conversation.

[Rev. Rye]

Didn't know sarcasm was prohibited in the title, I do now and changed it...

The issue isn't sarcasm being prohibited. It's sarcasm that's so poorly done that it's not even recognisable as such. If, say, we were talking about a known crackpot spreading bullshit theories about COVID (or a misinformed celebrity doing the same), and people in positions of power are latching onto it like, well, this:



Then it would be valid. Putting "medical expert" might help things. Meanwhile, you called it "medical expert gives alternative opinion on COVID." Thunberg is not a medical expert, a position that even Greta Thunberg AND the CNN article you linked to both acknowledge. Plus, her opinion isn't really all that alternative, since it, as I have stated, is just signal-boosting the experts who actually know what they're talking about, therefore, the thread title is irrelevant. If anything, here's an article that would be a proper use of such a sarcastic title.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well this ought to be fun 

Psychological evaluation...

It's interesting that someone would choose to bring up something from a while ago. It bares no relevance to the OP. And he didn't even address the OP
So what can this behaviour reveal about a persons inner thoughts and feelings...

Nothing is revealed .Your definition and my definition of a while ago are very different apparently. And it was relevant as it was theme with BrianS and Rye point you were denigrating Greta for not being a expert , And i was pointing out the hypocrisy of you not being an expert but spewing opinions that were very wrong . Now you have clarified your objection with more baseless twaddle .But you can't say it wasn't on topic. Nor do i have to directly respond to do so .

Well he never addresses the OP but avoids it instead. This is classic behaviour that is exhibited by someone who is heavily driven by ideology
That is why being entrenched in ideology is a bad idea. Instead of looking at something for what it is first they tend to look at how their ideology can be applied first

And a bunch of  biased opinions with no basis, And i don't need to address you directly  to be on topic 

Bringing up an old disagreement is a very telling sign. 

Old by your standards and it's only a sign i remember something you did or wrote from my perspective a brief  time ago 

It shows that he is emotionally scared by past encounters, unable to heal

Nope it shows i remember something you wrote that sounded incredibly hypocritical and from my perspective was a brief time ago. So again nice try .

Anger, hate, bitterness, resentment... harbouring such feelings is very damaging to a persons mental health and well being

Nope it shows i remember something you wrote that sounded incredibly hypocritical at the time and from my perspective was a brief time ago

As with ideology such feelings hinder a person's ability to function properly

Feelings you have asserted by some unknown means and measured by some unknown metric.

The OP gets only looked at to find something to become indignant about, nothing more

Frankly it really getting to point were nothing to respond to here accept your random opinions based on  ........???????

Given that i basically copy and pasted an article in the OP there is nothing to be belligerent about. 

Yes there is as explained above 

But that resentment burns strong so he brings up an old disagreement that has been festering away at him, eating him up inside

Old by your standards and it's only a sign i remember something you did or wrote from my perspective a brief  time ago . Seriously talk about beating on a single point , And one that doesn't even come close to establishing what you trying to accuse me of .

The fact is that i was quoting a scientists opinion. This reveals a few things as well.

Yup and you used him as an authority which makes you accountable for using it and what it says . Quote or no quote

One is that he has no shame in lying in order to release his hate and anger

Except i didn't lie. You choose to cite that quote as a valid opinion and as a valid authority  . Thus it becomes your opinion and you can be criticized for it .So i was not lying .

Another is that he listens to the experts that he agrees with but rejects the experts that disagree with him. Very selective and subjective

No i listen to expert consensus rather then fucking shills and quacks as i pointed out later in that very thread  . That's not selective that's reasonable.

We see this also with his slandering of right wing news. Instead of looking at both sides of an argument he digs himself into one side without even looking at the other

Because Right Wing news sources are fucking dishonest propaganda rags . There is no two sides between bullshit and not bullshit . I know that upsets you that i don't buy the centrists nonesense of all sides are equally valid because they are not .And i read more Right Wing bullshit to come to that conclusion then you will ever know .

His opinions on Pell is another prime example. Knew nothing whatsoever about the charges or the trial yet his crying out for a prison sentence

Massive distortion.And hilariously wrong  But i'm not treading over that corpse again.

Ok so I consulted a friend of mine who is a psychiatrist and we went through the data. 

Right your friend who is a psychiatrist .........I totally believe you ............Yup totally 

He was bewildered. The only explanation that he could offer was mental retardation 

Yes i'm sure he was. In you head were you invented him 

Do you often have vivid hallucinations of psychiatrists?    

So there u go folks. The conclusion to my psychological evaluation is that this person is mentally retarded 

No that would be the person who wrote this "evaluation " Because it's only explanation for it . Your imaginary friend needs to go back to imaginary university 

Thanks for that great idea Valk, it was fun

Yes it was . It's not everyday someone makes a total fool of themselves for my amusement  

[arewethereyet]

Agnostico not only posts in text speak he is now using click bait tactics.

Nothing he posts is worth the eye strain.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I believe none of this because I can't believe you have a friend.

Not entirely true; He has several full-body pillows with the images of Fox & Freind's personalities on them.

---

Also some sage advice for anyone who chooses the foible of responding to agnostico;

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

But it's fun to see what stupid things they will say . I got a whole post full of hilarity from that "evaluation"

---

Agnostico not only posts in text speak he is now using click bait tactics.

Nothing he posts is worth the eye strain.

I don't know . His nonesense can be amusing

---

True... Great idea...


Psychological evaluation...

It's interesting that someone would choose to bring up something from a while ago. It bares no relevance to the OP. And he didn't even address the OP
So what can this behaviour reveal about a persons inner thoughts and feelings...

Well he never addresses the OP but avoids it instead. This is classic behaviour that is exhibited by someone who is heavily driven by ideology
That is why being entrenched in ideology is a bad idea. Instead of looking at something for what it is first they tend to look at how their ideology can be applied first

Bringing up an old disagreement is a very telling sign. It shows that he is emotionally scared by past encounters, unable to heal
Anger, hate, bitterness, resentment... harbouring such feelings is very damaging to a persons mental health and well being
As with ideology such feelings hinder a persons ability to function properly. The OP gets only looked at to find something to become indignant about, nothing more

Given that i basically copy and pasted an article in the OP there is nothing to be belligerent about. 
But that resentment burns strong so he brings up an old disagreement that has been festering away at him, eating him up inside

The fact is that i was quoting a scientists opinion. This reveals a few things as well... 
One is that he has no shame in lying in order to release his hate and anger
Another is that he listens to the experts that he agrees with but rejects the experts that disagree with him. Very selective and subjective
We see this also with his slandering of right wing news. Instead of looking at both sides of an argument he digs himself into one side without even looking at the other
His opinions on Pell is another prime example. Knew nothing whatsoever about the charges or the trial yet his crying out for a prison sentence

Ok so I consulted a friend of mine who is a psychiatrist and we went through the data. 
He was bewildered. The only explanation that he could offer was mental retardation 


So there u go folks. The conclusion to my psychological evaluation is that this person is mentally retarded 


Thanks for that great idea Valk, it was fun

I believe none of this because I can't believe you have a friend.

Yeah it's sad he has to make them up in his head 

---

All hat said i'm done with this clickbait thread

[brewer]

Agnostico not only posts in text speak he is now using click bait tactics.

Nothing he posts is worth the eye strain.

Don't under estimate the benefits of a chew toy.

And weep for his children, I'm sure jesus is.

[arewethereyet]

Agnostico not only posts in text speak he is now using click bait tactics.

Nothing he posts is worth the eye strain.

Don't under estimate the benefits of a chew toy.

And weep for his children, I'm sure jesus is.

He isn't tasty enough to be a good chew toy.  

Yes, I feel terrible not only for his children but the fact that he reproduced in the first place.

[Agnostico]

Okay, I think you have a point there, that Greta wasn't exactly relevant to the issue, since she's just an activist signal boosting the current medical consensus on COVID. That said, you were too focused on posting ROFL emojis to actually make that clear. Given that you added it to lines like:

• Teen activist Greta Thunberg is urging the world to listen to scientists
  
• Thunberg self-isolated anyway because, she said, it was "the right thing to do."
  
• "We're talking about washing our hands and staying home
  
• People are starting to realize that we are actually depending on science and that we need to listen to scientists and experts. And I really hope that stays," she said, adding that she hopes it will apply to other crises "such as the climate crisis and the environmental crisis."
  
  

And not pointing out the absurdity of CNN treating a climate change activists as an expert (an impression that even that CNN article you linked to points out is a strawman,)  it's hard to come away with a different impression. And no, adding the emoji to "Appearing on a CNN Town Hall" does not make it clear.

The issue isn't sarcasm being prohibited. It's sarcasm that's so poorly done that it's not even recognisable as such. If, say, we were talking about a known crackpot spreading bullshit theories about COVID (or a misinformed celebrity doing the same), and people in positions of power are latching onto it like, well, this:
Then it would be valid. Putting "medical expert" might help things. Meanwhile, you called it "medical expert gives alternative opinion on COVID." Thunberg is not a medical expert, a position that even Greta Thunberg AND the CNN article you linked to both acknowledge. Plus, her opinion isn't really all that alternative, since it, as I have stated, is just signal-boosting the experts who actually know what they're talking about, therefore, the thread title is irrelevant. If anything, here's an article that would be a proper use of such a sarcastic title.

Fair enough... Point taken

---

Nothing is revealed .Your definition and my definition of a while ago are very different apparently. And it was relevant as it was theme with BrianS and Rye point you were denigrating Greta for not being a expert , And i was pointing out the hypocrisy of you not being an expert but spewing opinions that were very wrong . Now you have clarified your objection with more baseless twaddle .But you can't say it wasn't on topic. Nor do i have to directly respond to do so

Wrong

And a bunch of  biased opinions with no basis, And i don't need to address you directly  to be on topic.
Old by your standards and it's only a sign i remember something you did or wrote from my perspective a brief  time ago 

No

Nope it shows i remember something you wrote that sounded incredibly hypocritical and from my perspective was a brief time ago. So again nice try .
Nope it shows i remember something you wrote that sounded incredibly hypocritical at the time and from my perspective was a brief time ago

Delusion

Feelings you have asserted by some unknown means and measured by some unknown metric.
Frankly it really getting to point were nothing to respond to here accept your random opinions based on  ........???????
Yes there is as explained above 

False

Old by your standards and it's only a sign i remember something you did or wrote from my perspective a brief  time ago . Seriously talk about beating on a single point , And one that doesn't even come close to establishing what you trying to accuse me of

Negative

Yup and you used him as an authority which makes you accountable for using it and what it says . Quote or no quote
Except i didn't lie. You choose to cite that quote as a valid opinion and as a valid authority  . Thus it becomes your opinion and you can be criticized for it .So i was not lying .
No i listen to expert consensus rather then fucking shills and quacks as i pointed out later in that very thread  . That's not selective that's reasonable.

Fantasy

Because Right Wing news sources are fucking dishonest propaganda rags . There is no two sides between bullshit and not bullshit . I know that upsets you that i don't buy the centrists nonesense of all sides are equally valid because they are not .And i read more Right Wing bullshit to come to that conclusion then you will ever know

Incorrect

Massive distortion.And hilariously wrong  But i'm not treading over that corpse again. Right your friend who is a psychiatrist .........I totally believe you ............Yup totally
Yes i'm sure he was. In you head were you invented him 
Do you often have vivid hallucinations of psychiatrists?

Mistaken

No that would be the person who wrote this "evaluation " Because it's only explanation for it . Your imaginary friend needs to go back to imaginary university
Yes it was . It's not everyday someone makes a total fool of themselves for my amusement

Imagination

[The Architect Of Fate]

The chew toy continues to squeak