AlexL
-
Posts
758 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Posts posted by AlexL
-
-
On 1/15/2024 at 3:29 AM, Grames said:
Someday, in a month or so, I'll make a thread about religion and title it "Critical Semite Theory". Then we'll find out some things.
After 4 months I am still waiting...
-
3 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
it's too much of a pain to educate you for free and I'm not in a charitable mood
😁
Don't be insolent: it is not about "educating" me, but about justifying your claims. This is your moral obligation in a rational debate, especially on this forum.
-
6 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:
Israel is an ethno-supremacist genocidal apartheid regime formed by Zionist terrorist groups in the '40s. To call it "mostly free" is a blatant falsehood... Israel is complete and utter garbage by any rational metric, barely a step above a totalitarian state.
🤣🤣🤣
I suppose you can justify each of your claims with - sourced - facts; otherwise, you wouldn't be expressing them on this forum, would you?
Then please do.
-
17 minutes ago, EC said:
-
13 minutes ago, EC said:
Boydstun ... randomly started smearing me
Boydstun is not smearing you. The problem is in your head.
Urgently go out and seek psychiatric help.
-
14 hours ago, EC said:On 4/4/2024 at 1:10 AM, AlexL said:
There is no reason for them ALL to wish you harm. Follow their advice. Especially if all of them have the same advice.
Why does nobody care about a massive terrorist threat to the United States and against my own life?
Follow your mother's advice. Use your intelligence: you have nothing to lose. She certainly wishes you the best. She is not participating in the conspiracy. Neither am I or @Boydstun
-
8 minutes ago, EC said:18 hours ago, AlexL said:
... all of them have the same advice.
There is only essentially one.
Which is...?
-
6 hours ago, EC said:
extremely horrible "advice"
What is it, that advice?
-
9 minutes ago, EC said:57 minutes ago, AlexL said:
You did not explain why your friends and family won't help you. Or you simply don't want to follow their advice?
... there "advice " is complete nonsense
There is no reason for them ALL to wish you harm. Follow their advice. Especially if all of them have the same advice.
-
You did not explain why your friends and family won't help you. Or you simply don't want to follow their advice?
-
13 minutes ago, EC said:3 hours ago, AlexL said:
I thought I was clear: I did not recommend that you contact the police to solve the problem, but to direct you the the appropriate competent authorities/organisms.
I've contacted all those people myself, and nobody will respond.
My point was precisely for you to let the police determine which is the appropriate organism you should contact for help, and not for you to decide this.
Quotemy friends and family ... won't help protect me
How do they explain this refusal?
-
44 minutes ago, EC said:
There is no police force that has jurisdiction over countless cities, counties, and multiple states.
I thought I was clear: I did not recommend that you contact the police to solve the problem, but to direct you the the appropriate competent authorities/organisms.
-
8 minutes ago, EC said:20 hours ago, AlexL said:
Call the police. They will direct you to the appropriate help facility
The "help facility" needed is the protection of the federal government.
Then call them, see to what help facility they direct you, and keep me posted. TIA
-
18 minutes ago, EC said:
Please I am being slowly murdered [...]
Call the police. They will direct you to the appropriate help facility
-
46 minutes ago, tadmjones said:
Allegedly ? An objective reading would see that comment as an unsolicited 'off topic' remark. lol face
Would see? Certainly not, maybe only suspect...
And nothing, of course, about the fact that it was you who unsolicitedly brought the 'off topic' subject😁 of a poll, a subject that you called "arbitrary claptrap" when I followed up.
Not to mention other evasions...
-
8 hours ago, tadmjones said:8 hours ago, AlexL said:
I wasn't implying that you were implying this.
Besides, there was a lot more in my comment...
The more was arbitrary claptrap as there will be no election , as ordered by Z.
1. Missing are your apologies for putting words in my mouth - about what I was allegedly implying.
2. My "arbitrary claptrap" was a comment to your claims about poll results in case of - purely hypothetical - elections.
3. It was not Zelensky who ordered "no-elections". But you have no means of knowing it, because facts ("intricacies") are not your thing.
QuoteUkrainian constitutional law is a little fuzzy for me
This explains that.
QuoteI view the situation as more of a Slavic civil war spurned on by those bent on weakening Russia.
This does not make it so. Even Putin repeating it incessantly doesn't make it so.
-
46 minutes ago, tadmjones said:
I wasn’t implying Z orchestrated the legislation he authorized. Quizzical face
I wasn't implying that you were implying this.
Besides, there was a lot more in my comment...
-
3 hours ago, tadmjones said:
The numbers on wiki are from SOCIS
Thank you for the Wiki link.
My numbers are from a popularity/trust poll by the KIIS Institute "conducted during the period of Zaluzhnyi’s dismissal saga: from Feb. 5 to 10". Quote:
"for the period of Feb. 5-10, 64% trusted Mr. Zelenskyy, but at the end of this period, the figure was 60%" [these were the numbers of which I said they are more than twice as big as yours (23.7%)]
OTOH, the poll you are quoting, by SOCIS, conducted between February 22 to March 1, is a quite different one - it is a much broader one, including for (simulated) presidential elections. Your number - 23.7% - measures the distribution of votes for the first round of presidential elections with 10+ candidates.
6 hours ago, tadmjones said:So for now polling really isn't a 'thing' , yeah ?
No, there is no way to hold any kind of elections during war/martial law. For details see Martial law in Ukraine. Besides, the respective legislation was adopted long before Zelensky became president.😁
The SOCIS poll shows that about 66% are against holding presidential elections during this war.
According to the KIIS poll, "only 15% of respondents believe a presidential election should go forward".
-
2 hours ago, tadmjones said:
What follows is Zelenskyy is currently president for life...
This does not follow.
2 hours ago, tadmjones said:... or for as long as martial law is not rescinded.
Yes, this does follow.
2 hours ago, tadmjones said:A wikipedia entry shows a current poll with Zelenskyy at 23.7%
Can you please post the link? And verify the Wiki's references for this number? I found recent poll numbers which are more than double of yours.
I found your number - 23.7% - in these somewhat peculiar publications : Sputnik Afrique, TASS, Iran Front Page, RT International.
2 hours ago, tadmjones said:I inferred from Stephen's post [...] Trump [...] Biden [...]
Off topic.
-
12 minutes ago, tadmjones said:41 minutes ago, AlexL said:
Yes, how is he and what follows from it?
A wikipedia entry shows a current poll with ...
I am still waiting for a response to my second question - "what does follow from the poll?"
-
2 hours ago, tadmjones said:
How is Zelenskkyyii polling in this cycle ?
Yes, how is he and what follows from it?
-
10 minutes ago, EC said:
Not really, because it is the truth.
I hope it is.
-
20 hours ago, EC said:
... Sounds like bs, I know
I hope it only sounds like BS, but I am not so sure, and this is very troubling for this OO forum...
-
15 minutes ago, necrovore said:1 hour ago, AlexL said:
You are free to create such a forum, but you cannot expect that a given forum owner, for example of this one, will tolerate on his premises the broadcasting of views he abhors. [...]
I don't know if I want to try to run an open forum, because [...]
😁My remark above was not an invitation for you to open a forum.😁 Rather, it was to make a point of principle.
Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition
in Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
Posted · Edited by AlexL
You mean the 2022 Amnesty International report?
Yes, you are correct, I did not address this and I regret it. I focused on your denial of the principle/rule that, in a rational debate one has the obligation to justify one's claims, if asked. I looked back on your older comments in this thread and I found out that now is not the first time that you deny the legitimacy of this rule.
OK, now about your argumentation with this report.
I asked you to provide facts justifying your claims/conclusions. But instead of facts, you pointed me to a source claiming those same conclusions.
Yes, I guess that that 280 pages report does list some facts in support of its conclusion, but the problem is : if I disagree with the truth o those facts and/or conclusions, to whom I address my objections?
Therefore: take your claims one by one and justify them.
(Besides, by unreservedly recommending the AI report, you will also have to justify/prove every one of its claims, if asked. This is how it works!)
Here is a free😁advice for you: Only by researching a subject yourself can you justify your claims; merely reproducing the conclusions of others risks embarrassment.