Shoot The Breeze

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, but it’s Gibbons who needs it, not me.



A “vast portion” of them?
You realize it can’t be a straw man when he’s making a direct comparison to what you’re saying. He’s not attacking something else, it’s addressing directly what you’re saying. Are you looking for another fallacy?
 
Yo, can we just, like, get some LGA and N90 peeps and whoever else the hell it was to sick out like they did for the shut down but in the name of retroactive hazard pay this time around?

But in a more real sense: if all Republican BUEs and liberal populist BUEs left NATCA, due to their mismanagement over the last year, I wonder what the percentage would be of remaining BUEs?
 
Yo, can we just, like, get some LGA and N90 peeps and whoever else the hell it was to sick out like they did for the shut down but in the name of retroactive hazard pay this time around?

But in a more real sense: if all Republican BUEs and liberal populist BUEs left NATCA, due to their mismanagement over the last year, I wonder what the percentage would be of remaining BUEs?
So just the moderate dems are left?
 
VAERs reports are fucking bullshit tho and 12,000 out of 150M is .00008
Perhaps they are bullshit, that's why I said just to give the benefit of the doubt. As I said, for easy math I used 15k out of 150M to get .01%. Yes, 12K/150M=
.00008= .008%
1%=.01
.1%=.001
.01%=.0001
 
Yo, can we just, like, get some LGA and N90 peeps and whoever else the hell it was to sick out like they did for the shut down but in the name of retroactive hazard pay this time around?

But in a more real sense: if all Republican BUEs and liberal populist BUEs left NATCA, due to their mismanagement over the last year, I wonder what the percentage would be of remaining BUEs?
Ya I really am failing to see how they can deny hazard pay. It's too dangerous to train, I need PPE to go to work, took an experimental vaccine to protect myself and am subjecting my unvaccinated family members to possible exposure even though I took said vaccine, but yet somehow this all is normal?

Either we collectively decide this is a big deal and acknowledge it as a risk or we go to business as usual, and tbay decision should have been made months ago.
 
Perhaps they are bullshit, that's why I said just to give the benefit of the doubt. As I said, for easy math I used 15k out of 150M to get .01%. Yes, 12K/150M=
.00008= .008%
1%=.01
.1%=.001
.01%=.0001
Why are you even rounding? You got a calculator
 

Joe Biden

"I’m never going to raise the white flag and surrender. We’re going to beat this virus. We’re going to get it under control, I promise you. "
 

Joe Biden

"I’m never going to raise the white flag and surrender. We’re going to beat this virus. We’re going to get it under control, I promise you. "
I'm no biden apologist, but isn't that what big scary gobermint is trying to do, and many are actively fighting by not getting vaccinated or wearing masks?

That's like slapping yourself in the face with a pile of dogshit and and then blaming the guy who was trying to tell you to not pick the turd up in the first place.
 
Isn’t 1 enough? The fact that the rest of them don’t make the Jan 6 conspiracy ones resign taints the whole group

If 1 Republican believing in Q anon conspiracies taints the entire group, then I get to label every Democrat as unfit for office because Hank Johnson thinks Guam will tip over with too many military forces on it.

You realize it can’t be a straw man when he’s making a direct comparison to what you’re saying. He’s not attacking something else, it’s addressing directly what you’re saying. Are you looking for another fallacy?

He’s saying that I can’t say the 2016 and 2020 election conspiracy theories are comparable at their core due to the arguments made by other people that are not me. Since he’s attacking the claims of others as a basis for attacking my claim, he’s attacking a straw man he constructed for me. It would be one thing to say “At their core, the arguments/beliefs are the same, but they differ in the details,” but saying “They’re not comparable at all because of how different some people take the 2020 claims to the extreme” is a silly straw man.
 
If 1 Republican believing in Q anon conspiracies taints the entire group, then I get to label every Democrat as unfit for office because Hank Johnson thinks Guam will tip over with too many military forces on it.



He’s saying that I can’t say the 2016 and 2020 election conspiracy theories are comparable at their core due to the arguments made by other people that are not me. Since he’s attacking the claims of others as a basis for attacking my claim, he’s attacking a straw man he constructed for me. It would be one thing to say “At their core, the arguments/beliefs are the same, but they differ in the details,” but saying “They’re not comparable at all because of how different some people take the 2020 claims to the extreme” is a silly straw man.
It’s a lot more than 1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom