A viral clip from 2021 shows Donald Trump’s running mate hyping an antidemocratic plan once pushed in Hungary that would give people with children more voting power.
Bud, that isn’t what a straw man is. Like, at all.
And “objective computer analysis” can still be wrong and biased. Look at all the image classifiers that called black people monkeys cause they were trained almost exclusively on images of white people.
You could answer my questions or you could keep trolling up to you.
Also, please do explain how asking you how this test would be automated and objective is a straw man. Do you not understand what a straw man argument is?
Also, stop making this about me. If you want to block me, fine, but I don’t care about your expectations of me or what you think is a mistake or poor argument on my part.
Why would I involuntarily defend a position I do not hold because some idiot can’t be bothered to use the reading comprehension and social skills I know they have?
please do explain how asking you how this test would be automated and objective is a straw man
Because I don’t believe in a test. I’ve told you twice. But, you’re uncharacteristically being a jackass, now even after you’ve slept on it.
I’ll make it about you because you’re a valuable member of the community whom I respect, and who’s seemingly not meeting their own standards of behavior (based on the past). If you don’t like it, block. I’m pretty close.
Actually, I went back and you told me once, which I did miss. The other one was an edit which you somehow expected me to see after I replied to you. And then, even though I missed your claim that it shouldn’t happen, you kept arguing for how the test could be implemented.
So I don’t think you know what you are arguing for.
And I still don’t care about what you think of me or of my value to anyone. First of all because I don’t have any value to anyone and secondly because your opinion of me won’t change that.
I made no argument for a test. I answered your direct question as to how it could be done fairly.
Reading and comprehension is prerequisite to a good faith response. You skipped half a post then needed to be told twice to read it. It’s not my responsibility to coddle you into good faith. I delivered content well within your capacity to understand.
I accept no responsibility for your error. The input was far better than what you usually receive. You just wanted to fight with someone and I was next in line. You’re a public figure. We all know your MO.
Your words in your initial post before you made your edit:
In order to vote, I think American voters should have to pass the same history test that immigrants need to in order to gain citizenship
So now you’re just lying.
And also, I’m just going to stop reading your posts at the point you start to make them personal. You really aren’t getting that I don’t give a shit what you think of me.
automated objective scoring
You didn’t read my post. You’re strawmanning. Not your style.
Automated by whom? Objective according to whom?
You’re still bashing that straw man you made.
Look up. You made a mistake. And, if it wasn’t you I’d simply block.
Bud, that isn’t what a straw man is. Like, at all.
And “objective computer analysis” can still be wrong and biased. Look at all the image classifiers that called black people monkeys cause they were trained almost exclusively on images of white people.
You could answer my questions or you could keep trolling up to you.
Also, please do explain how asking you how this test would be automated and objective is a straw man. Do you not understand what a straw man argument is?
Also, stop making this about me. If you want to block me, fine, but I don’t care about your expectations of me or what you think is a mistake or poor argument on my part.
Why would I involuntarily defend a position I do not hold because some idiot can’t be bothered to use the reading comprehension and social skills I know they have?
Because I don’t believe in a test. I’ve told you twice. But, you’re uncharacteristically being a jackass, now even after you’ve slept on it.
I’ll make it about you because you’re a valuable member of the community whom I respect, and who’s seemingly not meeting their own standards of behavior (based on the past). If you don’t like it, block. I’m pretty close.
Actually, I went back and you told me once, which I did miss. The other one was an edit which you somehow expected me to see after I replied to you. And then, even though I missed your claim that it shouldn’t happen, you kept arguing for how the test could be implemented.
So I don’t think you know what you are arguing for.
And I still don’t care about what you think of me or of my value to anyone. First of all because I don’t have any value to anyone and secondly because your opinion of me won’t change that.
I made no argument for a test. I answered your direct question as to how it could be done fairly.
Reading and comprehension is prerequisite to a good faith response. You skipped half a post then needed to be told twice to read it. It’s not my responsibility to coddle you into good faith. I delivered content well within your capacity to understand.
I accept no responsibility for your error. The input was far better than what you usually receive. You just wanted to fight with someone and I was next in line. You’re a public figure. We all know your MO.
Your words in your initial post before you made your edit:
So now you’re just lying.
And also, I’m just going to stop reading your posts at the point you start to make them personal. You really aren’t getting that I don’t give a shit what you think of me.
That’s not an argument. It’s a statement. Is your bar really that low or are you still just trying to fight?
I won’t fight with you. I know too much about you. We’ve spoken personally on three accounts.