Last month, Zhengzhou authorities even resorted to tampering with the country’s digital Covid health-code system to restrict the movements of depositors and thwart their planned protest, sparking a nationwide outcry.
China crushes mass protest by bank depositors demanding their life savings back (msn.com)
Cutworm; when a government can trace your every move you become their slave
wow, thanks cutworm. If we don't wake up here soon that is what America will look like.
Thanks cutworm!
Makes us appreciate our wonderful freedoms here and living in the best time in human history.........by an extremely wide margin.
No mcfarm, actions in the US are not going to lead to the same thing if we don't wake up.
Let's deal with authentic facts/evidence and legit science and not insane speculation and crazy conspiracy theories or DISinformation.
This is actually a great story to show the positive DIFFERENCE here is this country compared to China about things we complain about...........and things to REALLY complain about that they have in China.
The complete opposite of your interpretation.
You really don't have to be this way.
There's a much better way that involves a tremendous amount of peace, contentment, enjoyment for life and is based on discerning the true realities and contemplating the unbelievably wonderful world.
says the guy who is willing to trade liberty for security. As you have been told over and over you will wind up with neither and you have the audacity to tell someone to deal in authentic facts. You need to go on late nite tv and sell that. You and the lib hosts will agree on much.....except none of it will be good for America
many countries have been tryingfor years to get us to use the banking system instead of cash. they want more control over society. they use the excuse that they are fighting fraud, terrorism, black markets, etc.
Your choice, mcfarm!
you can just keep getting your bull crap from far right sources and come here to have it busted/corrected….ignore the authentic truths and go right back to more really bad sources that have captured your brain.
just as long as you don’t make personal attacks or call names……which you don’t, you can post whatever you want here.
you’ve never had a post censored or received an official warning……and are free to continue on that path.
But McFarm is exactly right MM.
You have already demonstrated your beilefs and I am willing to bet you could be talked into supporting the actions in the OP.
You think censorship is good if it prevents "dangerous disinformation" ; if it will save lives. Isn't that essentially what they are doing?
You are also all for madatory vaccines. Because it will save lives.
Wouldn't restricting the movements of these people also save lives?
You have advocated for this type of government control several times on several different subjects. How is this so different? How does this "cross the line"?
Blatantly mischaracterizing me again Tim so that you can attack a position that I don't have?
You've been busted for doing this a dozen times now!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84814/#84972
+++++++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80187/#80309
++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69492
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly ...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69389/#69493
We are all about learning here...............so let's capitalize on this opportunity to learn something new.
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/straw-man-fallacy-examples.html
Of the many types of logical fallacies, the straw man fallacy is particularly common in political debates and in discussions over controversial topics. The basic structure of the argument consists of Person A making a claim, Person B creating a distorted version of the claim (the “straw man”), and then Person B attacking this distorted version in order to refute Person A’s original assertion.
Often, the distorted interpretation is only remotely related to the original claim. The opposing argument may focus on just one aspect of the claim, take it out of context or exaggerate it. The straw man argument, in this way, is an example of a red herring. It’s meant to distract from the real issue being discussed and is not a logically valid argument. The best way to understand this phenomenon is with some straw man fallacy examples.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/70937/#71262
https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/
"A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support.
For example, if someone says “I think that we should give better study guides to students”, a person using a strawman might reply by saying “I think that your idea is bad, because we shouldn’t just give out easy A’s to everyone”.
Because strawman arguments are frequently used in discussions on various topics, it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about strawman arguments, see examples of how they are used, and understand what you can do in order to counter them successfully."
++++++++++++++++++
On the other hand, Tim this is a direct quote from you demonstrating the hypocrisy of censorship that you claim to always be against(it's ok to censor news that YOU want censored or from sources that broadcast only far right news but censor other stuff-then, it's called "good business")
Yep, you actually said this:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86106/#86217
This is what extreme anti censorship Tim had to say about it:
"When one network chooses not to air something that is being covered by every other broadcaster in the country, that's hardly censorship. That's good business."
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85500/#85517
I'm just copying stuff that you guys actually say here. Do you ever read it back and question if it makes sense or not before sending it or are you all programmed to respond like Fox/far right clones that say the exact same things about the same topics?
+++++++++++++++++
metmike: That's one of the things about MarketForum, TIm.
When you state things .......it becomes documented as part of our archives and sometimes comes back to bite you in the butt, man.
So, you are denying that you are all for vaccine mandates because it will save lives? Really?
You have never said censorship of misinformation is OK if it saves lives?
You have made several arguments for assorted government controls that will "save lives". You're denying that?
Shall I really go to the trouble of scaning forum history for the exact posts where you have made these exact statements?
There's really no need. Everyone has read them.
Tim,
You are being dishonest.
Blatantly and intentionally exaggerating my position on censorship.
My true position on censorship is indicated by my actions here. I have never censored a post here and actually welcome posts that disagree with me as my favorite.
Under unique circumstances that involve people's lives at stake I understand why some places would censor information that results in the deaths of innocent people.
But you will note, Tim, that I never censored even 1 post here. Whether it was anti COVID vaccine that I disagreed with....many hundreds of posts or Trumps stolen eledtion crapola.
In fact, you said that everyone will remember. That's probably right because I constantly bring up those old uncensored threads to show the dozens and dozens of discussions that I totally disagreed about but let you guys say whatever you wanted.......then instead of censoring it......i rebutted it. I busted it. I fact checked it.
When back in my office, I'll copy several, dozen links to those for examples.
That's because I NEVER censor anything Here, Tim.
Actions speak louder than YOUR words.
You're welcome to spend the rest of your life trying to find me deleting a post or anything in a post that's based on censoring ideas.
Other than a couple of vile posts from mojo, 4 years ago.
However, it took me no time flat to show the proof of you mischaracterizing me and also,for being hypocritical about your applying censorship.
You keep refering to strawmen while constantly relying on them.
I have not accused you of censoring posts here.
This statement:
Under unique circumstances that involve people's lives at stake I understand why some places would censor information that results in the deaths of innocent people.
Aligns exactly with my point. An argument that restricting protesters in China will save lives is right in line with this.
You've used that same argument in countless debates. Mandatory Injections. Gun Bans, and so on.
Anyway, we've entered another futile circular debate. I'm done with it for now.
"Anyway, we've entered another futile circular debate."
No Tim, it's not a circular debate. You are taking areas that we disagree on and trying to connect them to a fake metmike is for censorship position.
So it's NOT a debate as you like to see it or based on opinion.
It's a "Tim distorted the facts to create a position he wants to attack" vs a metmike clarifying the facts with the truth.
It's a metmike identifying Tim doing it for the umpteenth time with another strawman attack... and metmike analyzing it/showing previous incidents and why he does it.........NOT a debate.
It's a metmike clarifying the facts on his position ..........and Tim ducking out because he knows that means facts will obliterate his faulty, manufactured position using the strawman.
There is also no debate about how YOU see this censorship when it comes to things you want censored because I provided your quote and you doubled, tripled down on insisting that's your position when I brought it up previously......when the censorship is about something you want censored or one of your go to sources.........it's "good business" for you (again, me analyzing, not debating because the facts are the facts-you said/did it, man).
It's like the man caught stealing a car with video of him breaking in and hotwiring it.
There is no debate about whether he stole the car.....only analysis about how he did it and why he did it.
Trying to assert some sort of bizarre connection here between my rare exception belief in censorship by some entities(not me in practice) and the topic in this thread is what we call the quintessential strawman argument/attack, Tim.
PLEASE stop doing it on topics here when authentic facts are not enough to support a position.
MM, this is unmitigated BS. I am using your own words, nearly verbatim, and you are accusing me of distortion and strawman. This while you claim I am accusing you of censoring posts here, which I have never done.
Maybe your words just do a bad job of conveying your thoughts?
But it doesn't matter. As I said above, everyone has read the same things.
Have a good day on what ever planet that is :-)
"you claim I am accusing you of censoring posts here, which I have never done."
Strawman Tim, doing it again.
I NEVER accused you of accusing me of censoring posts.
I showed you the evidence of my actions on what my true belief is regarding censorship..........you just made up your version so that you could defend something that I didn't accuse you of.
+++++++++++++++
"My true position on censorship is indicated by my actions here. I have never censored a post here and actually welcome posts that disagree with me as my favorite."
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86978/#87015
++++++++++++++++++++++
No debate........just me CORRECTING you with the authentic facts......again. Along with some analysis.
Not sure what your reason is to persist, Tim....other than you are pathologically convinced that you are always right on everything in politics and will persist, even to the point of being obliterated with facts, rather than actually looking at the facts which contradict you.
Rather than conceding, Strawman Tim takes over your brain and you manufacture positions that have Tim being right.
Another term for Strawman is Fallacious Reasoning.
https://viva.pressbooks.pub/phi220ethics/chapter/identifying-fallacious-reasoning/
Examples:
Premise: All black bears are omnivores.
Premise: All raccoons are omnivores.
Conclusion: All raccoons are black bears.
Premise: All Arabs are Muslims.
Premise: All Iranians are Muslims.
Conclusion: All Iranians are Arabs.
metmike: I'm not sure this is always intentional because doing it has become 2nd nature to you.
However, when I point it out.........you have an opportunity to see it and ignoring that IS intentional and that totally explains why it hasn't changed.
I might be wasting these words on you, Tim.
But that's cool.
I'm here to learn things and share them.......which is what I'm doing in this thread.
Thanks to you and analysis like these posts, I consider myself pretty knowledgeable on fallacious reasoning and strawmen attacks.
Dead serious. I quickly recognize it all the time in discussions everywhere now, when a few years ago, those were just words with no meaning/understanding to my brain.
Appreciate that!
And appreciate your many positive contributions here and intelligence.
Considering the posts here since early this morning, that suddenly and unexplainably jumped into censorship-land.........I found this email in my mail box from very early this morning very interesting!
Must be the Vulcan mind melt (-:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Truth Social Pledge (via GOP) <contact@campaigns.rnchq.com>
|
More "good business" Tim?
https://www.businessinsider.com/truth-social-users-banned-jan-6-hearings-2022-6
Users of former President Donald Trump's Truth Social claimed they had been banned from the social media platform after posting about the January 6 committee hearings.
Travis Allen, a political commentator on social media and self-described information security analyst, claimed on Friday that he had been permanently suspended for talking about the hearings.
"So much for "free speech." This is censorship!" Allen tweeted.
Another Twitter user, Jack Cocchiarella, claimed he had been banned after posting about the hearings.
Several others claimed to have been censored or suspended by the platform recently, one over a video of Ivanka Trump and another stating that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
Insider could not independently verify the claims. Insider reached out to Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns and runs Truth Social, but did not receive an immediate response.
The apparent banning of users, which was first reported by Variety, contradicts the site's central promise to be a free speech platform.
Since its launch, Truth Social has already gained a reputation for censoring content and banning users for various reasons.
I don't know why I keep responding. Perhaps because 1st hand exposure to your pathology is so fascinating.
But when you make the below statement, I assume you must feel that I have accused you of censoring posts, which we both know has never happened. But if no one has raised the issue of censoring posts, why would you keep defending your self by insisting you have not censored posts? Honest Question.
I have never censored a post here and actually welcome posts that disagree with me as my favorite.
Then, you make the following statement which clearly shows that you support censoship under the "right" "Unique" circumstances, but go on to claim I am distorting your statements whan I say uoi have stated you support censorship. When I repeat exactly what you say, how can you claim I have distorted your statement? Again, honest question.
Under unique circumstances that involve people's lives at stake I understand why some places would censor information that results in the deaths of innocent people.
I don't know why I keep responding. Perhaps because 1st hand exposure to your pathology is so fascinating.
I have an obsession with showing data, facts and evidence to support the objective truth and my pathology(s), as defined by my wife who REALLY knows me are as follows:
1. I talk too much
2. I'm too analytical
3. I'm too honest
Regarding your statement, I can definitely see you being affected by #1.....or else this thread wouldn't be dragging on, with you having somebody to respond to. However, if I'm having an impact on you regarding #2 and #3, it must be an ANTI impact. I'm not joking either. For example people with ODD, oppositional deviant disorder will respond by doing the exact opposite of the expected response. This is not you because yours is rooted in political tunnel vision........and inability to comprehend authentic points that people make if they contradict what you have decided to think.
With regards to your comments, I already addressed that in extremely crystal clear fashion, which was actually the points of previous posts, so I'll help you with #1 and ask that you read these posts again..........but this time, encourage you to try to step out of your, Tim the strawman mind and actually try to comprehend the points of the poster vs blocking those out because you have decided what is said................BEFORE YOU READ IT.
I can't give you any better advice than that.
If you figure it out, then there's hope for Tim the strawman to expand his ability to see what other people are saying/typing instead of his extremely narrow minded interpretations of anything that doesn't fit exactly into how he wants to see the world.
You will note that, once again this is not a debate/argument but is an analysis (of you AND ME this time) and further confirms that my wife really does know me well.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86978/#87013
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86978/#87015
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86978/#87030
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86978/#87033
If reading those posts over again, still leaves you unable to ascertain my crystal clear points..... All I can do is refer you back to them even though you would prefer for me to state them all over again now, same verbiage typed all over again, to continue what you still think is a winnable argument/debate which is ALWAYS how you view everything after the enlightening facts don't match up with how you wanted them to.
Tim the far right strawman is always right about everything and will rationalize until the cows come home to justify every position.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85856/#85857
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86106/#86201
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85308/#85333
This is another example of me being very sincere about this post above(learning):
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86978/#87035
The problem is far more simple than you want to admit MM.
I asked two very simple questions to help understand the blatant contradictions betwee two statements you have made. Surely it would be easy for an "honest man" to address.
Obviously, you don't like where the debate is going. Self realization can be a painful process and your obvious defense mechanisms are understandable, if painfully counter productive.
Should you ever want to work through these things, I'll be more than willing to help.
