Calling something or someone retarded because of the implication that its impossible for someone that young to be that smart and capable is....retarded.
I don't know if he asserted that it's impossible. Personally, I understood your assertions as simply having no credible available evidence. Is it possible that Barron was a 9 year old genius who could design or operate something like the Q program? What's the threshold or standard here? is it 'possible' if it's only 1% possible?
Frankly, if your claim that this is the case is because Trump said his son was 17 in 2024. Jeepers. Yeah, no, I agree with litho: it's pretty retarded.
Disclaimer: I NEVER use 'retarded' in my online or offline discussions. I only use it here because it's another word for stupid. To me, your viewpoint is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, just the claim.)
in order to say that I was trying to prove that Barron was on some normie list of child prodigies
Sorry, I disagree and think you have misconstrued this completely. He was saying "where is the evidence?" The fact that child prodigies exist is not evidence that Barron Trump was a child prodigy.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around "Well, it's possible, because child prodigies exist", but where is the evidence that Barron Trump was such a prodigy?
5 and 6 year deltas that are less clear than this until they are blue in the face and everyone gets a hard on for it including me.
Well, congrats to you. I certainly do not. I find a lot of that stuff almost as speculative and as reachy as your post here. I don't think it advances the cause, something I alluded to in my initial response to litho.
I'm allowed to be snarky and sarcastic when people call me retarded with 0 argument and when people imply that I'm just a low effort hopium salesmen.
Not zero argument. But you can justify your behavior however you want. I've made my own viewpoint clear. (you became abusive)
Based on the further discussion, I would not characterize you as just a low-effort hopium salesman. But I think the stuff you are dealing in isn't anywhere near as productive or well-grounded as you seem to think it is.
Hey, that's allowed. The board has it's purpose, and that's why any of us can post our views. I'll just repeat that I find both your discussion style and arguments completely unconvincing. Hey, maybe I missed the point, or maybe you're just not great at articulating reasoned arguments.
Thanks for the dialog, in any case. Moving on now.
But wait.... maybe there is a point of agreement: it seems we both think that the board is not as wonderful as it could be (or even maybe once was). Possibly, we may disagree on the details, but perhaps we could still focus on making some effort to improve the quality here.
To the statement that you don't agree with me: fair enough. I was never abusive though. Most of what everyone has been saying is opinion, especially you.
I also do not agree with most of what people on this board assume to be true or false.
You conveniently never addressed my real points about logic and statistics.
My post was unstickied about 15 mins after I started posting my rebuttals and replys.
In general I see a lot of this pointing of the "you're not doing enough research" finger without the person pointing that finger doing any actual disproving or research to the contrary.
By the way, if the few arguments i do have in this thread are so unconvincing which arguments of the people who disagree with me are so convincing to you and why?
You conveniently never addressed my real points about logic and statistics.
In my opinion, you never articulated this in any way. You just said the words. You didn't make any detailed argument about what you consider logic and statistics. And by detailed, I mean you didn't provide any details. At all.
You should note: I don't mean arguments as in bickering. I mean argument as in making a case for a certain point of view.
I don't really think that the onus is on others to disprove your claims, but rather, the onus is on your to lay out the basis for your claims and prove or uphold them.
I was never abusive though.
Matter of opinion. You were board-line abusive to litho, imo.
Most of what everyone has been saying is opinion, especially you.
Yep. Although I don't know if I agree with the especially part. I think I've written more in this particular post than others (excluding perhaps you), but yes, I'm sharing my opinion on things.
Ok, if you're saying i didn't start statistics class 101 in this thread then your right.... But i think i have the right to say facepalm now. When its something this obvious (at least to me) I would say the burden of proof is on the guy who is shitting on the post not the other way around.
Really the issue is that no one wants to back up their attacks with data and its not like I'm making a scotty mar 10 video....so of course I'm gonna get the down votes from the people who just have a good sense of whats popular.
I can see it from their point of view too though.
To them its obvious that what i presented is cringe.
To me its obvious that their point of view is jaded and blue pilled.
Really the issue is that no one wants to back up their attacks with data
You didn't back up your assertions with any data. All you said was "Trump said that Barron "is 17".
so of course I'm gonna get the down votes from the people who just have a good sense of whats popular.
Again, projecting and imaging that you know what people are thinking.
if you have a theory, then I suggest you actually present it with some actual data, research, reasoning, and argument, instead of complaining that others don't accept your idea, making excuses and asserting that you know what other people are thinking, feeling and what motivates them.
The vast majority of response on the actual post was clear and vocal. The post didn't attract very many upvotes, despite being stickied.
If you have a theory, then present it with actual data, research, reasoning, and argument. You might not like what you get back, but at least then you'll be participating like a critical thinker instead of just complaining and blaming everyone else.
An interesting take.
I don't know if he asserted that it's impossible. Personally, I understood your assertions as simply having no credible available evidence. Is it possible that Barron was a 9 year old genius who could design or operate something like the Q program? What's the threshold or standard here? is it 'possible' if it's only 1% possible?
Frankly, if your claim that this is the case is because Trump said his son was 17 in 2024. Jeepers. Yeah, no, I agree with litho: it's pretty retarded.
Disclaimer: I NEVER use 'retarded' in my online or offline discussions. I only use it here because it's another word for stupid. To me, your viewpoint is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, just the claim.)
Sorry, I disagree and think you have misconstrued this completely. He was saying "where is the evidence?" The fact that child prodigies exist is not evidence that Barron Trump was a child prodigy.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around "Well, it's possible, because child prodigies exist", but where is the evidence that Barron Trump was such a prodigy?
Well, congrats to you. I certainly do not. I find a lot of that stuff almost as speculative and as reachy as your post here. I don't think it advances the cause, something I alluded to in my initial response to litho.
Not zero argument. But you can justify your behavior however you want. I've made my own viewpoint clear. (you became abusive)
Based on the further discussion, I would not characterize you as just a low-effort hopium salesman. But I think the stuff you are dealing in isn't anywhere near as productive or well-grounded as you seem to think it is.
Hey, that's allowed. The board has it's purpose, and that's why any of us can post our views. I'll just repeat that I find both your discussion style and arguments completely unconvincing. Hey, maybe I missed the point, or maybe you're just not great at articulating reasoned arguments.
Thanks for the dialog, in any case. Moving on now.
But wait.... maybe there is a point of agreement: it seems we both think that the board is not as wonderful as it could be (or even maybe once was). Possibly, we may disagree on the details, but perhaps we could still focus on making some effort to improve the quality here.
In any case, best wishes for the coming week.
To the statement that you don't agree with me: fair enough. I was never abusive though. Most of what everyone has been saying is opinion, especially you.
I also do not agree with most of what people on this board assume to be true or false.
You conveniently never addressed my real points about logic and statistics.
My post was unstickied about 15 mins after I started posting my rebuttals and replys.
In general I see a lot of this pointing of the "you're not doing enough research" finger without the person pointing that finger doing any actual disproving or research to the contrary.
By the way, if the few arguments i do have in this thread are so unconvincing which arguments of the people who disagree with me are so convincing to you and why?
In my opinion, you never articulated this in any way. You just said the words. You didn't make any detailed argument about what you consider logic and statistics. And by detailed, I mean you didn't provide any details. At all.
You should note: I don't mean arguments as in bickering. I mean argument as in making a case for a certain point of view.
I don't really think that the onus is on others to disprove your claims, but rather, the onus is on your to lay out the basis for your claims and prove or uphold them.
Matter of opinion. You were board-line abusive to litho, imo.
Yep. Although I don't know if I agree with the especially part. I think I've written more in this particular post than others (excluding perhaps you), but yes, I'm sharing my opinion on things.
Ok, if you're saying i didn't start statistics class 101 in this thread then your right.... But i think i have the right to say facepalm now. When its something this obvious (at least to me) I would say the burden of proof is on the guy who is shitting on the post not the other way around.
Really the issue is that no one wants to back up their attacks with data and its not like I'm making a scotty mar 10 video....so of course I'm gonna get the down votes from the people who just have a good sense of whats popular.
I can see it from their point of view too though.
To them its obvious that what i presented is cringe.
To me its obvious that their point of view is jaded and blue pilled.
You didn't back up your assertions with any data. All you said was "Trump said that Barron "is 17".
Again, projecting and imaging that you know what people are thinking.
if you have a theory, then I suggest you actually present it with some actual data, research, reasoning, and argument, instead of complaining that others don't accept your idea, making excuses and asserting that you know what other people are thinking, feeling and what motivates them.
The vast majority of response on the actual post was clear and vocal. The post didn't attract very many upvotes, despite being stickied.
If you have a theory, then present it with actual data, research, reasoning, and argument. You might not like what you get back, but at least then you'll be participating like a critical thinker instead of just complaining and blaming everyone else.