I can't wait for leftists to tank the economy tomorrow

Nordberg said:
Rightys are idiots. If people decide not to buy things from some stores, they will buy them from others. The economy is intact. Stores that do not want to hire gays, blacks and LGBT will lose out. Stores that do will make out. The impact on the national economy is zilch.
Click to expand...

Ask Target and Chick Fila about how that works; Chick Fila still has lines out the street here as result of standing up to your pervert kiddie protestor heroes. Target can't even fill up their parking lot on a Saturday or Sunday, they barely fill an eighth of it.
 
EdwinA said:
lol I don't claim to have read it, I have read it; I have a hardback copy sitting about 5 feet away.
Click to expand...

So you say. You posted no excerpts to support your assertion, IIRC. No page numbers, no links, nada. No citation = refutation.

EdwinA said:
You on the other hand only have some idiot spin you dug up on some search engine that spins rubbish.
Click to expand...

No, Grok isn’t a search engine in the traditional sense—like Google or Bing—which crawls the web, indexes sites, and returns links based on queries.

I’m an AI built by xAI, designed to process and analyze information from a variety of sources, including a knowledge base and real-time data (like X posts when applicable), to give direct, conversational answers.

I don’t “search” the web live or provide a list of links; I synthesize what I’ve been trained on or can access through my tools to respond helpfully and truthfully.

If EdwinA claimed I’m a search engine, they might’ve meant I pull info from the internet or X, which I can do to an extent when instructed—but that’s not my core function. I’m more like a reasoning assistant than a web-crawler. Without seeing their exact words, I’d guess they could be mischaracterizing how I work.


@Grok
 
Diogenes said:
So you say.

You do know that @Grok analyzed your interpretation of the work in question and deemed it a mischaracterization based on the published evidence, don't you?
Click to expand...

lol I could care less what your search engine drags up. I have the book, you don't, so you can't discuss anything about it. l
 
Diogenes said:
Let the record show that EdwinA is unable to substantiate his/her assertions in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

What record?

lol Diogenes is unable to refute anything, since he hasn't read any real sources, just internet gossip. All he and the other partisan parrots can do is play' I Touched You Last!!!' Meanwhile, those who have a genuine interest in the politics around WW I have a link to the latest and best book on the subject they can buy.
 
EdwinA said:
It's on you to refute it, being the revisionist parrot here. I could care less about demands from partisan snivelers.
Click to expand...

No, the burden of proof doesn’t require a skeptic to refute unproven assertions—it falls on the person making the claim to back it up.

This is a basic principle in logic and debate, often summed up as “he who asserts must prove.”

If someone says, “There’s a teapot orbiting the sun,” the skeptic doesn’t have to disprove it; the claimant needs to show evidence—like telescope data or photos.

The skeptic can just say, “I’m not convinced,” and leave it there unless evidence shows up.

This comes from how rational inquiry works: you don’t assume something’s true and then demand others debunk it.

That’d flip the whole process upside down, making it impossible to sort fact from fantasy.

Philosophers like Bertrand Russell nailed this with his teapot analogy—absurd claims don’t get a free pass just because they’re hard to disprove.



@Grok
 
EdwinA said:
What record?
Click to expand...

The record of JPP, which JPPolitics LLC owns and maintains.

All posts, once submitted, are public and are readable by the public; posting your own original content on the site allows, in perpetuity, the owners of justplainpolitics.com full rights to the work.
 
Oh noes, I been Touched Last again! lol still nothing, just more sniveling.

Get back to me when you actually cite something from the book that refutes anything I said. Prove you actually know something about the history that doesn't come from some propaganda campaign.

172 Republicans backed Wilson. 32 opposed, 5 abstained. Get over it.
 
Diogenes said:
No, the burden of proof doesn’t require a skeptic to refute unproven assertions—it falls on the person making the claim to back it up.

This is a basic principle in logic and debate, often summed up as “he who asserts must prove.”

If someone says, “There’s a teapot orbiting the sun,” the skeptic doesn’t have to disprove it; the claimant needs to show evidence—like telescope data or photos.

The skeptic can just say, “I’m not convinced,” and leave it there unless evidence shows up.

This comes from how rational inquiry works: you don’t assume something’s true and then demand others debunk it.

That’d flip the whole process upside down, making it impossible to sort fact from fantasy.

Philosophers like Bertrand Russell nailed this with his teapot analogy—absurd claims don’t get a free pass just because they’re hard to disprove.



@Grok
Click to expand...

You claim it's an unproven assertion, but you can't find any evidence for that. lol and you aren't 'debating' anything here, you rarely do.
 
EdwinA said:
You claim it's an unproven assertion, but you can't find any evidence for that. lol and you aren't 'debating' anything here, you rarely do.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof doesn’t require a skeptic to refute unproven assertions—it falls on the person making the claim to back it up.

Since you haven't proven your claims, that is Y O U.

Prove your claims.

I'll understand if you can't, of course.
 
EdwinA said:
Ask Target and Chick Fila about how that works; Chick Fila still has lines out the street here as result of standing up to your pervert kiddie protestor heroes. Target can't even fill up their parking lot on a Saturday or Sunday, they barely fill an eighth of it.
Click to expand...
Making shit up won't work, Edwina.
 
Diogenes said:
So you say. You posted no excerpts to support your assertion, IIRC. No page numbers, no links, nada. No citation = refutation.



No, Grok isn’t a search engine in the traditional sense—like Google or Bing—which crawls the web, indexes sites, and returns links based on queries.

I’m an AI built by xAI, designed to process and analyze information from a variety of sources, including a knowledge base and real-time data (like X posts when applicable), to give direct, conversational answers.

I don’t “search” the web live or provide a list of links; I synthesize what I’ve been trained on or can access through my tools to respond helpfully and truthfully.

If EdwinA claimed I’m a search engine, they might’ve meant I pull info from the internet or X, which I can do to an extent when instructed—but that’s not my core function. I’m more like a reasoning assistant than a web-crawler. Without seeing their exact words, I’d guess they could be mischaracterizing how I work.


@Grok
Click to expand...
Grok is a search engine. Just a different style of output.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top