Vulture

Damn that’s salty. Thought the thread title must be a typo. But I’m not complaining

I’m coming up with an average of 4.0 war per 162 over last three seasons

Well if you followed the thread and saw the comment I was responding to it might make more sense. I never said it was a judgment against Twitter. For the third time my point was: 1) first amendment free speech clause does more than prevent arrest for speech, in response to post which claimed that was its sole purpose 2) it ensures access to a public forum, as that case reiterates 3) the case indicates Twitter serves as a public forum

No I get that. My point was first amendment free speech does more than simply preventing the government from arresting you. In that case they ruled the rights of those who brought the suit were violated because it blocked their access to a public forum.

My point was the case had nothing to do with arresting someone over speech which the comment I responded claimed was the sole purpose of free speech. Although that case does confirm that Twitter serves as a public forum as well.

The purpose of each clearly makes them inherently different. Soxtalk and similar forums are specialized community forums that don’t serve as a modern base form of general communication like twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc do.

That’s just incorrect. First amendment free speech means the government can’t limit your access to communications, not that it simply can’t arrest you for them. this is why for example trump lost a first amendment case where it was ruled he couldn’t block people from his Twitter account because it blocked their access to a public forum.

Internet is the primary form of modern communication serving as a public forum. If all private companies are allowed to block users then there is no public forum on the internet. Forums like Soxtalk aren’t analogous to social media like Twitter or Facebook because the sole purpose of those companies is to provide a general form of electronic communication so it is in effect serving as a public utility.

A phone company is also a private company. By this logic a phone company should also be allowed to deny service based on their users content.

It all comes down to the question of whether Twitter serves as a public forum or not. Which of course it does. It is essentially the modern equivalent of the soap box.

You can say what you want but that doesn’t make it reasonable when the question is whether police were complicit at the capitol. Whether all cops are bad or not is irrelevant to that question, yet one hundred posts later you’re still going on about it rather than whether police were complicit. To an irrational person that might seem like reasonable objection to the claim but in actuality it is not.

There you go again

A straw man btw is arguing against a statement you’ve set up yourself and presented as the argument of your opponent because it is easier to knock down than the actual argument. For example countering claim that police were complicit in sedition at US Capitol with don’t say all cops are bad, like you’ve been doing. Hope this helps.

Also CWS: ”This isn’t about one cop this about all cops for you.” ”All cops aren’t bad.” if you search this thread for “all cops” you get at least a dozen hits under your name. What the matter did you hit your head after your previous posts or what?

Because you keep saying all cops aren’t bad. Now you want to claim you’re not talking about all caps and bring up an irrelevantt argument about fip despite the fact that you failed to demonstrate that a ratio involving strikeouts home runs and walks is actually representative of runs allowed. More poisoning the well with a completely irrelevant point. I guess it’s creepy if getting called out for making horse shit statements is creepy. Another fallacial poisoning the well statement.

Balta’s agenda is irrelevant to the question of whether the police were complicit in this case. This is called poisoning the well fallacy

For example. Here is an extremely specific example of police complicity in this specific incident which is countered by your not all cops are bad therefore you’re the problem for highlighting this particular incident mantra. That’s off the charts fallacial arguing

Still sticking with this straw man? Clearly we are talking about the specific police involved in this specific incident but you still want to argue whether that is slander against all cops in the world. It’s getting pathetic honestly

Well my uncle Snort, he’s sawed off and short stands just about four foot two but he feels like a giant when you give him a pint of that good ol’ mountain dew

I think a lot of this can be explained by the peculiarly American form of religious thought, prosperity theology. According to to this rampant line of thought, all prosperity is from the favor of god. Those that aren’t favored are not prosperous. Therefore someone like Trump is favored regardless of his actions. If you’re laying on a boat in a drunken stupor every weekend this actually shows you are in favor since your god given prosperity has allowed you it. Meanwhile some poor kid standing up for his rights getting his head bashed in deserved it because his lack of prosperity shows he is out of favor of god. This is an actual mainstream philosophy echoing throughout the suburbs and cornfields of america.

In other words they are completely lacking in morals and ethics

Sugano has apparently decided to pass on joining the American nightmare and is reportedly returning to the NPB. His posting deadline passed at 5 pm.

They can plug Gimenez and Rosario in at 2nd and SS straight away

Maybe they trade them major leaguers. Davis, Smith, Nimmo could all be possibilities.

“No good tree bears bad fruit just as no bad tree bears good fruit. Therefore by their fruit you will know them.”