Mehdi Hasan addresses your deflection pretty well in "Win Every Argument." He says, that once you bring you as the source of truth to an argument, then ad hominem is fair game. He cites other great debaters who use, what is considered to be Ad Hominem, to great effect.
You claim logic in your original post. But you fail to bring receipts (and thus no basis for a logical argument.)
So, I implore you to bring receipts, ones that are generally well regarded and backed by research.
As for the time being, with whom should someone who is born with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome compete?
Research into rhetoric disagrees if the person is using themselves as part of the argument. If they bring in their credibility then an ad hominem is rhetorically the correct response.
With that fun fact of the way, in this instance I think you are right.
Japan has a standing culture on if it ain't broke don't fix it. Added to a generally slow turn around for cultural shifts (for good and bad), they tend to be okay-ish on the not getting sucked into the next enshittification phase.
They also are ass backwards on some stuff for the same reason, so win some and lose some.
Plus we must be on the worst timeline when we are praising Nintendo...
I am not anti human or pro billionaire. Your inferences about me are unfounded.
I am calling you out for a lack of functional argument. Your statement "Waymo cannot navigate cities" loads the idea that because there Waymo lacks a human there is no variance in decision making.
Let's concede, for sake of argument, all Waymo make the same decision every time without fail.
Let's further suppose a group of persons learned to drive and were told you cannot pull out into the intersection for a left turn. Now you have a group of people who clearly will make the same decision and hold up traffic.
If there is no one to inform them and in some sense reprogram this, then they will continue to do this ad nauseum.
Thus, there is no functional difference beyond your pre-loaded bias about Waymo cars and improperly trained human drivers.
If it is relevant it's a strong premise to add to the argument to why we need to strip people of their licenses, but that's not germaine to the conversion.
Is this the plot for Hot Fuzz 2?
Mehdi Hasan addresses your deflection pretty well in "Win Every Argument." He says, that once you bring you as the source of truth to an argument, then ad hominem is fair game. He cites other great debaters who use, what is considered to be Ad Hominem, to great effect.
You claim logic in your original post. But you fail to bring receipts (and thus no basis for a logical argument.)
So, I implore you to bring receipts, ones that are generally well regarded and backed by research.
As for the time being, with whom should someone who is born with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome compete?
Double checked the comments to make sure I didn't write basically this.
It had to be because of trench warfare.
Hypothesis: Bright colors prior to trenches means it's easier to avoid friendly fire.
In trench, you become the target.
... ... ... Wtf?
My cousin does image processing for NASA.
You aren't wrong they look way different than how we choose to display them as photos but that is the art in it
I feel at this point it may be worth investing in calipers.
The financial matemarics teacher in me is proud of you, if it matters at all.
Research into rhetoric disagrees if the person is using themselves as part of the argument. If they bring in their credibility then an ad hominem is rhetorically the correct response.
With that fun fact of the way, in this instance I think you are right.
They are saying that we would offer them a "sudden drop and a short stop"
To be fair some days I am not sure communists and socialist know the difference between the two.
Ah yes I look forward to the
Salem Billionaire Trials
Lucy Whitmore
TACO Tuesday?
That wishes don't exist and have never existed.
Japan has a standing culture on if it ain't broke don't fix it. Added to a generally slow turn around for cultural shifts (for good and bad), they tend to be okay-ish on the not getting sucked into the next enshittification phase.
They also are ass backwards on some stuff for the same reason, so win some and lose some.
Plus we must be on the worst timeline when we are praising Nintendo...
I am not anti human or pro billionaire. Your inferences about me are unfounded. I am calling you out for a lack of functional argument. Your statement "Waymo cannot navigate cities" loads the idea that because there Waymo lacks a human there is no variance in decision making.
Let's concede, for sake of argument, all Waymo make the same decision every time without fail.
Let's further suppose a group of persons learned to drive and were told you cannot pull out into the intersection for a left turn. Now you have a group of people who clearly will make the same decision and hold up traffic.
If there is no one to inform them and in some sense reprogram this, then they will continue to do this ad nauseum.
Thus, there is no functional difference beyond your pre-loaded bias about Waymo cars and improperly trained human drivers.
How is this relevant?
If it is relevant it's a strong premise to add to the argument to why we need to strip people of their licenses, but that's not germaine to the conversion.
I swear you are implying you have never seen a human get stuck navigating a car for what would seem to be mundane or pointless reasons...
Honestly. You are probably spot on. This makes the penalty for filing fake crap suffice to dissuade people from being cheap