Jump to content


Certifiably Surly
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Huckleberry last won the day on December 3 2019

Huckleberry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,465 Excellent

About Huckleberry

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you let your kids watch Caillou that's your fault. Come on, man.
  2. No, one of the two main reasons I argue with you is because you are helplessly emotional when it comes to politics. You admitted on this thread that the reason you don't like the Black Lives Matter movement is because they hurt your feelings by saying they want to disrupt Western-prescribed social requirements. So you spend your time on this forum pretending like you want intellectual discourse even though in reality you simply react emotionally to the people you view as on the other side of things. Many people are simply emotional when it comes to politics, and in fact a lot of the time emotional responses are 100% valid and called for. I mean discussing politics means that in many cases you are discussing peoples lives, their well-being, and their future. Of course it gets emotional. The problem is that you try to affect a persona that pretends to be intellectual, rational, and above the emotional fray when you're absolutely not. Hypocrisy will get lambasted here just like it does most places and just like it should. The other reason is that in spite of your bluster, you don't actually answer any questions. Let's take the latest example here that you quite obviously avoided. In the above post bad_teammate asks a specific and clear question. Not only is it specific and clear, it would actually allow you to clarify your position, explain why you hold it, and possibly make headway in the conversation. So did you answer the question in any productive way whatsoever? No, you responded with the above. Absolutely zero effort to answer the question but rather a naked and blatant attempt to run away from it and cling to anything else in his post that can help you avoid answering it. Then you moved on to some weird sort of personal exposition on bad_teammate, the kind of thing you later decried from other posters. The reason why I argue with you on this forum is because you are an emotional hypocrite trying to pretend like you're a purely rational thinker just looking for clarification. On many topics you're able to behave the way that you claim to behave. In fact, I think you probably truly want to be a rational thinker when it comes to politics, too. But you're not, you're an emotional hypocrite so you should either keep working on your ability to approach politics rationally and unemotionally or you should embrace the truth, that your political arguments are guided and formed not by rational thought but rather by emotional reaction.
  3. https://covidactnow.org/us/fl/county/palm_beach_county?s=61890 https://covidactnow.org/us/fl/county/polk_county?s=61890 https://covidactnow.org/us/fl/county/leon_county?s=61890 https://covidactnow.org/us/fl/county/bay_county?s=61890
  4. It's been pointed out to you multiple times where the very piece you posted and are discussing noted that school closures could have accounted for the lack of child-based transmission. Are you going to address that? It's also been pointed out to you that Israel had a severe issue when they reopened schools. Are you going to address that? Here is some information for you. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/03/868507524/israel-orders-schools-to-close-when-covid-19-cases-are-discovered
  5. The government does not require victim consent to charge an offender with a crime and never has. It's actually usually used as a copout when they either don't want to investigate something or don't have the resources to do it. Imagine how many more domestic violence offenders would get away with it if victim consent was required. As for this specific situation, the black man holding the camera was not the only victim. People who make inappropriate calls to 911 are victimizing the entire community by taking up community resources.
  6. If all non-conference games nationwide are canceled it seems like a pretty easy thing to do to have all teams agree on changing the dates of their scheduled non-conference games by one year. That's a lot of bad press if you're one of the handful of teams that doesn't agree to it.
  7. What if Baker Mayfield is making $45M that year? Don't laugh, it's just a hypothetical used due to historical situations. I'm just saying if the market for average QBs explodes to where $40M is average, then yeah, he might hold out. If he's still possibly the best QB in the game then he should hold out in that situation.
  8. No doubt, not saying it's not a record. Just saying it's a record at $140M which is a shit ton of money.
  9. And there it is. The contract is actually for 140 million. If it's not guaranteed then it's not really a part of a "record contract" in my opinion. Mahomes can feel free to hold out if the market for QBs goes way up before a non-guaranteed season and I'd support that 100%. And the Chiefs can cut him instantly if he blows out his plant knee and throwing arm.
  10. The last word of your post reveals your true issue here. It's emotional, not factual. You agree with what they said, but they hurt your feelings with how they said it. There is nothing imbecilic about their messaging; in fact, you have already admitted that the content is agreeable. Essentially at this point you recognize that what they said is accurate but you are clinging to something, anything, that will let you continue to view yourself as having an intellectual reason why you don't support BLM instead of wrestling with the possible truth that the only real reason is selfish pride. You fully understand their statement as saying "The Western way isn't the best way for everyone, so we will support people who want to do it another and possibly better way for their family. We only wish to do that for those families who feel comfortable receiving that support." And after you read that, you don't focus on the truth that you agree with. You focus on the part where it says the Western way isn't the best way for everyone, and you emotionally react to it. If your identity truly is about seeking truth then you would recognize this as a failing. If your identity is actually more tied to being a historically socially normal Westerner then you will continue to react this way.
  11. You yourself have already stated on this thread that their rhetoric is not empty because you agree with its content. You have stated that you only take issue with offensive (to you) words, not the crux of their argument. That is not empty easily-dismissed rhetoric to people who are truly paying attention to the point. The only potential mistake it represents is providing something for people who want to dismiss them to latch onto and wave in their hands as they try to distract people from the real issues. They are not looking to expand their support to people who are more concerned with not being offended than with equal treatment. And by the way, what do you consider their "base"?
  12. The question I'm about to ask will be necessarily snarky simply because of the idea it's communicating. But it's 100% genuine. Do you think the BLM movement should care that your feelings are offended by the fact they used the words "disrupt" and "Western-prescribed" in that sentence? edited to add - I realized I should probably come back and elaborate a bit on that question the disclaimer notwithstanding. The BLM movement feels that they are fighting for fair and equitable treatment in a country where their mistreatment extends back 244 years to the very beginning. The level of mistreatment has changed, sometimes slowly and sometimes rapidly. But the fact that they do not receive equal treatment throughout society hasn't changed in their lifetimes or the lifetimes of generations before them. So with that in mind, do you feel like hurting feelings should be anywhere on their list of concerns when formulating their mission statement? Or do you think it's possible that hurting feelings may actually be a desired tactic to make people take notice of what they're saying? Finally, do you think it's a good thing, a bad thing, or neither that when confronted with a statement about ways they believe they can help childhood outcomes in their community that you were more concerned with pointing out that language such as "disrupting Western-prescribed" societal norms is offensive to you and others than you were concerned with actually discussing improving their childhood outcomes?
  13. So you understand that their statement is saying they want to supplement nuclear families with extended family and community support, and that they view this as disrupting the societal "requirement" that some people feel to rear their children alone as a nuclear family. And you also understand that they are saying that they support doing this only to the point that each nuclear family is comfortable and therefore they are not wishing to impose it upon them if it's unwanted. So what was your question again? You're upset that they accurately described this societal pressure as predominantly Western? The verb disrupt was a bit too provocative for your taste? Basically you have zero issues with what they're actually saying but are offended by the way they said it, is that it?
  14. There is no clarification required. All the information you need is right there in their statement. For someone to act like they need help interpreting the plainly clear meaning requires that that person either has difficulty understanding plain English, which I don't think applies to you, or they have ulterior motives. Tell me, in the sentence you claim not to be able to understand without clarification, do you recognize that the portion of the sentence beginning with the word "by" elaborates on the verb "disrupt" by explaining the actions which will serve as the methods by which they perform the disruption? In the sentence "I will travel to work by driving my car." do you understand that by driving my car defines the way in which the speaker will travel to work? In the statement "I will disrupt the meeting by chanting a slogan" are you able to deduce how the speaker will disrupt the meeting? If you can understand those two examples, please explain how you can't understand the sentence we're discussing and instead require further clarification.
  15. No, it shouldn't. There are other threads to discuss that issue on, though.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
  • Create New...