.
@aataat.bsky.social
I don't agree they don't play much of a role - if the material conditions for voters were really good, the media's influence wouldn't be effective.
But regardless, Will is pretending they don't play a role at all - even in the past!
He famously said this about the French Revolution...
But regardless, Will is pretending they don't play a role at all - even in the past!
He famously said this about the French Revolution...
September 2, 2025 at 1:12 PM
I don't agree they don't play much of a role - if the material conditions for voters were really good, the media's influence wouldn't be effective.
But regardless, Will is pretending they don't play a role at all - even in the past!
He famously said this about the French Revolution...
But regardless, Will is pretending they don't play a role at all - even in the past!
He famously said this about the French Revolution...
The person in the original tweet was NOT Cindy Steinberg.
Cindy Steinberg exists (and may have said something controversial) but it's not that person.
Cindy Steinberg exists (and may have said something controversial) but it's not that person.
July 8, 2025 at 8:05 PM
The person in the original tweet was NOT Cindy Steinberg.
Cindy Steinberg exists (and may have said something controversial) but it's not that person.
Cindy Steinberg exists (and may have said something controversial) but it's not that person.
The US has trade restrictions that apply to other countries doing trade with Cuba. If a product is made up of 10% or more US-based materials/components, the US subjects it to export controls.
Which means it cannot be traded with Cuba, or you're sanctioned.
www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...
Which means it cannot be traded with Cuba, or you're sanctioned.
www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...
June 21, 2025 at 11:50 AM
The US has trade restrictions that apply to other countries doing trade with Cuba. If a product is made up of 10% or more US-based materials/components, the US subjects it to export controls.
Which means it cannot be traded with Cuba, or you're sanctioned.
www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...
Which means it cannot be traded with Cuba, or you're sanctioned.
www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...
AI agrees as well if you put weight into that (see attached image)
----
So it's clear that you - either through ignorance or blatant dishonesty - misrepresented what the 10/42 argument is commonly used for and the purpose of the original blog: to discuss historicity. Not divinity.
----
So it's clear that you - either through ignorance or blatant dishonesty - misrepresented what the 10/42 argument is commonly used for and the purpose of the original blog: to discuss historicity. Not divinity.
June 17, 2025 at 12:55 PM
AI agrees as well if you put weight into that (see attached image)
----
So it's clear that you - either through ignorance or blatant dishonesty - misrepresented what the 10/42 argument is commonly used for and the purpose of the original blog: to discuss historicity. Not divinity.
----
So it's clear that you - either through ignorance or blatant dishonesty - misrepresented what the 10/42 argument is commonly used for and the purpose of the original blog: to discuss historicity. Not divinity.
Hi, I'm back at my PC so can easily search for sources and re-read the blog post to debunk you lies. Here is how the blog post is summarizing the argument: "[Ryan Turner argues] if one is going to doubt the existence of Jesus one must also reject the existence of Tiberius Caesar".
June 17, 2025 at 12:55 PM
Hi, I'm back at my PC so can easily search for sources and re-read the blog post to debunk you lies. Here is how the blog post is summarizing the argument: "[Ryan Turner argues] if one is going to doubt the existence of Jesus one must also reject the existence of Tiberius Caesar".
Yup, here is the original person making that argument about Agrippina.
June 16, 2025 at 7:57 PM
Yup, here is the original person making that argument about Agrippina.
Again, I don't care how apologists use this argument. That wasn't the question. You don't get to change what the argument entails. The argument being refuted in the article does not involve divinity. It involves historical references.
June 16, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Again, I don't care how apologists use this argument. That wasn't the question. You don't get to change what the argument entails. The argument being refuted in the article does not involve divinity. It involves historical references.
Nope. I posted the argument being discussed. It's not about divinity.
June 16, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Nope. I posted the argument being discussed. It's not about divinity.
Again, the article clearly describes what the argument is: weighing the number of sources supporting one vs the other: 10 vs 42.
That proponents of divinity latch on to that argument doesn't change anything.
That proponents of divinity latch on to that argument doesn't change anything.
June 16, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Again, the article clearly describes what the argument is: weighing the number of sources supporting one vs the other: 10 vs 42.
That proponents of divinity latch on to that argument doesn't change anything.
That proponents of divinity latch on to that argument doesn't change anything.
No, you couldn't have. You tried and embarrassed yourself. I mean your argument devolved into blaming me for you getting the article wrong lol
June 16, 2025 at 7:37 PM
No, you couldn't have. You tried and embarrassed yourself. I mean your argument devolved into blaming me for you getting the article wrong lol
No I have a response for people denying the obvious facts of the article. They literally explain the argument. It's about which character has more supporting historical accounts (supposedly 10 vs 42). You're just wrong and I will obviously point that out.
June 16, 2025 at 7:32 PM
No I have a response for people denying the obvious facts of the article. They literally explain the argument. It's about which character has more supporting historical accounts (supposedly 10 vs 42). You're just wrong and I will obviously point that out.
"You have to read my rules and operate in my make-believe world"
Definitely not a narcissist lol
Definitely not a narcissist lol
June 16, 2025 at 6:51 PM
"You have to read my rules and operate in my make-believe world"
Definitely not a narcissist lol
Definitely not a narcissist lol
No, you just like to lie and make things up and then use that excuse. But, unlike you I can provide evidence for what I said.
Here was my response. Nothing rude :)
Here was my response. Nothing rude :)
June 16, 2025 at 6:32 PM
No, you just like to lie and make things up and then use that excuse. But, unlike you I can provide evidence for what I said.
Here was my response. Nothing rude :)
Here was my response. Nothing rude :)
See the first image, where it's clear I didn't jump at you or anything when you thanked me. Or the post linked to here where you gave your opinion and I didn't say anything at alll (let alone something negative).
bsky.app/profile/shuc...
bsky.app/profile/shuc...
June 16, 2025 at 5:45 PM
See the first image, where it's clear I didn't jump at you or anything when you thanked me. Or the post linked to here where you gave your opinion and I didn't say anything at alll (let alone something negative).
bsky.app/profile/shuc...
bsky.app/profile/shuc...
You literally asked twice what the views were based on.
You are so bad at lying lol
You are so bad at lying lol
June 16, 2025 at 5:43 PM
You literally asked twice what the views were based on.
You are so bad at lying lol
You are so bad at lying lol
You're basically doing this meme, but it's "posting on a nazi website"
June 11, 2025 at 3:56 PM
You're basically doing this meme, but it's "posting on a nazi website"
That's literally what I said.
What would suffice as proof for you?
What would suffice as proof for you?
June 6, 2025 at 1:06 AM
That's literally what I said.
What would suffice as proof for you?
What would suffice as proof for you?
You're really bad at this huh?
June 5, 2025 at 11:57 PM
You're really bad at this huh?
No you literally did not you liar:
June 5, 2025 at 7:45 PM
No you literally did not you liar:
Here's the full context where it's clear you don't address the circular structure, you just pivot to saying "well it's a fact".
"X requires LVT because Y produces Z which is necessary for X (according to the LVT)".... assumes the LVT! Which is the definition of a circular argument.
"X requires LVT because Y produces Z which is necessary for X (according to the LVT)".... assumes the LVT! Which is the definition of a circular argument.
June 5, 2025 at 7:18 PM
Here's the full context where it's clear you don't address the circular structure, you just pivot to saying "well it's a fact".
"X requires LVT because Y produces Z which is necessary for X (according to the LVT)".... assumes the LVT! Which is the definition of a circular argument.
"X requires LVT because Y produces Z which is necessary for X (according to the LVT)".... assumes the LVT! Which is the definition of a circular argument.