Clarification - this is a normie argument and is rhetoric. I’m sure someone else will comment with the details why the acidity in coke would cause a false positive and this should be expected. But as a rhetorical device when your audience is normies - that’s where this story is useful.
Clarification - this is a normie argument and is rhetoric. I’m sure someone else will comment with the details why the acidity in coke would cause a false positive and this should be expected. But as a rhetorical device when your audience is normies - that’s where this story is useful.
Correct me where I am wrong: Your argument is that the acidity of the Coke caused a false positive, and that this should be expected, and therefore that this argument is just rhetoric.
I don't really see any other way to read that. And if my reading is correct, then the acidity of the Coke and subsequent expectation of a false positive is the central premise upon which your entire argument rests.
So how am I "jumping on the least important part"?
All your edit has done is hide the reasoning behind why a false positive ought to be expected. Which leaves only a baseless assertion that this is "unscientific" "rhetoric" and a "false positive is to be expected" for some unspecified reason that you have "already seen elsewhere".
I’ve seen this convincingly explained as poor science, but it’s still a good argument if used as rhetoric for normies.
Yes, you were convinced by arguments revolving around Cola being acidic and therefore false positives to be expected. And I pointed out why it was foolish to be convinced by such arguments. Which removed all basis for your conclusions. Instead of acknowledging this, and reevaluating your conclusions, you chose to hide the premise and pretend your now baseless conclusions are still sound. It appears you think yourself clever for that.
You’re exactly the kind of autist who needs to read up on rhetoric vs dialectic. Go reread the definition of pedantic a few times while you’re at it.
The irony of this is quite entertaining. Bravo.
Or is it brava? I think it must be, judging by how personally you're taking someone politely pointing out that you are wrong about something.
There I’ve edited again are you happy now you fucking trog? If not you want to rewrite to get my actual point across in a way you’re happy with since this is how you choose to spend your time? Taking tedious issue with people you pretend to be fighting alongside?
I was upset because I almost didn’t include the acidity part to begin with because I knew someone was going to do this. I left it in to provide better context but it was clearly a mistake. I looked at your comment history and don’t think you’re actually a kike, but derailing someone by harping on something that wasn’t their point is a classic pilpul tactic when done intentionally, so it tends to piss people off.
view the rest of the comments →
Ifyouonlyknewhowbad ago
Clarification - this is a normie argument and is rhetoric. I’m sure someone else will comment with the details why the acidity in coke would cause a false positive and this should be expected. But as a rhetorical device when your audience is normies - that’s where this story is useful.
Glory_Beckons ago
If a test returns positive because something is acidic, then it is a test for acidity.
There are plenty of reasons human saliva or mucus can be acidic. For example, if you just drank some Cola. Is that what this is supposed to test for?
Ifyouonlyknewhowbad ago
Without fail someone jumps on the least important part of what I said. That wasn’t my point and I’m editing my post to remove it.
Glory_Beckons ago
Correct me where I am wrong: Your argument is that the acidity of the Coke caused a false positive, and that this should be expected, and therefore that this argument is just rhetoric.
I don't really see any other way to read that. And if my reading is correct, then the acidity of the Coke and subsequent expectation of a false positive is the central premise upon which your entire argument rests.
So how am I "jumping on the least important part"?
All your edit has done is hide the reasoning behind why a false positive ought to be expected. Which leaves only a baseless assertion that this is "unscientific" "rhetoric" and a "false positive is to be expected" for some unspecified reason that you have "already seen elsewhere".
Ifyouonlyknewhowbad ago
Let me dumb it down for you. I’ll rephrase:
I’ve seen this convincingly explained as poor science, but it’s still a good argument if used as rhetoric for normies.
You’re exactly the kind of autist who needs to read up on rhetoric vs dialectic. Go reread the definition of pedantic a few times while you’re at it.
Glory_Beckons ago
Yes, you were convinced by arguments revolving around Cola being acidic and therefore false positives to be expected. And I pointed out why it was foolish to be convinced by such arguments. Which removed all basis for your conclusions. Instead of acknowledging this, and reevaluating your conclusions, you chose to hide the premise and pretend your now baseless conclusions are still sound. It appears you think yourself clever for that.
The irony of this is quite entertaining. Bravo.
Or is it brava? I think it must be, judging by how personally you're taking someone politely pointing out that you are wrong about something.
Ifyouonlyknewhowbad ago
There I’ve edited again are you happy now you fucking trog? If not you want to rewrite to get my actual point across in a way you’re happy with since this is how you choose to spend your time? Taking tedious issue with people you pretend to be fighting alongside?
Glory_Beckons ago
All I did was point out that the coke being acidic isn't really a good justification for the test returning a false positive.
I have no idea why you're so upset about this. I certainly wasn't expecting you to edit your comment or try to rewrite it.
Ifyouonlyknewhowbad ago
I was upset because I almost didn’t include the acidity part to begin with because I knew someone was going to do this. I left it in to provide better context but it was clearly a mistake. I looked at your comment history and don’t think you’re actually a kike, but derailing someone by harping on something that wasn’t their point is a classic pilpul tactic when done intentionally, so it tends to piss people off.
Ifyouonlyknewhowbad ago
You a kike or something? That’s clearly nothing to do with my point.