Imperialism and illicit drugs commonly go together. However, with Taliban opium eradication efforts in full effect, heroin is in short supply, and experts fear that a new fentanyl crisis could be brewing in the US.
also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline…
do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
notice how i didn’t prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that’s because i didn’t use any. ditto this post.
are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
We all understand how exaggeration works. @[email protected] linked the article, clearly indicating it’s not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @[email protected] was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it’s not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.
Of course it’s not the exact same article.
so you even admit that they lied
The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.
America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.
are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?
time ran the exact same article, what is your point?
shame on Time?
also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline…
do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
oh, so when you get caught in a lie, you just hurl insults rather than admit to it. hardly a surprise…
notice how i didn’t prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that’s because i didn’t use any. ditto this post.
are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?
woooow
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
deleted by creator
no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
this is just sad.
We all understand how exaggeration works. @[email protected] linked the article, clearly indicating it’s not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @[email protected] was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it’s not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.
so you even admit that they lied
so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.
America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.
What conclusion do these facts support?
that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.
you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.
here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.
are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?
You, in this post:
So what conclusion do the facts support if not that the us is to blame for opium production during the occupation?
sorry for your troubles. I recommend you seek medical or psychiatric help.
this should help