jackbwater

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr ..
Questions can be done with or without rhetoric. I'm sure Charlie did both. And I'm sure he had good justifications. He had to deal with some awkward people sometimes, also he often wasn't doing long form discussion. And he had an audience.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr It's dishonest if you don't ever state your argument.

If you ask questions and get to your argument , I was not saying that is dishonest. There can often be good reasons for not stating an argument at the very start.
....

[Israel Now @neveragainlive1]

⚠️ *BREAKING - Arabs Dress up as Jews To Inflitrate Into Israel For Possible Terror Activity:* Israeli security forces intercepted two vehicles carrying illegal Palestinian entrants at the Maccabim Crossing overnight.

The driver of the first vehicle attempted to disguise himself as a religious Jew, wearing a kippah and placing religious materials on the dashboard in an apparent effort to avoid suspicion. The vehicle was stopped by alert security personnel.

Roughly ten minutes later, a second vehicle carrying additional illegal entrants was also intercepted at the crossing.

Israeli security officials have repeatedly warned that illegal infiltrations from Judea and Samaria pose a security threat, as terror operatives have previously used similar methods to enter Israel, gather intelligence, and carry out attacks.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@Lauren_Southern @paleochristcon He would say it's better than what we have now but he is not advocating it!

[Lauren Southern @Lauren_Southern]

Hey I finally found a clip of those people advocating for the 1950’s @paleochristcon :)

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@Andypublicuk @05ryan_ Look on his twitter. He is not a regular nationalist he is anti TR. Anti Sikh.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@Hardmaxxxx No debate was lost here. It was just claims made each way about what people say. Really a worthless discussion. Nro worth recording. That Piers will think is great rambunctious debate. You are a timewaster.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@HAIM__GOZALI @DovySimuMMA You have an interesting mentality!

All the top level sports people retire cos eg they start losing to people they shouldn't/wouldn't have lost to before. And they get very rich. They transition to business or family or a hobby even if they are not that good at it. Or coaching

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@ZeekArkham I'm fairness to the police, I saw a Sikh discussion it, condemn the killer, and say the killer used Persian knife that closes off the wound so they bleed inside. It would have looked like they were not stabbed.

[Mor Edge Insight @MorEdge_Insight]

Watch this 17-second clip carefully. What you are about to see is not what it claims to be.

For over 25 years I’ve worked as a specialist forensic analyst, both within the intelligence world as well as private security sector. So I’m going to show you how forensic analysis really works to uncover the truth about what we see put in front of us.

TRT World, Turkish state media, released this video claiming it shows an Israeli airstrike on a residential building in Al Zaitoun, Gaza on January 5, 2025. The dramatic footage with emotional Arabic overlay text was designed to generate instant outrage.

While obvious Pallywood often uses fake blood and staged injuries, this one is more sophisticated. It relies on perfect timing and internal preparation.

Here is the second-by-second breakdown:

Seconds 0 to 1: The camera is already perfectly framed on the building. White smoke begins venting from multiple windows simultaneously. At around the one-second mark, a bright red dot appears on an upper window for a fraction of a second right before the blast. This is the trigger light that lights up the instant before an explosive charge is detonated. It also acts as a marker for the cameraman. No incoming missile, no external impact flash.

Seconds 1 to 2: A massive dark smoke plume erupts violently outward and upward. Debris is ejected. When a real missile strikes a building, you typically see large flames from the missile’s fuel and the force ripping apart major sections of concrete, producing large chunks of debris. Here, we see no significant flames and only small debris mixed with heavy dust, exactly what you would expect from a small internal explosive device designed mainly to blow out windows and create a dramatic smoke plume. The explosion originates from inside the building and expands symmetrically.

Seconds 2 to 4: The smoke cloud balloons dramatically. The cameraman, already positioned and recording, smoothly tilts up to capture the most cinematic part of the plume.

Seconds 4 to 6: The camera tilts down to street level. A girl in bright pink walks across the dusty area almost casually, not showing the expected panic.

Seconds 6 to 9: Civilians appear relatively composed. Then the man in the red hoodie runs in, stops dramatically, and points upward while shouting in a theatrical manner.

Seconds 9 to 17: People mill about with surprising calm as dust swirls. The camera work remains composed enough to capture the drama while TRT World adds the emotional propaganda text.

This was not an airstrike. It was a carefully timed internal detonation, triggered from within (signaled by the red dot), filmed by someone who knew exactly when it would happen. The internal multi-window venting, perfect camera placement, and staged reactions all confirm it was manufactured for propaganda.

If you value the truth and appreciate such detailed analyses, please share.

Real tragedy does not need this level of staging. The information war continues.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr One can say that "argumentative dialogue" while not necessarily making an argument, would one could say,have the intent to. A question isn't an argument but an argument might be intended,in a rhetorical way. If so That's extremely devious and bad faith and not socratic dialogue!

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr Also "Argumentative dialogue" isn't a technical term. It really shouldn't be brought into a discussion of what does or does not count as an argument.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr The context was discussing a quote of CK in a tweet. But if you are going to say that bringing that context into it now changes the conclusions or anything, in a discussion about whether a question is an argument, then you just make no sense.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr The AI responses is spot on otherwise I would not have posted it. It is Extremely good and does address your errors.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr The socratic method can involve cross-examining though. A lot of scrutinising. It can also involve a lot of agreement after scrutinising.

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr Another issue there is you don't see that some things can get screwed in translation like sometimes trying to force one word into 1 or 2 or 3, is, could lead to gibberish in the language you are translating to "arg of disproof", or a mistake in interpreting the original word

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr Question for you.. do you accept that The socratic method is not only for disagreeing. It's not necessarily to undermine somebody's point.
So it's not quite the same as cross-examining. (Though it could look like cross-examining at times).....

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@Alexarmstrong You write "If you disagree, you are entitled to go and live somewhere that you"

What a stupid thing to say

The law in England is what it is. And if u don't like it or disagree, then YOU go and live somewhere else.

Don't make anargument and then say "and if you disagree F off"

[jackbwater @jackbwater]

@drew_data @RealRichKitch @CharlieKirk4evr Also my question to you "Would you say that is an argument that the person killed that man?"

Is 100% not an argument . I'm curious if you would call that question an argument

Somebody might say "a question started an argument" but they mean start a debate. ..