Yes it does line up with stalin. But in the context of this thread is also a direct line between knowing about both napoleon's and Hitler's woes with Russian winters. Which is what spawned this convo. So it comes down to if you think:

A. This was easily findable by Santa
B. If it is findable, and not an obscure connection, if Santa would lie as if he knew to save face

And I think most posters would agree B is well out of character for Santa.

Occurs razor world suggest that Santa just knew about an obscure bit of history.

mfw I see these last couple of pages:

i can understand why YOU might consider it out of character, but i have a different set of experiences, putting this well within the realm of possibility - and aren't you the self-proclaimed poster child of acting differently depending on who you interact with? is that irrefutable proof? of course not, but it also doesn't require any additional or unreasonable assumptions (to address a common understanding of occam's razor in general debate) on my part to be consistent with MY experience (which includes a whole lot of unprovoked petty remarks, a really puzzling obsession with my word choice, and some outright hilarious claims of superiority, very reminiscent of ancient internet copypasta - all of which you'd probably consider "out of character" in YOUR interactions with him)...

i gave away my best winter coat, and all i got was this stupid postcard.

yes I do tend to morph based on who im talking it, its a side effect of moving around so many times as a child I think.

but I didn't mean it would be out of character based on my interactions, I meant it would be out of character for him generally. antagonistic at times? surely. stubborn in his morals, yes, a thing I respect btw regardless of the morals. sardonic, yes. but a liar, not a fucking chance frankly. not based on my interactions with him, or even your interactions with him, but knowing and talking with a guy for over a decade. I watched him go up against card sultan on everything from 9-11 truth to flat earth. in situations where he could lie and no one would blink an eye because card was so universally disrespected for his insane beliefs and a stubborn and snarky demeanor that makes you seem like mother Theresa.

I don't think a poll of pard's most ideologically opposed to santaras posters would get a single liar vote, unless you voted. then again you didn't know he was a big history buff, so why would anyone listen to you calling him a liar. history buff is like #3 on his synonymous attributes behind libertarian and veteran.

disagreeing with people is well and good, its what we do here. but the constant attempts to call people liars is pretty gross tbh. your inability to allow people to walk things back by saying they were joking is childish. people are allowed to joke in a spectrum of seriousness. and your inability to allow for that is why you tend to get replies from 3-4 people in a board of 20. do with that whatever you want if you even read this far.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 15 2020 07:04pm

ya i've read it, but meh, it's the same old boring material. i do 'allow' people to walk things back, the few who honestly admitted mistakes or carelessness should be well aware that i don't tend to dwell on such things. people who have a somewhat credible (by common sense standards) claim of having been joking concerning a certain topic don't make me roll my eyes and call 'bullshit'. what i can't stand, however, is people doing it disingenuously, specifically trying to hide behind some bogus excuse (like 'the sarcasm was lost on you because you're not a native speaker') in order to deflect blame...

btw, since you tend to do that a lot: appeals to majority are even less convincing replacements for actual arguments when they are purely hypothetical, so you might as well skip them entirely. i mean, if YOU are really that confident in his character, to claim that even a small lie, trying to save face regarding an issue he prides himself on being knowledgable about, is out of the question, i can only congratulate you two on such a close personal friendship over the internet - but you will still have to allow me to draw my own conclusions, based on the interactions i had. doesn't mean i'm going to ignore it entirely, but you will understand that it's not something i will base MY judgement on, just because you say that to you it is unthinkable.

btw, i'm still waiting for that super convincing story / "solid alibi" revealing his 'actual', and totally not google-able, source for the 'esoteric tidbit' concerning stalin's order... don't you think i've committed myself plenty for his 'trap' to be revealed? i mean, i know at least one regular who will post how convincing it is, and that i've been debunked into oblivion by it - no matter what it is... well, make that two, if you count dogs obsessively yapping about nazi stuff for some weird reason...

This post was edited by fender on Jan 15 2020 08:44pm

1. this is the rallying cry of the decidedly unpopular
2. i dont post for you, i do it for me, and also for others if they want to read it or chime in. this is a social forum.

as to judging liars on only your own interactions, i think thats just an antisocial behavior along the same lines of constantly ignoring mass appeal. mass appeal isn't always right, mob mentality exists, but in general it points in the right direction, especially in matters of character judgements.

i mean if you did a poll on the character of pard posters you'd find it lines up with reality in almost all cases. santara wouldnt be a liar. card sultan would. endless sky would be a polarizing figure right down the middle, i'd be an asshole, you'd be someone people dont talk to, thor would be a polarizing figure on the other side, skinned/ink would be judged as having extreme rhetoric but good intentions, etc etc etc

and on top of that, especially when it comes to lying, its accurate. you have to think about the sheer number of claims made here by 10+ year posters, the sheer number of times they get caught using a hack source or lying about a study they "mysteriously" can't find. the number of historical disagreements that get settled with sources. the math that does or doesnt add up. etc. there's a reason EndlessSky is called EndlessLie. he's made false claims and had his sources eviscerated dozens of times. If santara were to tell a half truth it would be a miscalculation of the implementation of libertarian ideology, not history lol. the whole reason i jumped in from the start is because you were questioning him on military history, which would be like someone questioning me on automation tbh.

1. nop, it's a subtle reminder that logical fallacies are not arguments.
2. you don't post for me, but for others, got it.

I think US is getting closer and closer in amount of civilians killed, Japan, Vietman, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria... And all authoritarian regimes installed.

Not sure how many millions, but really much for sure.