U.S. Senator Raises Questions About Security and Privacy of Face ID

[thadoggfather]

Ahh. So no connection. Just a rant. My bad.

Yeah no problem.

Trust that someone void of any moral compass, clearly, cares about you sometimes/often/all the time specifically w privacy and more specifically privacy w new tech that raises suspicion.

Sounds legit.

I wish I shared your naivety. It would probably make for simpler, tho erroneously simpler, times.

Do u also trust Pedophile Kevin Spacey when he trashes The President for being a despicable human being void of any redeeming qualities?

You trust that that’s real outrage and not just displacement or playing into the singular Hollywood hysteria narrative as a distraction from what’s really at stake, (ie covering for their own depravity)?

Hmm

 

[BaldiMac]

Yeah no problem.

Trust that someone void of any moral compass, clearly, cares about you sometimes/often/all the time

Sounds legit.

I wish I shared your naivety. It would probably make for simpler, tho erroneously simpler, times.

Do u also trust Pedophile Kevin Spacey when he trashes The President for being a despicable human being? You trust that that’s real outrage and not just displacement or playing into the Hollywood hysteria narrative as a distraction from what’s really at stake?

You can post whatever interpretation of events fuels your rant. Just stop pretending to know what I think.

 

[thadoggfather]

You can post whatever interpretation of events fuels your rant. Just stop pretending to know what I think.

Trust that the “man” in the attached photo is deeply concerned about FaceID privacy questions and his concern is genuine. And not theatrics.

And that when he is exposed, it was simply a one-off joke gone wrong (from someone who is a politician not a comedian). Without a punchline or humor. Or consent.

No cognitive dissonance whatsoever on your part?

Also not pretending to assume what u think about anything but I pose questions, not answers

If I don’t have it right, perhaps you can clarify?

My theory And it’s just a theory, I s you’ve let party bias allow you to put blinders on (but wouldn’t be limited to just u, u wouldn’t be alone in this train of thought) writing off the Al Franken revelation as a completely unrelated “rant” of mine. It’s very relevant. Franken has no integrity. You own up you don’t write it off as a joke that isnt a joke, gone wrong.

I would once again maintain Al Franken is an outright fraud. And his concerns of FaceID might have even been solicited by Apple themselves for all we know. But at the very least, it was a mutually beneficial thing for him and Apple at the time.

 

[john123]

Yeah no problem.

Trust that someone void of any moral compass, clearly, cares about you sometimes/often/all the time specifically w privacy and more specifically privacy w new tech that raises suspicion.

Sounds legit.

I wish I shared your naivety. It would probably make for simpler, tho erroneously simpler, times.

Do u also trust Pedophile Kevin Spacey when he trashes The President for being a despicable human being void of any redeeming qualities?

You trust that that’s real outrage and not just displacement or playing into the singular Hollywood hysteria narrative as a distraction from what’s really at stake, (ie covering for their own depravity)?

Hmm

I think I can rewrite your post more succinctly.

"I like Donald Trump. Al Franken opposes Trump. Therefore, I assert that he must be evil, and I will make whatever false equivalences I can to justify my assertion, even if they are logically fallacious due to false parallelism."

How'd I do? See, wouldn't that have been so much easier?

 

[thadoggfather]

I think I can rewrite your post more succinctly.

"I like Donald Trump. Al Franken opposes Trump. Therefore, I assert that he must be evil, and I will make whatever false equivalences I can to justify my assertion, even if they are logically fallacious due to false parallelism."

How'd I do? See, wouldn't that have been so much easier?

Unfortunately, that is your interpretation of the matter.

I could counter argue you let democrats slide when it comes to being gropy and rape-y, but when its people you oppose, full force virtue signaling and moral superiority.

Like Moore and Trump

Vs ACTUAL pictures,

Day 9 Gloria whatever wont let that year book signature get analyzed


Now why is that?

 

[john123]

Unfortunately, that is your interpretation of the matter.

I could counter argue you let democrats slide when it comes to being gropy and rape-y, but when its people you oppose, full force virtue signaling and moral superiority.

Like Moore and Trump

Vs ACTUAL pictures,

Day 9 Gloria whatever wont let that year book signature get analyzed


Now why is that?

You say "that is your interpretation of the matter" and then go on to a partisan tirade about letting Democrats slide. So it seems that it my "interpretation" is fully correct.

It's also interesting that I've made precisely zero comments in this thread about the matter of rape and assault, yet you posit to know what I personally think and who I let "slide." This points to exactly that which I previously alluded: namely, the insertion of assumptions and narratives in lieu of critical reasoning and deductive and inductive reasoning.

You might consider laying off the Fox News and the Brietbart a little. At least as your sole source of "information," and I do put that in quotes intentionally. I realize that might challenge your world views, and that can be uncomfortable, but that's what smart people do to help themselves become smarter.

And to go back to me, well, I get on Fox News most days. I read the comments. I had Glenn Beck on the radio last week too while driving. So in a nutshell, I practice what I preach. I like to hear what both sides have to say. I often find reasonable points of view on both sides, too. It is admittedly difficult to sift through the blustering and disinformation, but my thoughts are better developed due to the effort.

 

[thadoggfather]

Words words words

I can do it too

 

[john123]

Words words words

I can do it too

Words that form a logical, coherent thought are different from words that are propaganda and drivel.