Total posts: 5,890
-->
@ethang5
Studies that always confirm leftist positions are bogus.Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter? This won't happen if you argue with honesty.
Yep, studies telling you that you are wrong, must be wrong. Thank you for proving my point. Again.
Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter?
Yes, the merits of every study matter first and foremost. They do not however matter in this conversation because we already agree that the studies were bogus.
The source of funding matters when you are trying to understand *why* the study got out wrong.
Do you understand this now?
I quoted what you said
You can quote my words all day long, that doesn’t mean you are actually responding to them.
Nope. I used the tobacco study as an example of studies that always confirm one position
Ethang, do you accept the tobacco studies you referenced as valid? Yes or No?
I write, but you pretend not to see. No studies on human nature can all confirm one position. Not only is it not logical, but reality refutes it.
We’re not talking about human nature. This conversation began by you talking about studies that confirm leftists positions and how they can’t always be right. There is no such thing as “right” when we’re talking about human nature and your example was tobacco studies, which has nothing to do with human nature.
Sounds like someone is trying to wiggle out of the fact that they are just wrong and won’t admit it.
So I explained *why* those studies were flawed, which is not because academia just got it wrong as you are implying.Those studies are flawed because they are guided by politics, not science.It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.
This is just plain stupid and really makes me wonder why I bother with you.
Tobacco studies were not guided by politics, they were guided by capitalism. Tobacco companies funded the studies to convince people their products were safe so they would buy them. How do you not know this?
But it’s the second line that’s most telling. What the hell is “leftism”? Sounds like something completely made up by someone so insecure about their views that they need to cast everyone who disagrees with them as having some sort of mental condition to avoid the burden of actually trying to understand what other people are saying. And you’ve made all of this evident the entire thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky.
Why do you need to be absolutely certain about something in order to consider it proven?
And the objective truth of a proposition is in no way impacted whether it was proven or not, so your title is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It's ironic how Dems cried about executive orders being phony yet rule by executive orders
I don’t recall any Democrats claiming executive orders were phony. Would you care to enlighten us a to when this happened?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
...start by explaining what you think a failed presidency looks like in the first place...Barbed wire around the Capitol months after the inaugaration. Press conferences with no questions. A president suffering from dementia. High food and fuel prices. Dumb foreign policies. An out of control southern border. Collusion with big tech against the American people. Spending America's money on foreigners first. Political prisoners. A blindingly stupid 3 trillion dollar spending package....and how the previous 4 years does not qualify.No new wars started. First president to meet NK's leader and get him to stop long range missile launches. Highest employment rates for women and minorities. A secure southern border. Brokering a peace deal with Israel and 5 Arab countries. Enforcing the country's laws on immigration and religious rights. Making European nation's pay their fair share for their defense. Renegotiating better trade deals with Mexico and Canada. A sound and growing economy.
I give you the award for the most efficient cramming of meaningless right wing epithets in one post I’ve seen here in DART. That’s something I’m normally used to only seeing on Twitter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ask Biden. He said only dictators rule by EO. Dictators are bad.
This is what having no argument to back up your nonsense looks like. This back and forth started with you pretending Biden was worse than Trump because he used so many executive orders, now when asked whether executive orders are a bad thing you start talking about hypocrisy. Just admit that you don’t give a rats ass about executive orders and your first point was moot.
Would you like the link to the video of Biden spokewoman admitting that the Biden administration was secretly colluding with big tech to censor citizens?
Working with tech companies to point out misinformation that is literally killing people so those tech companies can make *their own decision* to remove it is not “secretly colluding to censor our citizens”. Why is that so difficult for you?
Does this address my point? Americans died because of the leftist idiot in the White House.
Name one president whose decisions resulted in 0 American deaths.
Is breaking and entering, vandalism, trespassing, beating police officers, and stopping the certification of a presidential election included in that right to “peacefully” protest?If you're Antifa/BLM, even adding assault, burning federal buildings and police stations, looting and vandalism are included in that right to “peacefully” protest.
Ethang, you are the one who claimed the 600 people who are being prosecuted in their role for the Capitol attacks were just “peacefully protesting”. Do you have a response to my point other than “but BLM”?
38 people shot in Chicago is because Fox news.The highest number of illegals caught crossing the border is because Fox news.13 Americans dead in Afghanistan is, you guessed it. Fox news.
Literally all of this was happening while Trump was president. Fox News didn’t cause any of it, they’re just the ones telling you when to be outraged by it. Hint: be outraged when a democrat is in charge, when a republican is in charge talk about how great America is. Wash rinse repeat. It’s fake outrage.
Your man is a failure. Trying to argue otherwise just makes you look pathetic.
Says the guy who emphatically supports Donald Trump, a man so stupid he thinks it would be a good idea to drop a nuclear bomb inside a hurricane, or that the solution to California’s wildfire problem is a rake, or that we should try injecting disinfectant to fight Covid. Ok bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Trump is no longer the president. Get over it, already.
You might want to point that statement at Trump and his cult followers who still think he’s going to be reinstated this year.
I do agree with you though that we need to stop with the whataboutisms. Biden did fuck up and we should be able to talk about that honestly. The problem however is that it is brazenly hypocritical and therefore unserious when someone who has spent the the last 4 years supportive of Donald Trump calls any other president a failure. If you want to have a conversation with anyone on the left about Biden being a failure you need to start by explaining what you think a failed presidency looks like in the first place and how the previous 4 years does not qualify. Till then all we’re going to do is talk past each other.
Assuming of course you are a Trump supporter. I don’t think I’ve seen you say so explicitly but reading your posts it certainly appears to be the case.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Yes, because we focus on the merits of the study itself, not whether the people who produced it are alpha or beta males.How about focusing on what industry they are in?
How about not. Focus on the merits
Did the merits of those studies matter? Then why would which company is funding the study matter? This won't happen if you argue with honesty.
Or, you could just pay attention and make a honest attempt to understand what the person you are conversing with is saying.
We are already in agreement on the merits or lack there of on the tobacco studies, that’s why you brought it up. So I explained *why* those studies were flawed, which is not because academia just got it wrong as you are implying.
It is your leftism that causes you to believe this silliness.
WTF? Please explain to me how it is impossible for one side to be wrong all the time.
I can’t wait to be enlightened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @zedvictor4Lol!!The border is not in chaos?Afghanistan is not in chaos?Inflation is not in chaos?Crime is not in chaos?Man, your reality blinders must have an rpf (reality protection factor) of 100%
In other words… you aren’t watching enough Fox News
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
- Biden said: Only dictators rule by executive orders.
Do you have any thoughts of your own, or are you a Biden follower now?
Biden has issued 3 times as many in less than a third of the time as Trump ever did.
So what? Are executive orders bad? Yes or No?
So did Biden
So what? I’m not the one pretending to have a problem with executive orders. I care about what the EO does, not how many they issued.
That was his opinion. He actually DID nothing to curb the freedoms of either the social media Giants or it's members.
Neither did Biden. This is nonsense propaganda which clearly works. What the Biden administration actually did was provide social media companies with examples of misinformation being spread on their platforms asking those sites to take action against them. Those companies did so not because the Biden administration said so, but because that was an effort they were already engaged in being that people are literally dying because of it.
For someone who professes to care so much about freedom you sure seem to not give a shit about these companies right to enforce their own terms of service.
I guess a president simply voicing his opinion openly is not better than a president secretly colluding with big tech to censor citizens
Thank you for proving my point. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can understand why Trump was banned, and it’s not because he was simply “voicing his opinion”. It’s because his rhetoric inspired thousands of his supporters to attack and ultimately breach the US Capitol. I know your blinders keep you from seeing what’s wrong with that so I have a very simple solution… just pretend Trump was declared the winner and that was BLM smashing windows, defecating on the floors, chanting “hang Mike Pence”, and forcing Congress to stop the certification process to evacuate the building. I promise you, it will become crystal clear.
But what you did miss is the 3 months of assaults, looting, and burnings by leftist.
Complete and utterly irrelevant to this conversation. But does show that you’re not really interested in it, you’re just here to throw out talking points to own the lib. Do you even remember what this is about?
Does this address my point? Americans died because of the leftist idiot in the White House.
It really didn’t, I just find it humorous how I’m in the middle of trying to explain to some of DART’s right wingers in the other thread why expertise matters while over here having it thrown in my face as a reason Trump was so wonderful.
Your point however was meaningless. Your statement was that Trump listened to his generals. Do you have any evidence Biden didn’t? I find this argument especially remarkable because the plan Biden followed was literally Trump’s plan, so what is your point here?
The 600 people hunted down by the FBI and held without bail or charge now for 6 months for expressing their political right to protest peacefully.
Is breaking and entering, vandalism, trespassing, beating police officers, and stopping the certification of a presidential election included in that right to “peacefully” protest?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Thank you for confirming my point of why liberals don't question the dubious depth of studies all confirming liberalism.
Yes, because we focus on the merits of the study itself, not whether the people who produced it are alpha or beta males.
And also because we recognize that reality doesn’t care what you think about it, which is why it’s not neutral.
You’re either right or wrong, you should spend some time focusing on that rather than victimizing yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
I wouldn’t hire her to run a hot dog stand. To claim she should be POTUS puts you in flat earther territory. It’s just stupid.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
So 999 out of 1000 mathematicians say that 2+2=4 and one says it is 5.2 is argumentum ad populum?
I really want to know what he do if he landed in legal trouble. Apparently he wouldn’t hire a lawyer since any rando off the street could offer legal advice and be just as likely to be correct.
Created:
-->
@Athias
The fact that 95% of the instances in which the audience was polled, the majority happened to have coincided with the correct answer doesn't affect the probability of one's selecting the correct answer
They didn’t just “happen” to coincide with the correct answer. It turns out that human beings carry with them knowledge of the world they live in *making it more likely* that when a large enough sample is polled on a question of fact the crowd will get the right answer.
Why is this so difficult for you? Do you really think knowledge either doesn’t exist or is not useful when it comes to determining the correct answer?
And BTW to claim that you are not more likely to be correct by going along with the audience when the audience is correct 95% of the time is just plain stupid. You really need to spend some time thinking about why you can’t just admit when you are wrong, you are smarter then that.
And you're confused over the focus of our dispute: no one is stating that the 9 out of 10 doctors can't be right, or aren't right; I'm stating that presuming 9 out of 10 doctors are (or likely to be) right because they're 9 out 10 doctors is logically fallacious.
Clearly, it is you who doesn’t understand what this conversation is about. If you and I were debating whether masks are effective and my argument was that I’m right because the doctors say so, that is argumentum ad populum and therefore logically fallacious. But that’s not what this conversation is about. I’m not arguing that I'm right, I’m arguing that I am more reasonable to accept the scientific consensus than to not.
The most telling thing about our conversation is that you never offered an answer to the question; choice A (99.9% say yes) or B (0.1% say yes)? But of course you didn’t, because everyone reading this thread knows damn well you would have taken choice A for no reason other than because you know you are more likely to be correct by going with the 99.9% consensus than the 0.1%.
Another telling part of our conversation was when I used examples of expertise you would rely on (mechanic, accountant, etc.) and rather than addressing the central point I was making you responded to each one individually explaining why you wouldn’t rely on that particular type of expertise (“I do my own taxes”), wiggling your way out of having to confront the main idea; expertise has value.
The fact that I have to repeatedly point this out is absurd and should really make you think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Trump: Executive orders in the 1st 100 days. 10Biden: Executive orders in the 1st 100 days. 54
So executive orders are bad? lol wow. Trump literally governed by them, he even held signing ceremonies regularly to commemorate them.
Trump: Fully free hand given to social media companies and users.Biden: Working secretly with tech Nazis to censor users whom the govt. doesn't like.
Trump railed against them over and over again calling for section 230 to be overturned. He even tried to start his own platform to compete with them. You can’t be serious.
And I love how the right ignores the merits of every single issue where the government pushes back against speech and just claims it’s a “left vs. right” thing. It’s not.
Trump: Free and open inauguration.Biden: Barbed wire and national guard troops locking down capital.
I must have missed the part where the US Capitol was attacked and breached by a mob forcing congress to evacuate the building as a result of Trump winning in 2016.
Trump: Listened to his military experts.Biden: Overruled the experts causing death in Afghanistan.
So *now* you guys believe in following the consensus of the experts? What a joke.
Trump: HAd his Executive orders upheld by SCOTUSBiden: Has had several of his EO's shot down by SCOTUS.
This is just plain nonsense. Trump had plenty of his EO’s overturned. You’re not even being serious.
Trump: No political prisoners, not even for the treasonous FBIBiden: 600+ political prisoners with no due process.
What are you talking about?
I wish we could patient the mechanism that allows liberals to be blind to reality.
Looks like the right got to it first
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So why am I calling her a hypocrite? Because she is very curropt herself. About $130,000 of the money she raised is from PACs.
I’m not sure how taking money from PAC’s makes you corrupt, but playing by the rules doesn’t mean you agree with the then. It just means you are not willing to hand yourself a disadvantage out of principal. I wouldn’t either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It never ceases to amaze me how aware people are of the fact that POTUS is quite possibly the most difficult, demanding, and consequential job in the world, yet how little qualifications, abilities, and experience many are willing to accept in the person they think should should hold that job.
MGT is in her 40’s I believe, and just now, for the first time in her life (allegedly) understands that the Holocaust was bad. If someone like that interviewed for to be a grocery store manager you would probably throw their resume in the trash and burn it. But you think she should be the leader of the free world? It’s a literal joke.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Do you not yet know that certain personality types gravitate to certain careers more than to others?
Yes, I understand that. Why do you bring that into the conversation? What does that actually have to do with academia?
Like the way every study by the tobacco industry confirmed that tobacco was healthy?
Yes, until someone other than tobacco companies started funding them.
Beyond this fallacious example, what is your point, that study results mean nothing because humans are not perfect?
Reality is neutral. Always has been. Always will be. Reality will confirm whatever the truth is. The first casualty of politics is truth.
Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing. Reality is objective, not neutral.
So yes, it is certainly possible that one side could be wrong all the time, in fact it’s not even implausible. All it takes is to start with the wrong foundation, from there everything else falls apart.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If you are asserting that selecting choice A is correct or "more likely" to be correct because 999 is greater than one, then that is informed by your feelings; that is not medicine; that is not science; that is not statistical; that is not logical.
What if it turned out that the one doctor got confused and checked the wrong box, so now it’s 1000-0? Does that change anything? Serious question.
You can Google the actual statistics. On the show when the contestant asked the audience they turned out to be right 95% of the time and almost none of those examples had 99.9% agreement among actual experts, so claiming you are not more likely to be correct by going with them is just factually, objectively false.
You really seem obsessed with avoiding argumentum ad populum but don’t seem to understand when it is a logical fallacy vs when it’s not.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
1. Non-alpha men mitriculated to academia.2. These men tended to hire non-alpha men like themselves.3. Soon, academia was majority non-alpha men.
Can you please explain what being an “alpha male” has to do with academia?
Today, conservatism is career death for a scientist. Today, virtually every study "confirms" the liberal mindset, but unless reality is liberal, this cannot be correct.
If every study confirms the “liberal mindset” then isn’t that a strong indication that it is correct? Or do you believe reality has an obligation to remain neutral when it comes to political issues?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank you for the generous concession.
It wasn’t a concession genius.
Created:
-->
@Athias
This isn't like labor, where the more people you assign to the task, the more you expedite the process. If all 10 doctors are"equally qualified," then taking nine of them and grouping them together doesn't mean that their expertise creates a composite of greater quantity supplanting each individual's expertise. Given your rationale, they would all know the same thing because as you stated they're all equally qualified. Heeding counsel of one, in this case, would be no different than heeding the counsel of the other nine.
Ok, let’s try this again. This time even simpler.
You’re a contestant on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’. You are asked a question pertaining to the field of medicine. Being that you have no medical expertise and have no idea what the answer is, you use your lifeline to ask a crowd of 1,000 doctors. 999 of them tell you its choice A. 1 says it’s choice B. There are no other choices.
For $1 million dollars, what is your final answer and why?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I really don't understand how people don't get that if 1 out of 10 EQUALLY qualified doctors disagrees, then whatever the the issue is, it ISNT SCIENCE...
That’s because you don’t read. We’re not talking about science, we’re talking about assessing the layman’s point of view and what is most reasonable from it.
If you actually followed the conversation this stems from a discussion about whether the left following the CDC’s guidelines on masking demonstrates unreasonableness. Assuming just for the sake of argument that masks don’t actually work, the point is that those who follow the guidelines are not demonstrating a disregard for reality by doing so as others have claimed. Whether they are ultimately wrong is an entirely different question.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Furthermore, the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is irrelevant. Your premise is fallacious.
The premise is that, all else being equal, it is more reasonable to believe the 9 doctors than the 1. To deny this is to take the position that it is equally as reasonable to accept the 1 over the 9. That’s absurd.
9 is greater than 1, so to claim that the 9 have no valid grounds to be accepted over the 1 is to claim that the 9 have no more expertise than the one, which if they’re all equally qualified is objectively false. So the only way to make this position logically valid is to deny the value of expertise itself like I already explained. And if that’s your position I would like to know whether you believe in doctors at all? Or mechanics, or plumbers, or accountants, etc.
If there are nine third year residents and one attending physician who's practiced for over 30 years, whose prescription do you take? The one attending physician? Or the nine third year residents?
If you’re asking me to pick one on these grounds alone I suppose I would go with the 30 year physician, but I would consider the alternative just about as reasonable.
This is not a comparable situation. The point of my question is to test whether you believe in expertise, your hypothetical doesn’t do that because it adds unnecessary complexity into it making it useful for little more than mental masterbation.
Created:
-->
@thett3
The conversation started because you claimed that only the left is interested in "reality."
This thread is about why scientists are overwhelmingly on the left. My comment expresses my view that the left values reality in a way the right does not. It’s a general statement, first of all. But more importantly having that value doesn’t make you perfect, and I never implied otherwise.
What you’ve done in this thread is akin to comparing two companies on safety, and even though one company had 200% more workplace accidents, called them both equal because both companies had accidents. And then, accused me of claiming the company with less accident was perfect and/or have done nothing wrong with regards to their safety measures because I won’t call them equal.
I would be HIGHLY interested in a survey that asks people objective facts such as "in what years was the civil war fought, and who won", "How many planets orbit the sun?" "What is the chemical compound for water?" "what is the 13th amendment to the US constitution about?" "who was the President before George W. Bush?", etc and see who fares better
I’m not sure why, these questions would certainly have nothing to do with our conversation. I feel like this is part of the problem here; you seem to be conflating valuing truth with education. Those are two completely different things. The right might know more about certain subjects or at least more about certain pieces of those subjects, but that doesn’t mean they value truth any more or even as much. We all tend to know more about things that are important to us, and things tend to become important to us when we feel like they’re under threat. I mean when was the last time you googled articles rejecting the CDC’s guidance on anything? And why?
Survey questions are a horrible way to go about determining which side values truth. It’s not about who knows more, it’s about how far each side will go to avoid having to accept truths that are not convenient to them.
I genuinely did not even consider that you wouldn't look at evidence regarding mask mandates because an authority figure supported the mandates.
What you didn’t consider was that I would stick to the subject and not get dragged down these rabbit holes. You and I, two people that as far as I am aware have no expertise in epidemiology debating whether masks are effective plays no productive role in the greater conversion of which side values truth. Our posts were long enough without it.
In another thread perhaps, but I’m honestly not that interested in the masking debate, I just don’t find it interesting. What I’m far more interested in is why people who have no expertise in the subject think they know better than the experts. If the experts overwhelmingly tell us [insert obscure scientific fact here] I’m pretty sure you would have no problem accepting it and moving on with your life. But suddenly when it becomes political you deem those on the other side who do the same thing to be thoughtless sheep. Why?
Created:
-->
@thett3
Bad example, because if you have chest pains and might need surgery the threat tends to be imminent.
It’s not a bad example, you guys just love to overcomplicate it.
All I asked you was, based on the hypothetical I gave, what was most reasonable to believe? That’s it. I didn’t ask what you should go out and do about it. I didn’t ask whether you should give up on being your own advocate. What is most reasonable to believe? That’s all.
Clearly, believing the 9 is more reasonable than believing the 1. Now if you want to argue that the next course of action is to go study the issue and reach your own conclusion then I ask you… why go to any doctor in the first place? Why not just self diagnose and go get the surgery or not based on your own research? Please explain to me how the expertise of those who do this for a living factors into your position such that you would take the action that corresponds to your own conclusion over that of 90% of the experts that weighed in on it.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Determining accuracy based on the mere number of doctors is fallacious reasoning consistent with argumentum ad populum.
No, it’s not. First of all, you are confusing inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning. We’re not talking about the latter. I’m not saying the 9 doctors are right because they overwhelmingly outnumber the 1, I’m saying the 9 doctors are more likely right because they overwhelmingly outnumber the 1. And if we accept that they are more likely to be right then we are acting reasonable to follow their guidance, while doing the opposite would be unreasonable.
What you are missing in your fallacious equivocation is this concept we call expertise. There is a reason why when your car breaks down you take it to a mechanic and not a plumber. There is a reason why you would hire a lawyer to represent you in court and not an accountant. And those are the same reasons why we defer to institutions like the CDC instead of googling the issue ourselves and coming to our own conclusions about subject matter that takes years of study to understand.
You claim listening to the 9 instead of the 1 is a logical fallacy. Well how about listening to 1 out of 1? Cause that is literally what damn near every person in earth including (I’m willing to bet) yourself does.
If relying on the expertise of others is a logical fallacy then someone should really tell that to those running our justice system and let them know that putting expert witnesses on the stand should be rejected out of hand and that all jurors should be told to substitute their own expertise in instead. After all they all have Google so apparently they’re all just as capable of making informed decisions as those who spent their lives studying it.
Created:
-->
@thett3
But despite his terrible personnel choices and his embarrassing antics, Trump's term of office was a peaceful and prosperous one, seeing unprecedent economic gains for the working class (https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf) and…
Tempting as it may be to go down this road, none of this is relevant. When I said show me another Trump I was referring to another politician who lies the way he does. You mentioned Adam Schiff but again, he’s not a comparison. However much you think he lies, he wouldn’t claim his inauguration had the biggest crowd in history knowing we actually have cameras.
To your credit you did mention that there was no equivalent, so I guess that’s a start…
I already did, 2/3rds of Democrats believed that Russia changed the vote tallies in 2016.
And I already explained to you why this is a nonsense comparison. You can’t show me one single prominent left wing figure in politics or media making this claim, nor can you show me one actual policy passed or even proposed anywhere in a democratically controlled legislature based on this claim.
Meanwhile the claim that the 2020 election was stolen has *dominated* right wing media and right wing policy for the entire first half of this year. And there’s the fake election audit in Arizona, do we really need to get into that or the multiple states that saw what’s going on there and thought “yeah let’s try that here”?
The funny thing is I never even heard of this claim till you brought it up here, and I consume quite a bit of news from all spectrums so to me this sounds like complete bullshit TBH.
Donald Trump being a Russian asset since 1987 is a cool conspiracy theory
The difference is that one is actually based on facts, the other is based on a denial of facts.
It is a fact that Trump is a Russian asset. Do you really deny that?
COVID and Racial Justice were the two most important issues to Biden voters in 2020, and yet their understanding of these issues had incredibly serious flaws
Sure they do, so what? All you’re doing is finding one tiny piece of a large and complex issue and using that to paint the entire issue as if it were all based on fantasy. Racial justice is about everything from history, to economics, to policing, to the personal experiences of those who actually know what it’s like to be told to go back to your country when you’re already in it. So pointing to police homicide statistics as a means of delegitimizing the entire issue just shows the level of desperation it takes to try and make this appear equal.
Same goes for COVID. No one is walking around calculating what their odds are of dying if they catch COVID, they’re thinking about the possibility of themselves or someone they care about being killed because of it, something over 600k families in the past year have actually experienced. They’re thinking about the morgue trucks Texas had to scramble because they ran out of room for dead bodies. They’re thinking about Alabama who has had no ICU beds available for two weeks now and counting.
Do you think being a police officer is dangerous? Well in 2020 more police officers died of Covid than in the line of duty. So pretending that misconceptions in statistics blows up the whole issue is complete nonsense.
I also showed you extremely powerful, all but overwhelming evidence that forcing children in schools to wear masks, for which the efficacy is questionable, or forcing people to wear masks outside are bad policies supported by large majorities of Democrats, but you refuse to talk about this because an authority figure disagrees.
The reason I refuse to talk about it is because (A) that’s not the subject of our conversation, and (B) I don’t have that much of an ego to think that my reading of an article makes me more knowledgeable and qualified than the CDC to weigh in on the efficacy of masks.
But going back to A, we’re talking about whether the left and the right are equal and you keep going back to this. Essentially your argument is “the evidence of the left’s disregard for reality is the fact that they listen to the CDC over the articles that Thett3 says they should be listening to”
You know what, maybe you are correct. Maybe you really do understand this stuff better than the CDC and the FDA because you read an article. That still does nothing to make your case. Please explain how listening to the CDC = a lack of regard for reality.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When you put your own personal risk assessment in the hands of authority consensus, you won't be likely to pass your genes on. That's nature.
So to be clear, you believe that anytime you follow what a majority of experts in a given field conclude, you are more likely to be wrong and subsequently suffer the consequences for it. Is that correct?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
What if it’s 9 doctors from the poorest regions of Africa vs 1 Board Certified American Doctor?
That wasn’t part of the hypothetical. I always find it telling when someone cannot answer a hypothetical without concocting new factors to suit their position and then bootstrapping them onto the original question.
The point is that you have to look into who the authority is even if quantity is present because quantity =/= quality.
You understand full well that this hypothetical was intended to be as simple as possible in order to focus in on a very simple idea which you are not trying to obfuscate, so this is just dishonest.
As far as you can tell, all doctors are of equal qualifications. Now what?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Question: What do you think is most reasonable to believe?Whoever is right.
Duh
The question being asked here is… how do you go about determining who to believe is right?
Do you self diagnose and then conclude that you know better that the overwhelming majority of doctors who told you the opposite?
Do you default to the idea that the majority of doctors must be trying to deceive you for nefarious purposes?
Do you assume that the one doctor must be more qualified than everyone else because he told you what you wanted to hear?
I’m all ears
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well yeah, which is why if it's authoritative consensus, it aint science. Every actual scientist knows this.
Hypothetical scenario; You are having serious chest pains. You go to 10 doctors to get looked at. 9 of them tell you that you need surgery. 1 of them tells you it’s not serious and prescribes you medication.
Question: What do you think is most reasonable to believe?
Created:
-->
@thett3
Both sides are chalk full of irrationality and it’s really funny how you won’t admit that.
What are you talking about? I don’t engage in this point because that’s not the topic of our conversation. This is something I notice you do nearly every time we get into a long back and forth - you slowly drift away from the topic and respond to my points as if I made them in a vacuum. I didn’t. Context matters.
We’re talking about why the left is not equal to the right with regards to valuing reality, so pointing out examples of the left being irrational on its own does nothing to make your case. You need to show how it compares in order to be saying anything meaningful at all.
You say the issues I brought up are not driving Republican politics. Really? Despite being one of the most conservative members of the house, Liz Cheney lost her leadership position because she wouldn’t go along with Trump’s big lie, republicans all over the country have been formally censured for it, Ron Johnson was just recently booed at a Trump rally for telling the crowd it’s time to focus on 2022 and 2024, and for months coverage of this has dominated right wing news and talk radio. And then there’s the peak of it’s danger and reach on Jan 6th. To say this isn’t or at least hasn’t been central to right wing politics is absurd.
As is your attempt to equivocate the left and right on the issue of accepting the results of an election. After 2016 many on the left declared Trump illegitimate in the sense that he won by willingly and emphatically accepting the help of the Russian government. That however was a question of moral legitimacy, not factual legitimacy. “Not my president”, and “Not the president” are completely different things. What you never saw on the left was an attempt to claim that Trump didn’t really receive the needed votes, and that the only reason he won was because of some nationwide multi-state conspiracy between state elections boards, individual counties, and federal courts - all of which required the cooperation of life long republicans. These are not the same.
Regarding science, you are missing the forest for the trees. You can think you know better than the CDC on masking all you want, the fact is that the pattern is clear… every time a matter of science becomes a part of intense political debate it’s always the right that goes against the established consensus. Whether we’re talking about masking, vaccines, climate change, etc. The right is proudly anti-elite, so I have no idea how you would expect any other result.
And if we’re digging for more examples, how about birtherism? You literally had prominent Republican politicians who would not say that the president was born in the United States because they feared the backlash of their own base. Again, no equivalent to this on the left.
But I would actually argue that the single biggest point which proves my case is the very fact that the right actually got Donald Trump elected president. Yes, Donald Trump. A man who, among so many faults I don’t have the time or space to dig into, was an absolute pathological liar to a degree we have never seen in American politics. The man lies so much we’ve all learned to stop asking what he’s talking about because by this point we all understand he doesn’t even know, he just makes shit up on the spot cause it sounds good.
So I’ll ask once again… if you really think both sides are the same, show me the equivalent on the left of a Donald Trump. Show me the equivalent on the left of “the election was stolen”. Show me the equivalent on the left of “the president wasn’t born in the United States”. I’m not asking for things the left says that make you feel upset or facts you cherry picked that most liberals never even heard of or don’t give a crap about, I am asking for examples of issues driving left wing politics that flat out ignore reality and/or create a new one out of political convenience. I’m asking for examples of clear established facts that left wing politicians have to dance around or pretend not to understand the question because they know that if they tell the truth their base will revolt.
Created:
-->
@thett3
You're just asserting they aren't comparable lol. Why not? We've both given cases where there is an objective reality and one party seems to be on the wrong side of it. The "difference" just comes from how an individual values certain things.
I’ve already explained this, but I’ll try it another way… all of your criticisms of the left are based on a right wingers point of view. You keep asserting issues that are no where to be found on any prominent left wing news outlet and no where to be found in any significant left wing effort regarding policy. These are issues that the right wing talks about day in and day out only because they need something, anything, to slander the other side in order to stay formidable politically.
The best example you’ve came up with in this entire conversation are police shootings. Yet the disparity you’re pointing to is about statistics, which both sides get wrong because almost no one pays attention to statistics on eitger side, so your comparison is already problematic. But more importantly you’re cherry picking one small piece of a much larger issue where there is much disagreement on the left. New York City, one of the most liberal places in the country just elected a pro police former police officer as their next mayor.
So yes, values are an important thing here. What you need to do is look at what the left actually values. The way that you have cartoonishly misrepresented many of the left’s positions suggests to me that you’re not trying very hard to do that.
The poll said nothing about violence, it talked about "misinformation" which....can mean anything.
Ok, let me clarify my statement. The left generally supports censoring speech that is a threat to public safety. It doesn’t have to be someone throwing fists.
It's absolutely wild to me that you can attribute political violence as coming exclusively or overwhelmingly from the right after a half decade of antifa violence against Trump supporters and the deadliest wave of riots in half a century last summer. No group is perfect--people are people.
You are either not being serious or not being honest. No one on the left gives a cramp crap about Antifa and the left overwhelming disproves of the violence we saw at the summer rallies last year, but like everyone else on the right you just tie it to “the left” and then claim the left is for violence. Should I start talking about what the proud boys have done and proclaim them as valid representation of “the right”?
Also, censorship has EVERYTHING to do with science. The scientific method REQUIRES challenge and dissent, no group that thinks people need to stfu and listen to what they are told can claim the mantle of science lol
Complete nonsense. We’re not talking about topics worthy of respectable debate. This isn’t about tax policy, or whether regulations have gone too far. We’re talking about people using platforms to convince people they should attack the US Capitol, or spread lies about vaccines that are objectively saving lives by the thousands in the middle of a pandemic. It never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself can’t tell the difference.
If you want to dispute the science, then perform actual controlled experiments, and put your work out there for peers to review. That’s science. Not idiots on Facebook spreading articles about vaccines being microchipped by Bill Gates.
Dude even Mueller said there was no collusion lol
My god dude, you really need to pay attention to the things you are basing your opinions on.
Mueller never said there was no collusion. You know why? Because collusion is not a legal term. It had nothing to do with his investigation. Mueller was investigating conspiracy, an entirely different charge. And regarding that, let’s look at what he actually said;
“a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”
And when it came to the subject of collusion;
“investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
This is what the left is actually talking about.
And yes, I’m sure you can dig up plenty of false statements made by left wing politicians on this subject just like any other. So what? Can you show me one that is actually fueling or was fueling left wing politics at any recent point?
but if he is against those policies and the CDC is for them then yeah his advice would be better because those policies are objectively wrong. I gave you two really short articles that absolutely blow any arguments for them out of the water and you haven't said a single thing against them.
Because I’m not interested in being dragged down the rabbit hole of a debate that neither of us knows anything about. You keep saying that the science on masking shows it doesn’t work. That’s really funny because doctors and scientists seem to overwhelmingly disagree with you. The CDC and the FDA disagree with you.
My first question to you is why do you believe the authors of your articles know better than them?
My second question and more importantly to this thread is; How on earth is following the guidelines set by the institutions that were literally created to advise us on these issues comparable to any of the three main examples I gave you?
What are your core principles? What is your vision for America?
Reason, fairness and equality, the minimization of harm. I would say that’s about it, every other basic idea I could think of really comes from that.
I was about to write a whole speech on my views about government and where the right and left diverge but I’m out of time and that’s really a whole other subject. If you want to start another thread or I might even start one soon when I have the time we can discuss the rest there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
What I find most amusing is that after all that complaining about how people wouldn’t engage in the actual topic, I was giving him the exact conversation he pretended to want - the role that objective empirical differences in races should play in government policy. But when asked what he believes government should be in the first place, he changes the subject to politics and pretends I’m the one who won’t engage in the conversation.
Created:
-->
@thett3
The only think I see coming out of this conversation is evidence that they ARE the same, that irrationality, partisan blindness, and wishful thinking predominates among human beings of all stripes
This is a classic fallacy of composition. Just because you can identify flaws in both sides that are of the same category doesn’t make both sides the same, and if that’s how you insist on defining “the same” then it’s a useless term. That’s like arguing that the candy bar thief and the bank robber are the same because they both steal.
Again, none of your examples are comparable. None of them are driving left wing politics, and none of them would be defended any prominent left wing politician or left wing media figure. That is not even close to being the case regarding the examples I gave.
I also pointed out some deep flaws in the thinking of the party of science, such as the belief that anyone who has an opposite opinion needs to be censored, or that a burly, hairy, deep voiced, tall human being with a penis and testicles can be a woman.
Censorship has absolutely nothing to do with science, and both issues here are just flat out caricatures.
The left isn’t trying to censor “opposing viewpoints”, it’s trying to censor speech that leads to violence. Unfortunately, that type of speech is becoming prominent on the right. But again, nothing to do with science.
The left isn’t arguing that men become women because they say so, the left is arguing that one who chooses to identify as a woman should have their sense of identity respected.
Neither of these are difficult to understand.
I mean, prominent Democrats spent years proclaiming that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia when they knew in reality that this did not happen
Donald Trump’s campaign chairman shared internal polling data with a Russian agent working directly for Putin.
Donald Trump Jr and every senior member of the campaign emphatically took a meeting with a Russian lawyer representing herself as an attorney working on behalf of “Russia and it’s support for Mr. Trump”.
The Trump campaign baked into its political strategy the capitalization of leaks provided to Wikileaks by Russia as a result of its hacking of the DNC in an effort to get Trump elected.
Forget the rest of the evidence, those three facts alone meet any reasonable definition of collusion. Republicans love to pretend there was no collision by relying on a cartoonish interpretation whereby the only sufficient evidence would be a recording of Trump sitting down with Putin taking direct orders.
It's the same because both of those things are wrong. I don't really care where the source of the misinformation comes from, the result is the same. The CDC, for what it's worth, would tell you never to eat a medium rare steak. Their job is to be incredibly over cautious.
So in your view, following the CDC’s guidelines in the middle of a pandemic is the same as getting your health advice Tucker Carlson. Ok bro.
Come on, now. We all have some irrationality in us. Don't pretend you aren't tribalistic, we all are. If it helps, we can talk about this privately. I really am asking the question in good faith. Trying to conclusively determine the origin of political affiliation is a subject I've been trying to crack for over a year now
Never said I was perfect either, but I can tell you what matters to me and what my core principals are about. I despise tribalism and strive to rid myself of it anywhere I find it. I do that by focusing on logic first and building everything on top of that.
Objectivity and neutrality are not the same thing, so the question of where I end up is irrelevant to how I got here.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I'm the one willing to say that there's lot of dumb beliefs held by people on my "side" while you are not willing to make the same admission.
I have criticized the left many times on this site including in prior conversations with you, and in my last reply to you I clarified that no one is arguing the left is perfect. You are having a whole conversation in your head.
This conversation is about whether both sides are equal. I’m explaining why they are not. Saying one side is worse than the other does not = the other side is perfect.
2/3rds of Democrats believed that Russia tampered the vote tallies in 2016…2/3rds of Democrats want government censorship…As demonstrated, large percentages of democrats hold blatantly false beliefs on things such as police shootings, or believing that little girls should be given testosterone supplements
The only relevant example here is the first because that is an actual matter of fact. Government censorship is a matter of opinion. Whether children should be given testosterone is a matter of opinion. Police statistics are not a matter of opinion but you cannot name one subject where a majority of any political group in America has an accurate grasp on the statistics, especially one as nuanced as police statistics. None of this compares in any way to the examples I gave.
The 2016 example would compare except for one huge problem… not one prominent voice on the left is claiming Russia messed with the vote tallies. This is is nothing more than misunderstandings of ignorant people who don’t follow politics closely and only read headlines. If any prominent Democrat or any prominent mainstream news host made this claim they would be immediately called out by the rest of their colleagues. That’s not remotely the case in the right.
The evidence against masking children in schools is robust enough to be conclusive: https://polimath.substack.com/p/the-case-against-masks-in-schoolsThe evidence against outdoor masks mandates is also robust enough to be conclusive. This is not a debate, this is a scientific reality.
Regarding masking in schools, you need to take your issue up with the CDC and the FDA. Again, this is not a comparable example. Even if they are wrong about this, we’re talking about whether both sides are equal in their disregard for inconvenient realities. You cannot seriously claim someone who is listening to the CDC is on par with someone who gets their vaccine information from Facebook.
As far as the outdoor masking mandate, do you have any current examples of this other than one governor in one state?
I'm curious about your lived experience.
The life experience I was referring to was that of black people who grow up in black neighborhoods. The reason I brought that up was to emphasize that unlike you or I, their positions on these highly charged issues isn’t a product of googling statistics on their phone or computer. Black people don’t put exclamation points on videos of police violence because it suits their political ideology, they do it because it is what they have been telling us is happening in their neighborhoods for decades. That doesn’t mean they are right and everyone else wrong, it’s just a very different thing than claiming the entire scientific industry is in on a hoax because you read it somewhere on Brietbart.
What do you love about the left so much? Did the democratic party lift your family out of poverty? Were you treated badly by kids coming from Republican families growing up? Were Trump's antics the last straw for you? What is it?
Do you have that much trouble understanding the left that you cannot find any other way to explain its prevalence other than through emotional attachment?
My political beliefs aren’t based on gratitude or trauma. I have no emotional vestment in the Democratic Party or the left nor do I regard it at all within my sense of identity. I align more with the left because the left is more aligned with reality. Show me I’m wrong and I will change my position. Is that simple.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i'm looking for healings that are unheard of, and doesn't become part of science
Then you don’t understand the first thing about science. As I explained, science begins with observations, so no observation can be dismissed as being outside of it.
Perhaps this thread would be more productive if you would define the supernatural. Most people agree that a general precondition of a supernatural occurrence would involve the suspension of the laws of physics. But the laws of physics are, again, nothing more than the conclusions of our observations.
So even if there were a force out there that could violate the laws of physics, then presumably that force would operate in accordance with some kind of rules to its capabilities and existence. So in theory, those rules could be studied, established, and then would be incorporated into our understanding of the natural world. In other words, once we understand the supernatural it just becomes part of the natural, so when we’re talking about the supernatural all we’re really talking about is that which is unknown to us.
This is where this thread becomes irrational. After all you’re asserting the supernatural based on inexplicable occurrences. But if you don’t understand something then that’s where it stops. “I can’t explain X” cannot be used as evidence for the cause of X, otherwise what you’re saying is “I cannot explain X, therefore I can explain X” - an obvious logical contradiction.
So if you want to make a case for the supernatural, you have to begin by establishing what the supernatural is. Only then could the supernatural become even a candidate explanation for the observations you are presenting.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you say a retina healing itself is proof that retina must be able to heal themselves.
I’m not saying a retina healing itself is proof that a retina can heal itself, I am saying that the observation of a retina healing itself cannot be used as evidence of anything other than a retina being able to heal itself.
The idea of science is that we begin with observations and attempt to tie those observations into a model that best explains reality. What you’re doing with your retna example is taking an observation and deeming it impossible at the outset so that you can attribute it to a cause that has never been demonstrated to exist. That’s not how science works because that’s not how logic and reason works.
but why can't atheists show similar inexplicable healing that has causes unknown to science? i know you asked me for studies that say that atheists dont get similar healings. but it doesn't work that way. you can't ask me to disprove a negative.
I’m not asking you to disprove a negative, I’m asking you to substantiate the premise of your own argument. This entire thread is based on the idea that theists experience more “supernatural looking things” than atheists. Do you have any evidence of this?
Atheists generally do not come up with similar examples because first of all that’s not our burden, and second atheists do not catalog inexplicable occurrences the way theists do. That’s far better explained by confirmation bias than the supernatural, which is why I asked you for studies.
you still haven't answered why we should just assume inexplicable healings that are unknown to science happen to athests the same as theists
Because that’s the default position. There is no evidence to suggest that our beliefs or desires have any impact on the physics of the universe, therefore we default to the laws of probability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They shouldn't have had sex
I am always amused when this comment comes from a man, first off. But more importantly, in your view, sex is a punishable act. Ok bro.
they have had plenty of time (6 weeks) to abort if they didn't want the pregnency
For most women there are no biological indicators of pregnancy till about 5 weeks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
87 comes before 89…
So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government *should* be in the first place.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I could go on and on. I grant you all of your points about the ideas where a lot of Republicans are wrong. I see no need to defend any of those. I think both sides are about equally wrong
Then you have a serious bias problem.
I gave you three examples where there is no debate within the industry of experts or first hand handlers about the reality of the situation and yet the right wing has just ignored all of that and created their own reality instead. You countered with mask mandates, something the FDA and CDC both disagree with you on as well as the left’s attitude towards policing, an issue that is far more nuanced and based on far more than any statistic could ever reflect. And not for nothing, but much of it is about lived personal experiences you will never know anything about.
These are not remotely the same thing.
Created:
-->
@thett3
The overwhelming majority of climatologists say climate change is human caused and a serious issue.
The overwhelming majority of medical experts in the world say Covid needs to be taken seriously, and that vaccines are safe and effective.
Every elections board, every state certification, and every court challenge have all upheld the results of the 2020 election.
Yet in every one of these cases, if you are running for office on the political right you have to either say the opposite of each of these, or steer far away from talking about these in order to be a viable candidate.
Advertisers have even taken notice. Fox News prime time is famous for its ads praying on the gullibility of its audience and selling miracle cures. The founder of ScotteVest certainly noticed when he called fox viewers gullible idiots, and then there’s the whole Ivermectin fiasco…
There is no equivalent to this on the left. The closest you can find is the issue with policing statistics, but this is no where near the same level of nuttery.
No one is saying the left is perfect or right on everything, we’re saying the two sides are not equal. And they’re not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Any abortions outside of these parameters should be punished with around 50 hours of community service.Thoughts?
Does the person whose body is at the center of this debate get a say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Respond or leave: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) [post 89]
“You keep linking to post 89 as if it shows that you did respond to my points. You didn’t, you talked about nothing but politics. Show me one sentence from post 89 that addresses anything from a policy standpoint. I’ll wait.
What you acted as if you were addressing was my point about standards, but you clearly don’t understand what standards are or why they matter. Telling me they’re unrealistic as if that is a criticism demonstrates that.
Once again, standards are not supposed to be realistic. That’s not the point.
So here, for the third time is the point I made which you have been running away from ever since:
So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government *should* be in the first place.”
That last quote came from post 87.
87 comes before 89.
Respond to my point and I’ll respond to yours.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Cause that’s where the money is.
Exactly, because the left cares about reality, which is what science sets out to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
There’s nothing irrational about not allowing someone to change the subject because they know they cannot support their own position.
Next time, just say that instead of pretending your post had anything to do with what we were previously talking about so you can act like you’re not the one who ran away from the conversation.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
why dont the same level of healings that look supernatural, that happen to theists... also happen to atheists??
Please point me to the study that shows they don’t.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i can show you an example of someone's retina being healed. retinas dont just heal themselves.
Question: How do we know retinas don’t heal themselves?
Answer: Observation. We’ve never observed a damaged retina healing itself, therefore we conclude that this doesn’t happen.
Question: So what would change our position?
Answer: An example of a retina healing itself.
Ok, so here’s an example of a retina healing itself.
But wait, retinas don’t heal themselves, therefore it must be supernatural.
Do you see the problem here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Again, you're the one who decided to drop all my points. You're the one who shut it down by refusing to respond to all my points here: [link to post 89]
Nonsense. Up until post 74 our entire conversation was about policy, you suddenly shifted the conversation to politics so in post 75 I explained to you that politics and policy are not the same thing and tried to steer the conversation back to what we had been talking about all along.
You keep linking to post 89 as if it shows that you did respond to my points. You didn’t, you talked about nothing but politics. Show me one sentence from post 89 that addresses anything from a policy standpoint. I’ll wait.
What you acted as if you were addressing was my point about standards, but you clearly don’t understand what standards are or why they matter. Telling me they’re unrealistic as if that is a criticism demonstrates that.
Once again, standards are not supposed to be realistic. That’s not the point.
So here, for the third time is the point I made which you have been running away from ever since:
So why does this matter? Because we are supposedly having a discussion over whether race realism *should* play a role in government policy. We cannot have that conversation if you cannot coherently explain what you think the parameters of government *should* be in the first place.
Show me where in any of our previous conversations you addressed this. Show me where you explained what you think government is and how it’s supposed to work. If you can’t do that, then explain how on earth we have a conversation about what policies the government should enact if we don’t first discuss what government is supposed to be in the first place.
Or, you can also argue that government should be nothing more than a vessel for ambitious individuals to ascend to power. I suppose that’s another position you can take that squares with everything you have said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
We've already been through all the posts you've listed.We got up to this post: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com). For some reason, you decided to drop most of the arguments in that, claiming that all of it didn't address "a damn thing" of what you wrote. Even if that were true, you'd need to show it rather than barely assert it.
I did show it, I gave you a post by post break down of how we got here.
The post you linked was post 89 where you talked about nothing other than the intersection of race realism and politics. Note that as I just went through painstaking detail to explain to you, post 75 was where I told you that this had nothing to do with any of *our* previous conversation. 75 comes before 89.
If you are not interested in this conversation that’s fine, just stop pretending that I’m the one who shut it down and ran away. If you weren’t interested in arguing the merits of genetics playing a role in government policy you shouldn’t have started a thread on it, and certainly should not have engaged in a conversation about it for the first three pages of your thread.
For the last time: I don't see any point in continuing if you can't address that post.
Responding to your replies to me is not harassment. You are free to run away from the conversation at any time.
Created: