Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys is an idiot,... (she then goes on to agree with everything Key's says) ... .

LOL! Envy, it's just so ... ugly.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Leftist: An adherent of "Left-think"; a form of relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, thus such adherents are incapable of discerning truth, forming trust, behaving within soundly reasoned moral standards, or to serve justice,

It is really hard for me to believe that any adult believes this.

All I see here is narcisissm.

The irony being that you praise objectivity - while refusing to be in any objective yourself.

Oh... well that certainly has the appearance that such was offered as reasonable discourse... let's test it to see if it truly was:

Saigon, you claim that the contribution lacks objectivity. With such being so subjective as to reflect narcissism.

Please take a moment to diagram the contribution, pointing specifically to the subjective elements which you must have recognized in constructing your response and explain to the board the nature of those elements which present the narcissism which you so clearly observed.

Now, this will be the second time that you've offered such an emphatic assertion, were challenged to sustain your assertion, failed to do so, thus conceded that your points were vacuous drivel.

Do you remember the highest number of failures that you've subjected yourself to, prior to this thread?

I'd like to see if we could take a run at the title... I really feel like you've just the right amount of the specific sort of sociopathy to just embarrass the livin' crap out of yourself... and precisely the intellectual limitations to keep you from recognizing it.

Now... all the fingers are crossed. Let's see how ya DO!

Keys -

Shall we just agree that you are both more intelligent, better informed and wiser than any liberal who ever lived anywhere?

That seems to be your point. Certainly if there is another one from you on this thread, I haven't seen it.

Every American that ever lived is more intelligent, better informed and wiser than any liberal who ever lived.

So, yeah. We can agree on that. It's just not as exclusive a club as you need it to be.

And your concession is AGAIN: Duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

Now the reason that she chose to do so, is that there is in fact NO DISTINCTION, in terms of practical application; with academic definitions, notwithstanding.

Again, Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism.
Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is the essential element of truth. Truth is the essential element of trust. Truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality and Truth, trust and a soundly reasoned morality are the essential elements of justice.

The obvious problem being.....you aren't an authoritative arbiter of objectivity, truth, trust or morality. If you claim to speak for Nature or God, those are mere Appeals to Authority, classic fallacies of logic. You need sound reasoning and logic that is autonomous of the Appeal to Authority for your argument to stand. And all too often, Appeals to Authority are barren of these logical, rational, reasonable bases.

In fact, if the logic and reason were strong enough to carry it, the Appeal to Authority would be completely unnecessary. In most cases, folks Appeal to Authority because they don't have a sound argument.

What you call 'relativism' is simply the rejection of you as an authoritative arbiter. One need not reject morality to reject you as defining it

 

[Saigon]

Keys -

Unfortunately, you create a perfect Catch 22 for yourslf - in endlessly praising you own intellectual superiority to all nd any liberals, you establish precisely the opposite.

Few genuinely intelligent peopke devote quite as much time as you do to claiming genuine intelligence.

In other words - narcisicism is not, in itself, the sane tthing as making a point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys -

Unfortunately, you create a perfect Catch 22 for yourslf - in endlessly praising you own intellectual superiority to all nd any liberals, you establish precisely the opposite.

Few genuinely intelligent peopke devote quite as much time as you do to claiming genuine intelligence.

In other words - narcisicism is not, in itself, the sane tthing as making a point.

You've already conceded to the standing points. And while sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice when such comes along... You're a peach.

And with that said, your 2nd concession to the standing points is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Feel free to do so as many times as you're so moved.

 

[Skylar]

You're huh... You're telling me then, in defense from my position that Left-think rests ENTIRELY in Relativism... LMAO! You're literally saying there, that "objectivity, truth, trust or morality" are all...

You're not even trying. Read again, this time for comprehension: I'm saying you don't define objectivity. You don't define truth. You don't define trust. You don't define morality.

One need not reject morality to reject you defining it. No one accepts you as an authoritative arbiter of any of these concepts. And your entire argument is hopelessly dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter on all of them.

Um, no. So what else have you got?

​

 

[Skylar]

Keys -

Unfortunately, you create a perfect Catch 22 for yourslf - in endlessly praising you own intellectual superiority to all nd any liberals, you establish precisely the opposite.

Few genuinely intelligent peopke devote quite as much time as you do to claiming genuine intelligence.

In other words - narcisicism is not, in itself, the sane tthing as making a point.

Lauding one's own intelligence is one of those unnecessary appeals. If one is genuinely that intelligent, there's no need to try to convince everyone. If you're spending so much energy marketing your own intellect, its usually because there's some serious doubt on the topic.

 

[Skylar]

Keys -

Unfortunately, you create a perfect Catch 22 for yourslf - in endlessly praising you own intellectual superiority to all nd any liberals, you establish precisely the opposite.

Few genuinely intelligent peopke devote quite as much time as you do to claiming genuine intelligence.

In other words - narcisicism is not, in itself, the sane tthing as making a point.

You've already conceded to the standing points. And while sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice when such comes along... You're a peach.

And with that said, your 2nd concession to the standing points is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Feel free to do so as many times as you're so moved.

And now you're doing your 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. Where out of no where, for no particular reason, you declare the debate over and yourself the winner.

If your argument had actual merit, it would be completely unnecessary. As it would be self evident. The fact that you have to keep 'declaring' your victory demonstrates its obviously not.

You're trying just a little too hard, buddy....just a little too eager for our validation. Take a breath.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're huh... You're telling me then, in defense from my position that Left-think rests ENTIRELY in Relativism... LMAO! You're literally saying there, that "objectivity, truth, trust or morality" are all...

You're not even trying. Read again, this time for comprehension: I'm saying you don't define objectivity. You don't define truth. You don't define trust. You don't define morality.

ROFLMNAO!

Yes... I read it the first time... But I appreciate the invite to revisit it, as it is HYSTERICAL!

You're saying that anyone can define the terms 'in their own way'... thus the respective elements are all subject to the needs of the individual who is considering them at any given moment thus are not subject to soundly reasoned absolutes. You're a relativist... I fully understand, believe me.

The coolest part of this is that of the two of us, I am the ONLY ONE that understands.

LMAO! Oh Lordy... that is funny stuff.

You've already conceded the point Skylar! But I Do appreciate your double dip here to reinforce it.

Your 2nd concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The obvious problem being.....you aren't an authoritative arbiter of objectivity, truth, trust or morality.

So... LOL! You're sayin... LMAO!

Hold on!

You're saying that... LOL!

Oh God! Give me a minute here...


You're huh... You're telling me then, in defense from my position that Left-think rests ENTIRELY in Relativism... LMAO! You're literally saying there, that "objectivity, truth, trust or morality" are all...

RELATIVE?​

Which is to say that, in your considered opinion: 'that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, or historical context, and as such, can never be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes''?

LOL!

Folks... YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS CRAP UP!

(For the benefit of the Intellectually Less Fortunate: That which is highlighted in blue: IS THE DEFINITION OF "RELATIVISM".)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I wonder if any self defined conservative can define "leftist"? I doubt it, it's used as a pejorative and most are too dumb to realize how stupid they appear by using words they don't understand.

I totally agree.

It seems to me that a good half of our right-wing posters do not understand terms like 'liberal', 'socialist', 'communist' or 'left wing', and simply use them inter-changeably.

Check out the posting of Kosh for one extreme example.

Let the record reflect, that despite the perfect opportunity to do so, as has happened no less than a dozen times on this thread ALONE... the contributor passes on that opportunity to define those terms and to specify the stark distinctions, which she prefers to leave as a feckless implication.

Now the reason that she chose to do so, is that there is in fact NO DISTINCTION, in terms of practical application; with academic definitions, notwithstanding.

Again, Left-think rests entirely upon Relativism.
Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is the essential element of truth. Truth is the essential element of trust. Truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality and Truth, trust and a soundly reasoned morality are the essential elements of justice.

Thus, where you find a culture which has succumbed to Left-think, therefore is governed by Leftists... you will find that truth is irrelevant in that culture. And where there is no use for truth, there is no basis for trust, and where there is no trust, there is no moral code... and where there is no moral code, there is no means to serve justice, thus nowhere will justice be found.

I'd ask the reader to consider their own experiences. Where they have traveled and experienced life in cultures governed by the Left, did they find evidence of any respect for truth? Did the people of that culture live in trust? Was there a soundly reasoned morality, wherein people would not cross certain lines of behavior because to do so was recognized as immoral? In your experience, did the Leftist cultures represent just cultures?

Look around the United States... Since the Left has come to power, just 6 short years ago... does it seem to you that the truth is something that is respected more, or is truth less respected today than it was six years ago?

Do you trust the government more today than you did 6 years ago? Do you trust your neighbors, friends and acquaintances more, or less?

In the US today, do you feel that the US is more or less respectful of morality today, than it was 6 years ago?

And finally, do you feel that your government is more or less concerned with the objective service of justice?

Just look inside yourself, ask God to help you be honest and you decide if the Liberals, Progressives and Socialists that have beset our government have shown any distinction in their ideas, behaviors or policy initiatives. And if they in any way represent you, your principles, your values and those which you'd like to be recognized, respected, defended and adhered to when your gone and your children and grand children are left behind... .

That's all I'm askin' ... just be honest with yourselves and decide for yourselves which way YOU want this worm to turn.

 

[Skylar]

You're saying that anyone can define the terms 'in their own way'... thus the respective elements are all subject to the needs of the individual who is considering them at any given moment thus are not subject to soundly reasoned absolutes. You're a relativist... I fully understand, believe me.

You keep trying so hard to paraphrase me. Its completely unnecessary. Just quote me if you want to know what I'm saying:

I'm saying you don't define objectivity. You don't define truth. You don't define trust. You don't define morality.

Did you finally clue in to what I'm saying? You aren't an authoritative arbiter of any of the 'axioms' you claim as the basis of your argument. Not objectiveity, morality, truth or trust. Worse, your argument is dependent on us accepting you as an authoritative arbiter of all of them.

And no one does. Your argument is rather hat in hand, completely dependent on our agreement. Which no one has extended you.

 

[CowboyTed]

Read a few pages of this thread...

If this thread was example then Liberals look a lot more tolerant of ideas than the conservatives on this board. Saying there is a conservative agenda that is reasonable and has basis in fairness... I believe American politics has deformed those in to team sports Red team v Blue Team....

Red team has been caught lying more times than Blue team but that is like saying which NFL player is taking less drugs.

Personally I think there is a need for more electable parties so the crazies in all parties can be dumped out of them.



This could increase third, fourth and fifth party... Thus expanding the representation into more groups so the members can find better choice in those groups... Think of it like market freedom... People can vote for their favourite without jeopardizing their vote, So you can vote Libertarian without wasting your vote for a more likely conservative candidate.
Also unlike the need for primaries Parties can run multiple candidates in multi-seat elections.

These systems are used by a vast majority of countries with only a few countries left who don't use this type of system.
This would fundamentally change US politics for the good, more representative, less incumbents, more responsive government...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here's what ya said Skylar:

The obvious problem being.....you aren't an authoritative arbiter of objectivity, truth, trust or morality.

So... LOL! You're sayin... LMAO!

Hold on!

You're saying that... LOL!

Oh God! Give me a minute here...


You're huh... You're telling me then, in defense from my position that Left-think rests ENTIRELY in Relativism... LMAO! You're literally saying there, that "objectivity, truth, trust or morality" are all...

RELATIVE?​

Which is to say that, in your considered opinion: 'that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, or historical context, and as such, can never be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes''?

LOL!

Folks... YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS CRAP UP!

(For the benefit of the Intellectually Less Fortunate: That which is highlighted in blue: IS THE DEFINITION OF "RELATIVISM".)

Then ya came back, wanting to prop it up by explaining that I am not the arbiter of truth, trust, morality and justice and, that all of those things can mean anything, to anyone, at any time and that its not my place to judge others, just because MY IDEAS differ from theirs... .

Which, of course, is what would reasonably be expected OF a Relativist... given that such is your nature and all.

I'm just saying that what ya did there... is THE PROBLEM and its a first class demonstration of why you people are a danger to yourselves and everyone around ya. That it's the same species of reaosning that the obama-cult uses in its 'governance' and precisely how the financial markets were crashed and why the nation has suffered YEARS of stagnation, increasing welfare rolls, the highest sustained unemployment since the 1930s, escalating moral depravity, etc, etc... And that such stands in evidence of why you people should NEVER be allowed anywhere near POWER, with the first step of preventing that being never allowing you within sight of a voting booth.

That's all I'm sayin' ... .

 

[Skylar]

Keys....you're spamming.

Laughing....*this* is your truth? This is your objectivity? You're literally demonstrating my point. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

This is what I said:

I'm saying you don't define objectivity. You don't define truth. You don't define trust. You don't define morality.

And this is your 'creative interpretation':

You're huh... You're telling me then, in defense from my position that Left-think rests ENTIRELY in Relativism... LMAO! You're literally saying there, that "objectivity, truth, trust or morality" are all...

One need not reject morality....to reject you as defining morality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys....you're spamming.

Laughing....*this* is your truth? This is your objectivity? You're literally demonstrating my point. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Really?

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

 

[Skylar]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder if any self defined conservative can define "leftist"?

Leftist: An adherent of "Left-think"; a form of relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, thus such adherents are incapable of discerning truth, forming trust, behaving within soundly reasoned moral standards, or to serve justice,

What you think of as 'relativism' is simply the rejection of *you* as defining objectivity. Or truth. Or trust. Or justice.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run.

But as you flee, remember......you've demonstrated for us that you're not a reliable arbiter of objectivity or truth, as you misquoted me repeatedly through incompetence or dishonesty. Either rendering you unqualified to define your 'axioms'.

Try again.