Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

[Skylar]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

As a general rule, that hasn't been my experience. I've found conservatives far more motivated by their emotions than actual fact. And more than willing to embrace patently silly positions if they *feel* true, regardless of what the evidence actually demonstrates.

That's not to say liberals are immune to such pitfalls, or all conservatives fall into them. But in my experience, many more conservatives do than liberals.

you must live in a strange place.

Life outside the right wing echo chamber can seem a little strange to those trapped within it.

funny that you say that. whenever both sides are given equal time, the left always loses the debate. Thats why you libs hate Fox, because it gives both sides equal time to make their points.

Says you. But arbitrarily declaring that the debate is lost by those that disagree with you isn't actually an argument or evidence. Its an excuse for both.

If empty declarations of victory are your idea of 'winning', then does anyone else really need to be here?

 

[Redfish]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

As a general rule, that hasn't been my experience. I've found conservatives far more motivated by their emotions than actual fact. And more than willing to embrace patently silly positions if they *feel* true, regardless of what the evidence actually demonstrates.

That's not to say liberals are immune to such pitfalls, or all conservatives fall into them. But in my experience, many more conservatives do than liberals.

you must live in a strange place.

Life outside the right wing echo chamber can seem a little strange to those trapped within it.

funny that you say that. whenever both sides are given equal time, the left always loses the debate. Thats why you libs hate Fox, because it gives both sides equal time to make their points.

Says you. But arbitrarily declaring that the debate is lost by those that disagree with you isn't actually an argument or evidence. Its an excuse for both.

If empty declarations of victory are your idea of 'winning', then does anyone else really need to be here?

the debates on this message board prove my point. And, its not about winning or losing, its about telling the truth and thinking logically, its about fiscal sanity and sane international policy. its about recognizing who our enemy is and dealing with them.

 

[kiwiman127]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Well that's your opinion. But people who know minds tend to differ.
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives Psychology Today

 

[Toro]

support secession

From what? The United States? No... I'm for educating the population of and through the principles that define America, which will force the Intellectually Less Fortunate to hide their disloyal, irrational 'feelings' and allowing subsequent generations to set high minimal standards regarding cognition and knowledge of the principled elements and requirements of US Civics, regarding the means to vote... that should resolve most, if not all of the problems in the United States.

There are no leftist Americans.

Define "leftist".

Ask Pubes.

 

[Toro]

Define "leftist".

People who write left handed?

So you can't and choose to be 'funny'.

I choose to be satirical. You choose to be a prick. Big difference.

There is no definition for someone who is so far left, such as yourself. No one definition will satisfy you.

I'm done responding ... .

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

... sis.

 

[Redfish]

To the OP, Yes

conservatives think using logic, reason, and facts. liberals think using emotion, feelings, and fake empathy.

the defective liberal gene has been proven scientifically, someday maybe medical science will find a cure.

Well that's your opinion. But people who know minds tend to differ.
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives Psychology Today

Researchers find a liberal gene - ScienceBlog.com

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... arbitrarily declaring that the debate is lost by those that disagree with you isn't actually an argument or evidence

Sadly, for your argument, declaring the fact that you've yielded from the standing point, is a statement of fact, neither argument or evidence. It merely denotes your failure to sustain your opposition.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

I congratulate your efforts to rationally bring a conservative to some sort of epiphany. Maybe it'll be a slow burn and eventually sink in. More often than not, it'll result in a 'double-down'.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

I congratulate your efforts to rationally bring a conservative to some sort of epiphany. Maybe it'll be a slow burn and eventually sink in. More often than not, it'll result in a 'double-down'.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

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.

I congratulate your efforts to rationally bring a conservative to some sort of epiphany. Maybe it'll be a slow burn and eventually sink in. More often than not, it'll result in a 'double-down'.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

Yet ANOTHER Relativist (liberal) coming to concede through an obscurant deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

I congratulate your efforts to rationally bring a conservative to some sort of epiphany. Maybe it'll be a slow burn and eventually sink in. More often than not, it'll result in a 'double-down'.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawman?

Do tell... In what SPECIFIC PORTION OF MY CONTRIBUTION DO YOU FIND STRAW REASONING JOE?

And Joe, where you fail to find evidence of straw reasoning in my contributions, YOU will be conceding to ME, that your emphatic assertion was not only FALSE, but that you KNEW it was false when ya advanced it as TRUTH!

 

[LeftofLeft]

Whether you are Liberal or Conservative, here is what was affirmed this week: As an American voter, you by default considered to be stupid by the elite and ivory tower academicians. Left unchecked, these people will push for the political benefits of Lack of Transparency; and, when necessary, these elites will manipulate life-altering legislation to the point of "torture" to yield their desired outcomes.

As an American voter, be smart and demand transparency.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well that's your opinion. But people who know minds tend to differ.
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives Psychology Today

ROFLMNAO!

So... to demonstrate the BRILLIANCE common to the 'Liberal' feelings... the liberal comes to reject the authority of OPINION, then subsequently offers up as PROOF OF THAT OPINION: MORE OPINION!

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you...

Relativism: the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's culture, society, historical and personal context, and as such, can never be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

So, where THE RECORD OF THE DISCUSSION IRREFUTABLY ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH: The Relativist
runs to DENY THE RECORD. Axiomatically rejecting the intrinsic authority of that record; Setting the "RELATIVE TRUTH" within what THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEEDS: REQUIRE THE TRUTH TO BE!

I ask the reader to witness that very action taking place:

Says you, pretending to be the authoritative arbiter of truth. Which you're not.

The record of this discussion saying it:

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.

Unfortunately, this happened only inside your own head.

Uh, NOOooo...

In truth, his happened in the course of the above discussion, which as luck would have it, is being conducted in writing... thus is not subject to these little denials which are designed to instill doubt in the listeners minds, where such are conducted verbally... which is why the Left (Relativists) fail so consistently in forums such as this and why you appear to succeed in the typical 2 minute debates on Cable TV.

The good news is that Cable TV is figuring this out and only 30 years after AM radio figured it out and became the political powerhouse as a result of their use of the record to expose Relativists as little more than people of low-moral character intent upon advancing deceit through fraudulence means in their attempt to influence the ignorant.

But here is precisely what and WHERE IT HAPPENED:

Leftist: An adherent of "Left-think"; a form of relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, thus such adherents are incapable of discerning truth, forming trust and behaving within soundly reasoned standards common to morality, which are essential to the service of 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 asserted that you had 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!

Now in that, was a direct and unambiguous challenge TO YOU in response to your emphatic assertion.

As we will see in the next paragraph, when you responded, as predicted you would, you failed to sustain your assertion. Instead of rising to the challenge, you responded through distraction, thus yielding to the challenge, therein CONCEDING TO THE POINT(S) intrinsic to that CHALLENGE, which as noted above was your SECOND of such concessions, due to your inability to sustain you own emphatic assertions... .

To wit: Concede: admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it; to surrender or yield... .

Now... often Relativists faced with these facts will instinctively run to DENY THAT THEY YIELDED... so toward heading that off: Below is you in your own words: yielding:

Keys -

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

Did ya see that? Did ya pick up on how you failed to meet the challenge as was predicted you would?

In so doing you YIELDED from that challenge, thus conceding through that failure, that you had no means to sustain your then discredited assertion.

So your claim that such occurred only in my mind has now been throughly REFUTED... which means that whther you 'feel' that you still have some discernible credibility or not... in truth, you have no credibility, because you've been demonstrated to be a person who lacks the means to reason soundly; which means that you have been proven to be an UNREASONABLE PERSON.

.
.
.

See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here's what ya said Skylar said in THE MOST PROFOUND DEMONSTRATION OF RELATIVISM IN USMB HISTORY!

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.

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, historical or personal 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 "R E L A T I V I S M".)

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, to set policy into place which never allows you within sight of a voting booth, thus precludes you from ever finding power through sitting the an office of public trust.

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

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here is Skylar's follow up to the above demonstration of relativism:

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.

So, for those lending credence to the Relativists argument need desperately now to AVOID asking the question, "Who IS the arbiter of Objectivity, truth, trust and morality ?

The Relativists answer is: The Relativist... meaning THEY ARE... meaning that objectivity, truth, trust and morality exist in only as such is relative to them... and their culture, society, historical and personal context, and as such can NEVER be subject to soundly reasoned absolutes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here's my other take.

I can gather stupidity is born when an intelligent person rejects reality and substitutes his or her own version of it. That intelligent person becomes so ingrained in their self made reality they are surprised to know their reality isn't...er... well...realistic. Stupidity is born when people can't conform their own opinions to the ever shifting nature of reality itself.

People who claim to be intelligent are in fact not when they see all other viewpoints as inferior to their own. When they start attacking someone or a group of people who don't hold the same, they are no longer intelligent, they are simply desperate, seeking attention. They use relativism in an attempt to blend in while discrediting the opinions or facts presented by their counterparts.

More stupidity arises when this person succeeds in spreading disinformation--or their own stupidity--to the unwitting masses. It becomes so pervasive that people who try to inject the truth into the debate, or call out the lie being presented are brought down and ridiculed. Thus making such an act a revolutionary one.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

-George Orwell

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

And yet the far left shows that they can not admit when they are wrong!

The far left uses many of these terms as they are in their programming but have no idea what they are including terms like "rights"..

However since the far left Hijacked the "liberal" label and the Democrat party, many of those terms can be used interchangeably, yet you will watch these irony impaired far left drones interchange words when relating to one the believe is not of the far left religion..

My, such a spin. The Democratic Party was never "hijacked" by the far left, in fact the last time the far left enjoyed any popularity amongst mainstream Democrats, liberal Democrats, Blue-Dog Democrats and Progressive Democrats was in 1968, And only because an ultra conservative murdered Robert Kennedy.

????....the sixties is when they hijacked it......and they've never let it go......the hippies from Woodstock are now the mainstream......

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

I congratulate your efforts to rationally bring a conservative to some sort of epiphany. Maybe it'll be a slow burn and eventually sink in. More often than not, it'll result in a 'double-down'.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

I congratulate your efforts to rationally bring a conservative to some sort of epiphany. Maybe it'll be a slow burn and eventually sink in. More often than not, it'll result in a 'double-down'.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

Yet ANOTHER Relativist (liberal) coming to concede through an obscurant deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since college - where the purveyor was trying to look smarter than he was.

 

[Toro]

I congratulate your efforts to rationally bring a conservative to some sort of epiphany. Maybe it'll be a slow burn and eventually sink in. More often than not, it'll result in a 'double-down'.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

Yet ANOTHER Relativist (liberal) coming to concede through an obscurant deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since college - where the purveyor was trying to look smarter than he was.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since a poster hilariously started a thread whining about Ravi negging him three times a day!

lol

Good times. Good times.

 

[JoeNormal]

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic; endowed with the capacity to reason.

Now you've thanked the Contributor for its effort in rationality.

I wonder what specific elements from the above defining attributes of 'rational', you found to exist in the respective 'effort'?

Because from my end, I merely noted that Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Skylar confirmed it, denied it, confirmed it through the denial and cried that I noted the history of the exchange claiming that I am not empowered to determine the definition of "truth", "trust", "knowledge", "history", "morality", "justice" ... "concede".

(The Reader should expect that there will be no forthcoming evidence from JoeNormal, which might on some level sustain her feelings on this, and this is due to there being no evidence existing... thus demonstrating that JoeNormal is lying... which of course demonstrates the Relativist nature of Ms. Normal.)

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

LOL, maybe you should try making arguments without using strawmen. You'd be taken more seriously.

Strawmen, Red Herrings, Appeals to Authority, hell...he even did the old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Its the Swiss Colony gift basket of fallacies of logic. Sans the beef log.

Plenty of cheese though.

Yet ANOTHER Relativist (liberal) coming to concede through an obscurant deflection.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since college - where the purveyor was trying to look smarter than he was.

I haven't seen this kind of word sausage since a poster hilariously started a thread whining about Ravi negging him three times a day!

lol

Good times. Good times.

Elighten me dude. You're apparently the one who lives here.