How stupid are people on the left?

[Asclepias]

If both ends on an argument are convinced they have The Truth on their side, which one is right?
.

Your question implies they both can't be right at the same time since we are asking which ONE is right. This means that there has to be a true and false between them. Which one that is is up to us to decide.

Agreed! And reasonable people will come to different conclusions, based on their perspective.

That means that even the interpretation of The Truth is subjective. So to paint The Truth as having only one possible meaning simply doesn't work.
.

WHat you are saying if two people are haveing an argument and one is telling the truth and the other is not telling the truth two observers can be watching it and come up with two different opinions on which is which. Wouldn't this mean that each is telling the truth and an a lie at the same time. How is that possible?

If one person is lying in a conversation, and they know they're lying, then that's it.

What I'm saying is that many people are telling the truth as they see it. They are personally convinced that they are being honest. I suspect - literally - that political partisans regularly talk themselves into things that a reasonable person knows are not true. But if they really believe it, they're not lying.

There's a thread on this board that contends that a lot of left-leaning Americans are actually Communists. There's another thread that contends that personal income taxation above 50% equates to slavery. Slavery! After communicating with those posters, I think it's really possible that they have convinced themselves that what they're saying is "The Truth". At least I can't get them to budge in the slightest.

And, of course, the same stuff happens all over the political spectrum, such as the "Trump is a Nazi" stuff. That's what I'm talking about.
.

I disagree with that. I don't find it plausible that these people have actually convinced themselves that they are telling the truth. On some level liars always know they are lying.

Doesnt really matter what you disagree with or have a hard time finding plausible. This has been proven time and time again. People rationalize things and believe them to be true. Why do you think people will die over their religious beliefs without any evidence of god?

 

[Mac1958]

WHat you are saying if two people are haveing an argument and one is telling the truth and the other is not telling the truth two observers can be watching it and come up with two different opinions on which is which.

"Wouldn't this mean that each is telling the truth and an a lie at the same time. How is that possible?"

It's not.

The problem is that certain posters (cough-Mac-Cough) have a palpable fear of actually choosing a side....no matter which is lying and which is telling the truth.
For them (him), equivalency is more important than rectitude.

You keep trying that lie. Then I challenge you to prove it, and you somehow disappear. Four or five times now.

Thank you for yet another lovely example of my point, the simplistic, binary thought of hardcore partisan ideologues on both sides. Right on cue.
.

Gee.....I seem to have hit a nerve.........again.

Yeah, I must admit, I don't suffer cowards gladly.
.

So....what? You're gonna smash all your mirrors????

Calm down and accept who you are.

I've long since figured out that you're a coward, and I can certainly accept it.

You folks illustrate my point about hardcore partisan ideologues every day, with dang near every post.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Wouldn't this mean that each is telling the truth and an a lie at the same time. How is that possible?"

It's not.

The problem is that certain posters (cough-Mac-Cough) have a palpable fear of actually choosing a side....no matter which is lying and which is telling the truth.
For them (him), equivalency is more important than rectitude.

You keep trying that lie. Then I challenge you to prove it, and you somehow disappear. Four or five times now.

Thank you for yet another lovely example of my point, the simplistic, binary thought of hardcore partisan ideologues on both sides. Right on cue.
.

Gee.....I seem to have hit a nerve.........again.

Yeah, I must admit, I don't suffer cowards gladly.
.

So....what? You're gonna smash all your mirrors????

Calm down and accept who you are.

I've long since figured out that you're a coward, and I can certainly accept it.

You folks illustrate my point about hardcore partisan ideologues every day, with dang near every post.
.

"...you're a coward, ... my point about hardcore partisan ideologues ...blah blah blah...."


You know what they always say about Leftists.....to know what they're doing, watch what they charge the other side with.

Fits you like a glove.

If you imagine that readers of each of our posts won't know who stands up strongly and without blinking, for her values....conservative values....and the dunce who regularly whines about the 'extremes' and 'partisans'....
...well, you must believe that readers are as dumb as you are, Rubber Ducky.


Too bad you were born without a spine, huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How stupid are people on the left?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

Consequently, you're in no position to ask.

 

[Arianrhod]

Well, I don't attach intelligence to hardcore partisan ideology. I think they're mutually exclusive.

Perfectly intelligent people can allow themselves to become hardcore partisan ideologues.

In fact, I'd argue it takes a reasonably good foundational intelligence to so quickly and consistently come up with the spin, distortion, deflection and outright lies so common with hardcore partisan ideologues. Such behavior requires a certain level of intellectual elasticity all by itself.
.

I don't know about that because if you really believe what you are saying is the truth and you don't lie then how do you not be hardcore about what you believe. In your mind it would be a completely accurate statement so why would you say anything other than what you believe is true? Wouldn't we all be kind of hardcore about what we believe at that point?

It's in the purity of "the Truth", which is one of the ways to identify someone who has convinced themselves that their ideology alone is the right one. When I see someone saying that they "speak the Truth", or that someone else doesn't know "the Truth", then I know I'm dealing with someone who is intellectually constrained by binary thought processes. They have convinced themselves that they have a vice-like grip on "the Truth", and anyone who disagrees with them does not.

Life isn't binary. It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. It's complicated.
.

We really should have vice like grip on the truth since having a vice like grip on anything else is a vice-like grip on something that isn't the truth. Do you think people should embrace a lie?

If you believe truth is a vice, you're essentially saying good is evil.

And how do you retain a vise-like grip on something fluid?

Humans once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. That was their truth at the time. Is it still your truth today?

The sun never did revolve around the earth. That is a true statement. People who thought otherwise in the past were wrong.

But if you'd said that at the time, you'd be burned at the stake, because the Christians claimed God told them it revolved around the Earth and to call God a liar was blasphemy.

"Truth" is what the individual knows, at the time, based upon the information available to that individual at that time.

Ever hear the story about the blind men and the elephant?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I was just watching Judge Judy"

lol

 

[Pop23]

How stupid are they?

I was recently having a conversation with one of our resident loons.

She was posting pictures of pregnant men (trans women), claiming they proved that men could have children.

I asked what she thought that would do to Roe V Wade?

Been silent ever since.

Loons just doin what loons do best. Eating their own.

 

[Mac1958]

Too bad you were born without a spine, huh?

Ironic post of the day.
.

 

[Pop23]

"How stupid are people on the left?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

Consequently, you're in no position to ask.

A day without a C_Clayton fallacy post is like a day without sunshine.

Drink up folk cuz when C_Clayton does his thing, we all take a shot!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

My first question is WTF were you doing watching Judge Judy, and why in the world did you just admit it to everyone???

Even more disturbing is the OP said he was watching Judge Judy then he lied and denied it. All this in an OP about truth.

Completely irrational. I said I saw Judge Judy on a show. I didn't say it was her show. I said it was A show with her on it. She does do other appearances on other shows from time to time.

Nope thats not what you said. You need to read your own OP. Please quote where you say you were watching anything other than Judge Judy. its OK you were caught lying but I did tell you that you had a hard time telling the truth.

"I was just watching Judge Judy's telling everyone she thinks that Bernie Sanders believes he is telling the truth. THat is an accurate statement but believing you are telling the truth and actually telling the truth are two different things. Despite this the audience cheered as if she was saying Bernie is telling the truth. Don't people know the fucking difference?"

I wasn't referring to Judge Judy the show but Judge Judy the person. That is her title.

Thats impossible. You specifically used the possessive form "Judge Judy's". If you were talking about the person you would have left off the "s". Now your compounding your lie with another lie.

That was a misspelled word. It should be easy to point out since there is no object for the possessive word to posses after that. I don't know what else to tell you on that.

 

[konradv]

I was pointing out that believing you are telling the truth and actually repeating something that is true are two different things.

Is this a confession?

 

[Asclepias]

Even more disturbing is the OP said he was watching Judge Judy then he lied and denied it. All this in an OP about truth.

Completely irrational. I said I saw Judge Judy on a show. I didn't say it was her show. I said it was A show with her on it. She does do other appearances on other shows from time to time.

Nope thats not what you said. You need to read your own OP. Please quote where you say you were watching anything other than Judge Judy. its OK you were caught lying but I did tell you that you had a hard time telling the truth.

"I was just watching Judge Judy's telling everyone she thinks that Bernie Sanders believes he is telling the truth. THat is an accurate statement but believing you are telling the truth and actually telling the truth are two different things. Despite this the audience cheered as if she was saying Bernie is telling the truth. Don't people know the fucking difference?"

I wasn't referring to Judge Judy the show but Judge Judy the person. That is her title.

Thats impossible. You specifically used the possessive form "Judge Judy's". If you were talking about the person you would have left off the "s". Now your compounding your lie with another lie.

That was a misspelled word. It should be easy to point out since there is no object for the possessive word to posses after that. I don't know what else to tell you on that.

This your third lie on the subject. Your claim is that you appended an apostrophe and the letter "s" to the word "Judy" and expect people to believe it was a typo? How does one accidentally do that? What you must be saying is that either you are illiterate or you are lying. Which one is it?

 

[amrchaos]

Truth is predicated on facts. Present some occasionally and see what happens.

How do you know what is true and what is not?

Solipsism!!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I was pointing out that believing you are telling the truth and actually repeating something that is true are two different things.

Is this a confession?

I was going to reply but that was kind of funny. LOL...kind of.

 

[jc456]

too stupid to be completely captured in a message board setting.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Completely irrational. I said I saw Judge Judy on a show. I didn't say it was her show. I said it was A show with her on it. She does do other appearances on other shows from time to time.

Nope thats not what you said. You need to read your own OP. Please quote where you say you were watching anything other than Judge Judy. its OK you were caught lying but I did tell you that you had a hard time telling the truth.

"I was just watching Judge Judy's telling everyone she thinks that Bernie Sanders believes he is telling the truth. THat is an accurate statement but believing you are telling the truth and actually telling the truth are two different things. Despite this the audience cheered as if she was saying Bernie is telling the truth. Don't people know the fucking difference?"

I wasn't referring to Judge Judy the show but Judge Judy the person. That is her title.

Thats impossible. You specifically used the possessive form "Judge Judy's". If you were talking about the person you would have left off the "s". Now your compounding your lie with another lie.

That was a misspelled word. It should be easy to point out since there is no object for the possessive word to posses after that. I don't know what else to tell you on that.

This your third lie on the subject. Your claim is that you appended an apostrophe and the letter "s" to the word "Judy" and expect people to believe it was a typo? How does one accidentally do that? What you must be saying is that either you are illiterate or you are lying. Which one is it?

It is the same answer to the question what state Obama was born in which is, of course, NONE OF THE ABOVE.

 

[jc456]

I was just watching Judge Judy's telling everyone she thinks that Bernie Sanders believes he is telling the truth. THat is an accurate statement but believing you are telling the truth and actually telling the truth are two different things. Despite this the audience cheered as if she was saying Bernie is telling the truth. Don't people know the fucking difference?

Hardcore partisan ideologues allow their perceptions to be distorted, including talking themselves into believing anything that supports their ideology. They do this by (a) constantly repeating the same general talking points, (b) exposing themselves largely to opinions that agree with their own, and (c) actively shutting out opposing ideas.

In other words, it appears they really do believe what they're saying, at least at some level.

Both ends.
.

I was pointing out that believing you are telling the truth and actually repeating something that is true are two different things.

Agreed!
.

It is so frustrating with the left sometimes because how do you have a rational argument if people can't even tell the difference between a true statement and one that is not true.

Well, I don't attach intelligence to hardcore partisan ideology. I think they're mutually exclusive.

Perfectly intelligent people can allow themselves to become hardcore partisan ideologues.

In fact, I'd argue it takes a reasonably good foundational intelligence to so quickly and consistently come up with the spin, distortion, deflection and outright lies so common with hardcore partisan ideologues. Such behavior requires a certain level of intellectual elasticity all by itself.
.

or not.

 

[Asclepias]

Nope thats not what you said. You need to read your own OP. Please quote where you say you were watching anything other than Judge Judy. its OK you were caught lying but I did tell you that you had a hard time telling the truth.

"I was just watching Judge Judy's telling everyone she thinks that Bernie Sanders believes he is telling the truth. THat is an accurate statement but believing you are telling the truth and actually telling the truth are two different things. Despite this the audience cheered as if she was saying Bernie is telling the truth. Don't people know the fucking difference?"

I wasn't referring to Judge Judy the show but Judge Judy the person. That is her title.

Thats impossible. You specifically used the possessive form "Judge Judy's". If you were talking about the person you would have left off the "s". Now your compounding your lie with another lie.

That was a misspelled word. It should be easy to point out since there is no object for the possessive word to posses after that. I don't know what else to tell you on that.

This your third lie on the subject. Your claim is that you appended an apostrophe and the letter "s" to the word "Judy" and expect people to believe it was a typo? How does one accidentally do that? What you must be saying is that either you are illiterate or you are lying. Which one is it?

It is the same answer to the question what state Obama was born in which is, of course, NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Now you think your deflection is going to cover your lie? How did you accidentally append an apostrophe and the letter "s" on Judy?

 

[OldLady]

It's in the purity of "the Truth", which is one of the ways to identify someone who has convinced themselves that their ideology alone is the right one. When I see someone saying that they "speak the Truth", or that someone else doesn't know "the Truth", then I know I'm dealing with someone who is intellectually constrained by binary thought processes. They have convinced themselves that they have a vice-like grip on "the Truth", and anyone who disagrees with them does not.

Life isn't binary. It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. It's complicated.
.

We really should have vice like grip on the truth since having a vice like grip on anything else is a vice-like grip on something that isn't the truth. Do you think people should embrace a lie?

If both ends on an argument are convinced they have The Truth on their side, which one is right?
.

Your question implies they both can't be right at the same time since we are asking which ONE is right. This means that there has to be a true and false between them. Which one that is is up to us to decide.

Agreed! And reasonable people will come to different conclusions, based on their perspective.

That means that even the interpretation of The Truth is subjective. So to paint The Truth as having only one possible meaning simply doesn't work.
.

WHat you are saying if two people are haveing an argument and one is telling the truth and the other is not telling the truth two observers can be watching it and come up with two different opinions on which is which. Wouldn't this mean that each is telling the truth and an a lie at the same time. How is that possible?

It happens here all the time.

 

[Asclepias]

It's in the purity of "the Truth", which is one of the ways to identify someone who has convinced themselves that their ideology alone is the right one. When I see someone saying that they "speak the Truth", or that someone else doesn't know "the Truth", then I know I'm dealing with someone who is intellectually constrained by binary thought processes. They have convinced themselves that they have a vice-like grip on "the Truth", and anyone who disagrees with them does not.

Life isn't binary. It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. It's complicated.
.

We really should have vice like grip on the truth since having a vice like grip on anything else is a vice-like grip on something that isn't the truth. Do you think people should embrace a lie?

If both ends on an argument are convinced they have The Truth on their side, which one is right?
.

Your question implies they both can't be right at the same time since we are asking which ONE is right. This means that there has to be a true and false between them. Which one that is is up to us to decide.

Agreed! And reasonable people will come to different conclusions, based on their perspective.

That means that even the interpretation of The Truth is subjective. So to paint The Truth as having only one possible meaning simply doesn't work.
.

WHat you are saying if two people are haveing an argument and one is telling the truth and the other is not telling the truth two observers can be watching it and come up with two different opinions on which is which. Wouldn't this mean that each is telling the truth and an a lie at the same time. How is that possible?

You cant tell the truth and lie at the same time for the simple fact that a lie is intentional destruction of the truth.