Who is a hater of gays in America? Why?

[Nosmo King]

And gays now enjoy more rights. So, why are they the fools in your scenario? Looks to me like they are accomplishing something where as people who listen to and vote for Republicans because they are against gay marriage get the shitty end of the stick. No? Eh, think about it.

They have the same rights they've always had. Some areas let them marry some dont. If you can't see how they've been played just like blacks & now Latinos you're fucking blind or simply don't care.

Liberals are at the forefront of the marriage equality issue. Wanna know why? Because Conservatives have ALWAYS OPPOSED EXPANDING RIGHTS TO ALL OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS. They always have, they always will.

There's just someth9ing about equality that Conservatives hate. It's like a cross in front of a vampire, kryptonite in front of Superman, science in front of a Fundamentalist.

The resistance to civil equality is always manned by Conservatives. Always.

ROFLMNAO!

Reader have you ever noticed that Leftists can't stip themselves from using the word "right" in every conceivable context... But you will never find them having used or being in possession of any word which on any level refers or even alludes to RESPONSIBILITY.

I mean their disdain for responsibility is so profound that they have now taken on a movement to strip the culture of "FUNDAMENTAL".

Which is understandable, given that fundamentals are where responsibility is defined and assigned.

But hey... Such is the nature of evil.

And we do a little side step!

Nothing inn your response addresses the accurate allegations concerning the Conservative positi0ons on equal rights. A deflection, an obfuscation, but not a legitimate response.

I can't blame you for that. If I clung to a dying ideology that refuses to be in the vanguard of the civil rights battle, I'd hide, lie and deflect too, then I'd rethink my politics.

gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue, its a cultural and societal issue. The issue is whether a society wants to recognize homsexuality as a normal human condition. All the rest of this is BS to cover up the real issue, and society as a whole should decide, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

Marriage equality means access to contract law. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is simple contract law. The state does not sanctify marriage. The state does not require an ecclesiastical blessing on a marriage.

But the marriage contract does provide privileges and benefits not available by other means. Why Conservatives believe that there will be irreparable harm to the institution of marriage is a red herring.

It's just good old fashion Gay Bashing pure and simple.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Liberals are. They play them for fools to further their own political careers.

"I voted for gay marriage before I voted against it when I was pro gay marriage because I didn't want fags to know I was pro traditional marriage. Now upon seeing recent polls I have "evolved""

And gays now enjoy more rights. So, why are they the fools in your scenario? Looks to me like they are accomplishing something where as people who listen to and vote for Republicans because they are against gay marriage get the shitty end of the stick. No? Eh, think about it.

They have the same rights they've always had. Some areas let them marry some dont. If you can't see how they've been played just like blacks & now Latinos you're fucking blind or simply don't care.

Liberals are at the forefront of the marriage equality issue. Wanna know why? Because Conservatives have ALWAYS OPPOSED EXPANDING RIGHTS TO ALL OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS. They always have, they always will.

There's just someth9ing about equality that Conservatives hate. It's like a cross in front of a vampire, kryptonite in front of Superman, science in front of a Fundamentalist.

The resistance to civil equality is always manned by Conservatives. Always.

ROFLMNAO!

Reader have you ever noticed that Leftists can't stip themselves from using the word "right" in every conceivable context... But you will never find them having used or being in possession of any word which on any level refers or even alludes to RESPONSIBILITY.

I mean their disdain for responsibility is so profound that they have now taken on a movement to strip the culture of "FUNDAMENTAL".

Which is understandable, given that fundamentals are where responsibility is defined and assigned.

But hey... Such is the nature of evil.

And we do a little side step!

Nothing in your response addresses the accurate allegations concerning the Conservative positi0ons on equal rights. A deflection, an obfuscation, but not a legitimate response.

I can't blame you for that. If I clung to a dying ideology that refuses to be in the vanguard of the civil rights battle, I'd hide, lie and deflect too, then I'd rethink my politics.

You're argument is a feckless straw dog. There is quite literally, not a single instance in human history, when a proponent and adherent to natural law has ever denied any human being the means to exercise their God-given rights.

And your asserting that such is the case is irelevant to reality.

Declaring a right is not an indication that a right exists... But evidence that a right existing can always be found in the individual having born the responsibilities intrinsic to that right.

What's more, where the exercise of whatever right is being claimed injured the means of another the exercise their own rights, this is certain evidence that the claim to the would be right, is false.

But hey... In fairness to you... As a Relativist, there is no way you could have known that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well then those of you who say otherwise will merely be removed from the equation.

And that's hardly a unique solution to this problem,
Or our times... As such has been the consequence of every attempt to simply let homosexuals 'be'.

And that's why despite homosexuals having always been with humanity, homosexuals have been forced to hide their deviant desires for 99.99999% of human existence.

Because every single time that they have been tolerated, the mental disorder that twists their sexual craving forces them to demand that "THEY ARE THE NEW NORMAL" and then presto... They're gone.

Sadly the culture that tolerated them is gone too... Which is sorta why it takes a millilenia or so before the lessons learned are rinsed from the system and they have to be relearned all over again.

And that's truly all there is to this.

Here's the thing tho'.

I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me.

Understand, Natural law doesn't give a red rats ass what you say it is. It literally IS, what it is.

You see scamp, the consequences for rejecting it do not only fall upon ONLY those who ADVOCATE for the public policy that alters the law to reject it in favor of the subjective needs of the least common denominator...

The consequences fall upon everyone.

And it in that certainty where the moral justification to remove you, the mouthy malcontents whose foolishness sentences entire cultures to their doom.

It's all very simple stuff really.

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

 

[Skylar]

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Totally wrong. Minority rights were established by majority vote. If you call that tyranny, then you are very ignorant.

Depends on the minority right. The 'majority' voted in the Chinese Exclusion Act. Yet the Supreme Court found that the 14th amendment trumped it on children born in the US to chinese parents. The majority voted in interracial marriages bans. In 1967 when the Supreme Court overruled that it had support around 80%. Yet it violated constitutional guarantees and had to go. The majority voted in DOMA. Yet it violated both rights and powers and was largely undone.

The ability of the majoirty to create a law to strip rights from the individual doesn't make that law valid in our legal system. As the rights of the individual are weighed against the law. And a law that abrogates rights is constitutionally invalid.

Thats how our system works and should work.

What you're describing is the majority being able to strip any right from any minority with a simple majority vote. Um, no. That's not our system. Not in the Federal government since the adoption of the Constitution. And not in the State governments since the adoption of the 14th amendment.

What you want is minority dictates to establish rights. Why not just go back to a monarchy where the king establshed rights and determined who was entitled to them?

Laughing....so unless the majority can strip rights from any minority they wish....we have a 'monarchy'? That's not your best rant, Red.

Rights trump powers. And should .As the government shouldn't have the power to abrogate the rights of the individual...even if the majority of people think it should be so. That's the difference between a pure democracy that you advocate (and the founders loathed) and a constitutional democratic republic, where the power of the government is limited by the rights of the individual.

 

[Lilah]

"I like my culture. And I have a say in what it is. Because I am a free human being who stays free only by not allowing idiots and reprobates to make my decisions for me."
Do you believe in the law of reciprocity?

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

 

[Skylar]

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that anything you believe is 'logically valid objective reasoning'. And anything you disagree with is 'relativism'. That's simply not the case. Your subjective beliefs don't define anything objectively. And labeling your subjective belief as 'natural law' or 'god's plan' or 'immutable law' or any other Appeal to Authority fallacy you wish to employ doesn't change the fact that its still your subjective belief.

Subjective is not objective. No matter how many times you present your personal opinion as 'universal law' or type the word 'period'.

Worse, you use subjective religious tenets as your basis of reasoning. Which are hopelessly bogged down in relativism and subjective interpretation. To such an extent than whenever I bring up the truck sized holes in your reasoning......you refuse to discuss it.

Your willful ignorance is also objectively meaningless. As the holes in your reasoning remain even if you pretend otherwise.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Obvious nonsense. Marriage is a social construct. We invented it. We define it. And it means what we say it means.

As demonstrated elegantly by same sex marriage in 37 of 50 states. You insist none of this is happening. Reality says otherwise.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter what you ignore. As you're gloriously irrelevant to this entire process.

Period.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Oh, Lilah....his standards don't apply to him. That's the first rule of relativism. His standards only apply to everyone else. He's inexpicably and irrationally exempt......because he says he is.

See how that works?

 

[Skylar]

And gays now enjoy more rights. So, why are they the fools in your scenario? Looks to me like they are accomplishing something where as people who listen to and vote for Republicans because they are against gay marriage get the shitty end of the stick. No? Eh, think about it.

They have the same rights they've always had. Some areas let them marry some dont. If you can't see how they've been played just like blacks & now Latinos you're fucking blind or simply don't care.

Liberals are at the forefront of the marriage equality issue. Wanna know why? Because Conservatives have ALWAYS OPPOSED EXPANDING RIGHTS TO ALL OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS. They always have, they always will.

There's just someth9ing about equality that Conservatives hate. It's like a cross in front of a vampire, kryptonite in front of Superman, science in front of a Fundamentalist.

The resistance to civil equality is always manned by Conservatives. Always.

ROFLMNAO!

Reader have you ever noticed that Leftists can't stip themselves from using the word "right" in every conceivable context... But you will never find them having used or being in possession of any word which on any level refers or even alludes to RESPONSIBILITY.

I mean their disdain for responsibility is so profound that they have now taken on a movement to strip the culture of "FUNDAMENTAL".

Which is understandable, given that fundamentals are where responsibility is defined and assigned.

But hey... Such is the nature of evil.

And we do a little side step!

Nothing in your response addresses the accurate allegations concerning the Conservative positi0ons on equal rights. A deflection, an obfuscation, but not a legitimate response.

I can't blame you for that. If I clung to a dying ideology that refuses to be in the vanguard of the civil rights battle, I'd hide, lie and deflect too, then I'd rethink my politics.

You're argument is a feckless straw dog. There is quite literally, not a single instance in human history, when a proponent and adherent to natural law has ever denied any human being the means to exercise their God-given rights.

You're quite literally making that shit up as you go along. As you define a 'proponent and adherent to natural law' as someone who agrees with you. Where you get to define what rights people have. You decide what natural law is. And you decide who is a 'proponent and adherent to natural law'.

But you don't decide any of those things objectively. All you can do is offer us your personal opinion. And then laughably insist that whatever you believe must be objective truth.

Laughing....nope. There's no such mandate. Your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively. No matter what labels you apply to your opinion.

You can't get around that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, we all have a say in what our culture becomes, and every viewpoint is equally valid. The majority opinion must prevail or we are doomed to become a marxist dictatorship.

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

I will never understand why liberals want to live under a minority dictatorship. Isn't that why the founders left europe?

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Excellent example of invalid reasoning.

Well done.

Now, the question becomes: "Why is the argument invalid?".

The argument is invalid because it offers a pretense; which is to say, a fiction which is advanced as truth; projecting that which has not been established as truth, as truth... and it hasn't been established as truth, because it is false.

But because its subjective needs, NEED it to be true, it simply demands that it MUST BE TRUE.

Now to prove that the individual knew that what it advanced as truth, was not true, is quite easy.

All one need to is to ask... and the deceiver will demonstrate that what it advanced as truth, is not true.

To wit:

Lilah, you've advised the Readers of this board that I am a Relativist. Please cite the information which you used to establish this conclusion, when you made the assertion.

Naturally when you fail to do so, you will be conceding to me that you knew that what you were asserting was false, when you advanced it as truth, fraudulently attempting to mislead the Readers of this board.

(Reader, Lilah will demonstrate that she's a liar. Enjoy...)

 

[Skylar]

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Excellent example of invalid reasoning.

Well done.

Now, the question becomes: "Why is the argument invalid?".

Because by your own standards you're a relativist. Meaning that every criticism you levied at 'relativists' would apply to you. Strike one.

You merely assume your position is objectively valid. Which is the 'begging the question' fallacy. Where you make an factually unsupported assertion...and merely assume its true. Strike two.

You keep offering us your subjective personal opinion as 'objective truth'. Subjective is not objective. No matter how many Appeal to Authority fallacies you use.

Strike three. You're out.

Its not our responsibility to prove your argument invalid. Its your responsibility to prove your argument is valid. And you can't. All you can do is insist that you must be right because you say you are. Which is hopelessly relativistic.

(Reader, Lilah will demonstrate that she's a liar. Enjoy...)

Keys....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. You are your own sources. You are even own audience, your entire argument is self contained subjective opinion.

That's about as relativistic as it gets.

 

[Lilah]

That assumes a view point's validity is based on its mere existence. And I don't subscribe to that. If such were true then Flat Earth theory would be just as valid as a spherical earth model based on nothing more than the flat earth theory existed.

Nope. That dog won't hunt.

And by 'minority dictatorship', you mean we won't let you oppress minorities and strip them of rights?

Your view of 'dictatorship' is rather imaginative.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Excellent example of invalid reasoning.

Well done.

Now, the question becomes: "Why is the argument invalid?".

The argument is invalid because it offers a pretense; which is to say, a fiction which is advanced as truth; projecting that which has not been established as truth, as truth... and it hasn't been established as truth, because it is false.

But because its subjective needs, NEED it to be true, it simply demands that it MUST BE TRUE.

Now to prove that the individual knew that what it advanced as truth, was not true, is quite easy.

All one need to is to ask... and the deceiver will demonstrate that what it advanced as truth, is not true.

To wit:

Lilah, you've advised the Readers of this board that I am a Relativist. Please cite the information which you used to establish this conclusion, when you made the assertion.

Naturally when you fail to do so, you will be conceding to me that you knew that what you were asserting was false, when you advanced it as truth, fraudulently attempting to mislead the Readers of this board.

(Reader, Lilah will demonstrate that she's a liar. Enjoy...)

Please read what you've wrote and I'm sure even you can figure it out.

 

[Skylar]

The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that anything you believe is 'logically valid objective reasoning'.

So true... But that's only because what I believe is a consequence of having seriously considered the issue, and come to soundly reasoned conclusions, regarding those issues.

Simply assuming you have 'sound reasoning' doesn't demonstrate sound reasoning. Its just another example of you presenting your personal opinion as objective fact. And failing miserably at it. As your 'logic' is that you have sound reasoning because you have sound reasoning.

That's a perfect circle, Keys. As your 'evidence' and your conclusion is the exact same thing.

Sigh...if not for logical fallacies, your posts would be little more than punctuation.

Now you're entitled to show where you feel you can, any position of mine that is not logically valid.

You have yet to establish any of your claims as logically valid. You've merely begged the question, assuming you must be right because you say you are. Yet another fallacy of logic. Until you logically and factually establish your claims, there's nothing to refute. As all you've done is state your personal opinion.

See how that works? Your personal opinions aren't evidence. Your personal opinions establish nothing objectively. They're just your subjective opinions.

You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Excellent example of invalid reasoning.

Well done.

Now, the question becomes: "Why is the argument invalid?".

The argument is invalid because it offers a pretense; which is to say, a fiction which is advanced as truth; projecting that which has not been established as truth, as truth... and it hasn't been established as truth, because it is false.

But because its subjective needs, NEED it to be true, it simply demands that it MUST BE TRUE.

Now to prove that the individual knew that what it advanced as truth, was not true, is quite easy.

All one need to is to ask... and the deceiver will demonstrate that what it advanced as truth, is not true.

To wit:

Lilah, you've advised the Readers of this board that I am a Relativist. Please cite the information which you used to establish this conclusion, when you made the assertion.

Naturally when you fail to do so, you will be conceding to me that you knew that what you were asserting was false, when you advanced it as truth, fraudulently attempting to mislead the Readers of this board.

(Reader, Lilah will demonstrate that she's a liar. Enjoy...)

Please read what you've wrote and I'm sure even you can figure it out.

Its largely gibberish whenever Keys posts. With occasional breaks to offer himself concessions from himself or speak to himself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...

Keys....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself.

Would you interpret your post, please.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Excellent example of invalid reasoning.

Well done.

Now, the question becomes: "Why is the argument invalid?".

The argument is invalid because it offers a pretense; which is to say, a fiction which is advanced as truth; projecting that which has not been established as truth, as truth... and it hasn't been established as truth, because it is false.

But because its subjective needs, NEED it to be true, it simply demands that it MUST BE TRUE.

Now to prove that the individual knew that what it advanced as truth, was not true, is quite easy.

All one need to is to ask... and the deceiver will demonstrate that what it advanced as truth, is not true.

To wit:

Lilah, you've advised the Readers of this board that I am a Relativist. Please cite the information which you used to establish this conclusion, when you made the assertion.

Naturally when you fail to do so, you will be conceding to me that you knew that what you were asserting was false, when you advanced it as truth, fraudulently attempting to mislead the Readers of this board.

(Reader, Lilah will demonstrate that she's a liar. Enjoy...)

Please read what you've wrote and I'm sure even you can figure it out.

And there ya have it Reader.

What Lilah has just admitted to YOU..., is that she knew full well that what she stated to you as TRUTH, was known to her to be false.

Do ya see how easy this is?

Remember, the key to defeating the Ideological Left in debate, rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to Speak.

 

[Lilah]

...

Keys....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Excellent example of invalid reasoning.

Well done.

Now, the question becomes: "Why is the argument invalid?".

The argument is invalid because it offers a pretense; which is to say, a fiction which is advanced as truth; projecting that which has not been established as truth, as truth... and it hasn't been established as truth, because it is false.

But because its subjective needs, NEED it to be true, it simply demands that it MUST BE TRUE.

Now to prove that the individual knew that what it advanced as truth, was not true, is quite easy.

All one need to is to ask... and the deceiver will demonstrate that what it advanced as truth, is not true.

To wit:

Lilah, you've advised the Readers of this board that I am a Relativist. Please cite the information which you used to establish this conclusion, when you made the assertion.

Naturally when you fail to do so, you will be conceding to me that you knew that what you were asserting was false, when you advanced it as truth, fraudulently attempting to mislead the Readers of this board.

(Reader, Lilah will demonstrate that she's a liar. Enjoy...)

Please read what you've wrote and I'm sure even you can figure it out.

And there ya have it Reader.

What Lilah has just admitted to YOU..., is that she knew full well that what she stated to you as TRUTH, was known to her to be false.

Do ya see how easy this is?

Remember, the key to defeating the Ideological Left in debate, rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to Speak.

You provide us with a lot of entertainment.

 

[Skylar]

...

Keys....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself.

Sure. I don't think all points are equally valid. I don't think the existence of a perspective alone renders it valid. Nor do I think that popularity alone defines validity. Interracial marriage bans were popular. In its day, slavery was popular. I think both institutions fail on their poor reasoning, immoral basis, and false premises.

What Redfish is proposing is the 'Tyranny of the Majority'. We've lived with democracy being the coolest thing since sliced bread for so long that most of us aren't familiar with how much disdain democracy was held in among most of the Enlightenment thinkers. They were all too aware of how pure democracy works when viewing the results of the ancient greeks. Anyone could be exiled, their possessions stripped, even executed on a simple majority vote. Keeping friends and allies handy was necessary to maintain property or one's life. And missing a vote could be fatal, as your enemies could rally enough support in your absense to end you.

Democracy was the killer of Socrates in the view of many of the Enlightenment. And was held to be a tyrannical form of government. The founders were well aware of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' and sought to mitigated in the republic they formed. They believed that the actions of the majority must be limited by individual rights.

Redfish and his ilk hate that idea. They want a pure democracy. Where majority rules no matter rights. Where the rights of any individual can be stripped with a simple vote. This they call freedom. This the founders called tyranny.

The rights of the minority are our responsibility to protect. As the rights of the majority usually protect themselves. And when the majority wants to strip rights from black folks or gay folks or jews or the Irish or the Chinese, or whatever group is being oppressed at the time......their rights are worth protecting. And the will of the majority needs to have a counter to prevent the abuse of these rights.

Does that elaborate enough for you?

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Excellent example of invalid reasoning.

Well done.

Now, the question becomes: "Why is the argument invalid?".

The argument is invalid because it offers a pretense; which is to say, a fiction which is advanced as truth; projecting that which has not been established as truth, as truth... and it hasn't been established as truth, because it is false.

But because its subjective needs, NEED it to be true, it simply demands that it MUST BE TRUE.

Now to prove that the individual knew that what it advanced as truth, was not true, is quite easy.

All one need to is to ask... and the deceiver will demonstrate that what it advanced as truth, is not true.

To wit:

Lilah, you've advised the Readers of this board that I am a Relativist. Please cite the information which you used to establish this conclusion, when you made the assertion.

Naturally when you fail to do so, you will be conceding to me that you knew that what you were asserting was false, when you advanced it as truth, fraudulently attempting to mislead the Readers of this board.

(Reader, Lilah will demonstrate that she's a liar. Enjoy...)

Please read what you've wrote and I'm sure even you can figure it out.

And there ya have it Reader.

What Lilah has just admitted to YOU..., is that she knew full well that what she stated to you as TRUTH, was known to her to be false.

Do ya see how easy this is?

Remember, the key to defeating the Ideological Left in debate, rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to Speak.

And you start babbling to yourself again. Keyes....just you talking to you. Just like its just you citing yourself as your sources. Just like its you assuming you have sound reasoning because you say you have sound reasoning. And now you're making up imaginary quotes for Lilah......citing on yourself?

Is there anything but subjective relativism to your argument? Because so far your sources, your quotes, your concessions, even your audience...is talking to yourself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that anything you believe is 'logically valid objective reasoning'.

So true... But that's only because what I believe is a consequence of having seriously considered the issue, and come to soundly reasoned conclusions, regarding those issues.

Simply assuming you have 'sound reasoning' doesn't demonstrate sound reasoning. Its just another example of you presenting your personal opinion as objective fact. And failing miserably at it. As your 'logic' is that you have sound reasoning because you have sound reasoning.

That's a perfect circle, Keys.

Is it?

Well that's the risk ya take when ya respond to your circular reasoning. Which most recently is defined as: 'Keys argument is invalid, because Key's argument is invalid.'

Sadly, for you... Denying your accusation does not a circle make.

BUT.. in your defense, Your subjective needs being what they are and all, I certainly understand how you'd need to claim such, without regard to how foolish it is.

 

[Skylar]

...

Keys....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself.

Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist.

There is no potential for a right for sexual deviants to force themselves into institutions that are designed specifically and exclusively around the human sexual standard... As defined by human physiology.

Period.

"Logical validity is an objectively reasoned standard which is not subject to the whimsy of the subjective nature of the lowly relativist."
How do you, as a lowly relativist, respond to this?

Excellent example of invalid reasoning.

Well done.

Now, the question becomes: "Why is the argument invalid?".

The argument is invalid because it offers a pretense; which is to say, a fiction which is advanced as truth; projecting that which has not been established as truth, as truth... and it hasn't been established as truth, because it is false.

But because its subjective needs, NEED it to be true, it simply demands that it MUST BE TRUE.

Now to prove that the individual knew that what it advanced as truth, was not true, is quite easy.

All one need to is to ask... and the deceiver will demonstrate that what it advanced as truth, is not true.

To wit:

Lilah, you've advised the Readers of this board that I am a Relativist. Please cite the information which you used to establish this conclusion, when you made the assertion.

Naturally when you fail to do so, you will be conceding to me that you knew that what you were asserting was false, when you advanced it as truth, fraudulently attempting to mislead the Readers of this board.

(Reader, Lilah will demonstrate that she's a liar. Enjoy...)

Please read what you've wrote and I'm sure even you can figure it out.

And there ya have it Reader.

What Lilah has just admitted to YOU..., is that she knew full well that what she stated to you as TRUTH, was known to her to be false.

Do ya see how easy this is?

Remember, the key to defeating the Ideological Left in debate, rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to Speak.

You provide us with a lot of entertainment.

Seriously. Its like watching a schizophrenic screaming into the mirror, arguing about what pants he's going to wear that day.

And somehow losing the argument.

 

[Skylar]

The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that anything you believe is 'logically valid objective reasoning'.

So true... But that's only because what I believe is a consequence of having seriously considered the issue, and come to soundly reasoned conclusions, regarding those issues.

Simply assuming you have 'sound reasoning' doesn't demonstrate sound reasoning. Its just another example of you presenting your personal opinion as objective fact. And failing miserably at it. As your 'logic' is that you have sound reasoning because you have sound reasoning.

That's a perfect circle, Keys.

Is it?

Well that's the risk ya take when ya respond to your circular reasoning. Which most recently is defined as: 'Keys argument is invalid, because Key's argument is invalid.'

Sadly

Yup. As your evidence of sound reasoning is your claim of sound reasoning. Its the rhetorical equivalent of watching a dog chase its own tail. Its just you...citing you. Insisting you must be right because you say you are.

I don't think 'objectivity' means what you think it means. Because that's not it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that anything you believe is 'logically valid objective reasoning'.

So true... But that's only because what I believe is a consequence of having seriously considered the issue, and come to soundly reasoned conclusions, regarding those issues.

Now you're entitled to show where you feel you can, any position of mine that is not logically valid.

You've never been able to do so, but in your defense, you're stone cold ignorant of the natural laws that govern human reasoning, which complies the laws of reason; OKA: The Principles of Logic.

This is known due to the endless invalid pap you trot out in nearly each and every one of your would-be 'contributions'.

Examples would be: "Marriage has never been between one man and one woman", "Marriage is what we {the infinitesimal, thus otherwise irrelevant minority} say marriage is." "Marriage isn't about FUCKING!", Marriage is a Legal Contract"... ( I love that one... because your fellow cult members have glommed onto it and have now declared that "WORDS MEAN NOTHING IN CONTRACTS".) All of which is endlessly entertaining, but sadly, none of it is even logically valid, let alone intellectually sound.

LOL! Your most recent example being this logical train-wreck:

Keys....your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself.

Now that assertion states, AS TRUTH, that I am the only one who reads what I address to 'the Reader".

ROFLMNAO!

Which it THEN followed up with THIS pearl:

And you start babbling to yourself again. Keyes....just you talking to you.

LOL! You can't make this crap up!

(Now Reader, what do ya suppose it would mean, where what I have written, results in a response, which cites what I wrote, as the basis of the RESPONSE? You can go ahead and tell Skylar, because as a Relativist, 'Reality' has no bearing on her 'feelings'. That's sorta the whole downside to, the idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what isgenerally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, OKA: Delusion.