3 ms·

So many things in this response make it clear you have no interest in arguing in good faith. I thought you were actually trying to make a rational argument befo

by feoren 4y ago

So many things in this response make it clear you have no interest in arguing in good faith. I thought you were actually trying to make a rational argument before, but this response belies that you are not. Like this one: > since leftists, namely, the democrat party, were primarily responsible for all of those things over the past 200 years That is so inane it does not even deserve a response. You've given away that you're not arguing in good faith. > Similarly, you assert that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome, yet fail to provide any scientific evidence This comment illustrates this well. You know that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome. You know that that's the case. There is not a shadow of a doubt in your mind that that is obviously correct. But of course whoever you're arguing with must provide mountains of scientific evidence (at which point you would undoubtedly move the goal posts), whereas you're allowed to get away with "simply" making semi-rational arguments and quoting, over and over, literally one source, who (according to wikipedia): > Sowell was an important figure to the new conservative movement during the Reagan Era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Oof. Double-oof. So this singular person you're relying on for all your backup was an important figure to the most awful presidency of the modern era, the start of an economic plague that has allowed the rich to loot and ransack this nation's prosperity and dramatically worsened the very racial and socioeconomic disparities at the heart of this argument, and a corrupt Supreme Court justice who is a major leader in a movement to destroy democracy in the U.S. and replace it with a peusdo-Christian Theology. Yikes. I came here prepared to reply with more rational discussion, but like always, the longer you talk to racism-apologists, the more you see the facade unraveling, the bad-faith arguments, and the goalposts moving. It's not worth it.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
You can call it insane but it doesn't change the fact that what I said about the democrat party is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo "Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party." Your resistance to my statement has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with your own cognitive bias. Here is another source: https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-democratic-partys-history-slavery-jim-crow-kkk/ https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-de... "SJWs who go around browbeating Americans over a history of slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow can’t then complain when we point out that it was actually the Democratic Party which was most involved in this history." > You know that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome. You know that that's the case The point is not what I believe or "know" to be true. The point is to actually test your beliefs empirically against reality. If you're not doing that, then you're not doing anything remotely scientific. You might as well be spouting your religious beliefs, which you have been, by the way. Your views on Reagan and Thomas, along with your rejection of the truth about your own political party, reveal your extreme bias, ignorance, and mis-education. No one could claim the Reagan presidency was the worst in U.S. history, or that Thomas leads a movement to destroy "democracy in the U.S.", without a hefty combination of all three. And, If I am quoting one source, it beats your zero sources and your ridiculous comparison of humans to dice and economic outcomes to dice rolls. But, really, many, many others have said the same things as Sowell. He just says it best. Those include a host of other people you'll dismiss because you clearly only pay attention to leftwing sources that agree with your existing religion.

by feoren 4y ago

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

You can call it insane but it doesn't change the fact that what I said about the democrat party is true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo "Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party." Your resistance to my statement has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with your own cognitive bias. Here is another source: https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-democratic-partys-history-slavery-jim-crow-kkk/ https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-de... "SJWs who go around browbeating Americans over a history of slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow can’t then complain when we point out that it was actually the Democratic Party which was most involved in this history." > You know that birthday modulo 2 has no impact on economic outcome. You know that that's the case The point is not what I believe or "know" to be true. The point is to actually test your beliefs empirically against reality. If you're not doing that, then you're not doing anything remotely scientific. You might as well be spouting your religious beliefs, which you have been, by the way. Your views on Reagan and Thomas, along with your rejection of the truth about your own political party, reveal your extreme bias, ignorance, and mis-education. No one could claim the Reagan presidency was the worst in U.S. history, or that Thomas leads a movement to destroy "democracy in the U.S.", without a hefty combination of all three. And, If I am quoting one source, it beats your zero sources and your ridiculous comparison of humans to dice and economic outcomes to dice rolls. But, really, many, many others have said the same things as Sowell. He just says it best. Those include a host of other people you'll dismiss because you clearly only pay attention to leftwing sources that agree with your existing religion.