4 ms·

I'm just quoting these bits so you don't rewrite them later as well then. I'm just combining my replies in one post. > It had nothing to do with reading compre

I'm just quoting these bits so you don't rewrite them later as well then. I'm just combining my replies in one post. > It had nothing to do with reading comprehension, and the fact that you both jump to assumptions that I must be something like stupid despite my evident articulation proves my point further regarding your propensity to mischaracterize opposing views. /r/politics' liberal bias is near-universally known amongst conservatives on Reddit. > So it was a faulty assumption on my part that had no relation to reading comprehensive You are correct. It is not reading comprehension but rather the fact you make ignorant accusations with no basis in fact and then rewrite your posts to make you look less ignorant. The problem you have is a combination of ignorance and arrogance that you rely on to justify the assumptions and bias you have. You still ignored the underlying point that you are looking for evidence to convince you that your bias is true while selectively omitting facts. > Easy. Tone down the hostility and thanks for proving my point. Despite my ignorance WRT non-US posts, a quick glance at the top /r/politics stories from the past month[1] displays the bias I mention: there is literally not a single pro-conservative post, only libertarian, liberal and anti-conservative posts. It's not my intent to prove anything however, so lack of facts to support doesn't disprove my opinion either. I posted to have a discussion, not whatever you're trying to have. Libertarian is a conservative ideology as evidenced by the number of Republicans who espouse Ayn Rand's views and read her books then regurgitate that in interviews. It is fiscally conservative by design which is why it is a common Republican reference point. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/12/news/la-pn-vp-paul-ryan-ayn-rand-20120811 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/12/news/la-pn-vp-paul-r... Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc. So I'm assuming you are basing it on stuff like this: > http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3448-myth-ayn-rand-was-a-conservative http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3448-myth... However, if that is the case you are stating you are a social conservative. Fair enough, social conservatism [e.g. anti-abortion, anti-LBGT] is not well liked on Reddit. I can agree with that. > It's not my intent to prove anything however, so lack of facts to support doesn't disprove my opinion either. "A lack of facts to support my opinion" is evidence you don't have an opinion based on reality and you can see where that rabbit hole goes.

eldude 11y ago
> you make ignorant accusations with no basis in fact The link you provided to refute my fact, is itself a fact that disproves your point and proves mine. > The problem you have is a combination of ignorance and arrogance that you rely on to justify the assumptions and bias you have. That sounds a lot more like you. I only really wanted to discuss my opinion on the use of a biased platform for election reporting, not whether libertarians are conservatives or the rules of /r/politics. > You still ignored the underlying point that you are looking for evidence to convince you that your bias is true while selectively omitting facts. Not so. I think you did a pretty good job providing the facts that proved my point. Thanks. > So I'm assuming you are basing it on stuff like this [...] Yes, that article is somewhat consistent with my point. Ron Paul stated himself (can't find the quote) that the Republican party was not reflective of libertarian values, but was merely the most expedient vector toward affecting US politics. > If that is the case you are stating you are a social conservative. Nope. Ignorance on your part. See my last comment[1]. > "A lack of facts to support my opinion" is evidence you don't have an opinion based on reality Yikes. You wouldn't make it very far as a theoretical physicist. To be clear, you are either misunderstanding me (should I also mischaracterize it as a reading comprehension issue?) or maliciously mischaracterizing me. The complete quote is: > It's not my intent to prove anything however, so lack of facts to support doesn't disprove my opinion either. What I meant was, I am not presently intending to prove my point, and so am not presently providing facts to support it. As you can see from various other comments, I have no difficulty providing them, though to be fair, you provided the better fact to prove my point. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9627633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9627633

eldude 11y ago

> you make ignorant accusations with no basis in fact The link you provided to refute my fact, is itself a fact that disproves your point and proves mine. > The problem you have is a combination of ignorance and arrogance that you rely on to justify the assumptions and bias you have. That sounds a lot more like you. I only really wanted to discuss my opinion on the use of a biased platform for election reporting, not whether libertarians are conservatives or the rules of /r/politics. > You still ignored the underlying point that you are looking for evidence to convince you that your bias is true while selectively omitting facts. Not so. I think you did a pretty good job providing the facts that proved my point. Thanks. > So I'm assuming you are basing it on stuff like this [...] Yes, that article is somewhat consistent with my point. Ron Paul stated himself (can't find the quote) that the Republican party was not reflective of libertarian values, but was merely the most expedient vector toward affecting US politics. > If that is the case you are stating you are a social conservative. Nope. Ignorance on your part. See my last comment[1]. > "A lack of facts to support my opinion" is evidence you don't have an opinion based on reality Yikes. You wouldn't make it very far as a theoretical physicist. To be clear, you are either misunderstanding me (should I also mischaracterize it as a reading comprehension issue?) or maliciously mischaracterizing me. The complete quote is: > It's not my intent to prove anything however, so lack of facts to support doesn't disprove my opinion either. What I meant was, I am not presently intending to prove my point, and so am not presently providing facts to support it. As you can see from various other comments, I have no difficulty providing them, though to be fair, you provided the better fact to prove my point. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9627633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9627633