Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

[JoeNormal]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run.

But as you flee, remember......you've demonstrated for us that you're not a reliable arbiter of objectivity or truth, as you misquoted me repeatedly through incompetence or dishonesty. Either rendering you unqualified to define your 'axioms'.

Try again.

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wonder if any self defined conservative can define "leftist"? I doubt it, it's used as a pejorative and most are too dumb to realize how stupid they appear by using words they don't understand.

I totally agree.

It seems to me that a good half of our right-wing posters do not understand terms like 'liberal', 'socialist', 'communist' or 'left wing', and simply use them inter-changeably.

Check out the posting of Kosh for one extreme example.

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

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

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

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run.

But as you flee, remember......you've demonstrated for us that you're not a reliable arbiter of objectivity or truth, as you misquoted me repeatedly through incompetence or dishonesty. Either rendering you unqualified to define your 'axioms'.

Try again.

The post above by Skylar is spot on! This sentence is perfect: "And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run."

Keyes is a troll of the worse kind, a bomb throwing troll.

 

[zeke]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Dude, you got you ass KICKED and handed back to you. Go sulk in a corner.

 

[Saigon]

You've already conceded to the standing points. And while sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice when such comes along... You're a peach.

And with that said, your 2nd concession to the standing points is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Feel free to do so as many times as you're so moved.

Unfortunately, this happened only inside your own head.

I have condeded nothing, and have no idea what 'standing points' you refer to.

So far the only things you seem to have established on this thread is that you do not undertand what 'fascism' is, and that you will lie to anyone about almost anything.

 

[Saigon]

The post above by Skylar is spot on! This sentence is perfect: "And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run."

Keyes is a troll of the worse kind, a bomb throwing troll.

Agreed - the man is a cretin. And worse - a solipsistic cretin.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run.

But as you flee, remember......you've demonstrated for us that you're not a reliable arbiter of objectivity or truth, as you misquoted me repeatedly through incompetence or dishonesty. Either rendering you unqualified to define your 'axioms'.

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JoeNormal]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run.

But as you flee, remember......you've demonstrated for us that you're not a reliable arbiter of objectivity or truth, as you misquoted me repeatedly through incompetence or dishonesty. Either rendering you unqualified to define your 'axioms'.

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Skylar]

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

You're not using a rational basis. Or particularly sound logic. You're using Appeals to Authority, a classic fallacy of logic. With your arguments based on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of Nature, God, Morality, Objectivity, Truth or whatever authority you're appealing to.

But as you demonstrated with a series of obtuse and obvious misquotes, you're clearly not the reliable arbiter of objectivity or truth.....due to incompetence in paraphrasing or dishonesty. Either rendering you inadequate to be the voice of any of your 'axioms'.

As for 'rationality', if your argument had a rational basis, you wouldn't have needed to base it on a fallacy of logic. You're hopelessly dependent on Appeals to Authority for the very reason that your arguments can't stand on logic, reason or rationality. Which is why you so consistently fail.

 

[Skylar]

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run.

But as you flee, remember......you've demonstrated for us that you're not a reliable arbiter of objectivity or truth, as you misquoted me repeatedly through incompetence or dishonesty. Either rendering you unqualified to define your 'axioms'.

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Redfish]

To the OP, Yes

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

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

(Here's the cruel part folks: ) How so?

Easy. You're showing us that you are not reliable, that you either can't comprehend the meaning of simple written words with any accuracy, or you can't be trusted to do so with any integrity. That anyone can objectively look at my statement and see that it doesn't match your paraphrase.

Demonstrating more elegantly than anything I can say that you don't define objectivity. And you clearly don't define truth. Yet you continue to equate rejection of you with rejection of morality, objectivity, truth and trust.

You're none of these things nor are you the authoritative arbiter of them. And your argument is dependent on us accepting you as the authoritative arbiter of all of them. Which is why you keep failing.

Well ya did the best ya could, bless your little black heart... but confirmation of the point is not a valid contest.

You're concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And now the 'summary declaration of victory' schtick. You don't need an excuse to run, Keyes....just run.

But as you flee, remember......you've demonstrated for us that you're not a reliable arbiter of objectivity or truth, as you misquoted me repeatedly through incompetence or dishonesty. Either rendering you unqualified to define your 'axioms'.

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Word salad ^^^

 

[Skylar]

To the OP, Yes

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

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

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

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

 

[Wry Catcher]

To the OP, Yes

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

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

Gee, given your posts and the above faux definition, you must be a liberal.

 

[Redfish]

To the OP, Yes

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

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

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

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

you must live in a strange place.

 

[Redfish]

To the OP, Yes

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

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

Gee, given your posts and the above faux definition, you must be a liberal.

is not the liberal agenda based on feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling sorry for illegals, minorities, the poor, muslims, africans, chinese, and themselves? Is not the legal agenda based on a victim mentality?

Is it logical that this country is 17.5 trillion in debt? is deficit spending not a liberal concept?

and don't be confused there are liberals in both parties.

 

[Skylar]

To the OP, Yes

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

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

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

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

you must live in a strange place.

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

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You've already conceded to the standing points. And while sound reasoning never requires outside validation, it is always nice when such comes along... You're a peach.

And with that said, your 2nd concession to the standing points is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Feel free to do so as many times as you're so moved.

Unfortunately, this happened only inside your own head.

Uh, NOOooo...

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

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

But here is precisely what and WHERE IT HAPPENED:

Leftist: An adherent of "Left-think"; a form of relativism, which axiomatically rejects objectivity, thus such adherents are incapable of discerning truth, forming trust, behaving within soundly reasoned moral standards, or to serve justice,

It is really hard for me to believe that any adult believes this.

All I see here is narcisissm.

The irony being that you praise objectivity - while refusing to be in any objective yourself.

Oh... well that certainly has the appearance that such was offered as reasonable discourse... let's test it to see if it truly was:

Saigon, you claim that the contribution lacks objectivity. With such being so subjective as to reflect narcissism.

Please take a moment to diagram the contribution, pointing specifically to the subjective elements which you must have recognized in constructing your response and explain to the board the nature of those elements which present the narcissism which you so clearly observed.

Now, this will be the second time that you've offered such an emphatic assertion, were challenged to sustain your assertion, failed to do so, thus conceded that your points were vacuous drivel.

Do you remember the highest number of failures that you've subjected yourself to, prior to this thread?

I'd like to see if we could take a run at the title... I really feel like you've just the right amount of the specific sort of sociopathy to just embarrass the livin' crap out of yourself... and precisely the intellectual limitations to keep you from recognizing it.

Now... all the fingers are crossed. Let's see how ya DO!

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

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

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

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

Keys -

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

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

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

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

.
.
.

See how that works?

 

[Redfish]

To the OP, Yes

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

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

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

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

you must live in a strange place.

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

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

 

[Skylar]

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

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

You don't actually present a logical argument to support your claims. Or a rational one. You simply declare whatever you say to be 'truth' and whomever doesn't accept your claim as a 'relativeist'.Which is obviously nonsense.

One not need reject truth to reject you as defining it.