Calling Out Wobbly on his belief that unless one is a liberal he must be ignorant and selfish

[ding]

Here's Wobbly's contention.

I'm a liberal. That means, de facto, that I am on the side of the educated and compassionate, as opposed to the ignorant and selfish who make up the Deplorable team. I am on the team of the good guys. I look to the future without the reflexive fear of conservatives who cling timidly to some mostly imaginary "good old days."

Apparently Wobbly believes:

1. That liberals are the good guys and conservatives are the bad guys.
2. That liberals are educated and compassionate and conservatives are ignorant and selfish

My refutation for wobbly's fist point is simple. No one is all good or all bad. We measure men and women through their actions. We don't lump them into groups. Statistically speaking we will find that almost all men and almost all women will do things that are considered to be good and bad. History is littered with examples. So it is a statistical impossibility that anyone is all good or all bad. But assuming it were possible that everyone were either all good or all bad (which it's not) it would be another statistical impossibility that all liberals were good and all conservatives were bad. So wobbly's belief that liberals are the good guys and conservatives are the bad guys is a statistical impossibility built upon a statistical impossibility. To further highlight the ridiculousness of wobbly's argument, all one would have to do to be a good person is to join the Democratic Party and become a liberal. So serial killers, pedophiles, rapists, etc. could all become good guys in wobbly's eyes by just joining the Democratic Party. Now doesn't that sound ridiculous when it's said that way?

My refutation for wobbly's second point is similar to my refutation of wobbly's first point. It would be a statistical impossibility for everyone who is a liberal to be educated and compassionate. It's just not possible. It's a statistical impossibility. Just as it would be a statistical impossibility that everyone who is conservative are ignorant and selfish. There's no test required to join the Democratic Part to prove you are educated and compassionate. Whereby if you fail that test you are automatically registered as a Republican. In fact, based upon statistics it is likely that each party will have similar distributions of intelligence and compassion as each party is drawing from the same pool. Apparently Wobbly has confused disagreements of how to solve problems and concluded they were based upon ignorance and selfishness instead of honest differences of opinion. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Just because someone disagrees with your position does not mean they are ignorant and selfish. It means that they disagree with your solutions to the problem.

Your turn Wobbly

 

[Wobbly]

Here's Wobbly's contention.


Apparently Wobbly believes:

1. That liberals are the good guys and conservatives are the bad guys.
2. That liberals are educated and compassionate and conservatives are ignorant and selfish

My refutation for wobbly's fist point is simple. No one is all good or all bad. We measure men and women through their actions. We don't lump them into groups. Statistically speaking we will find that almost all men and almost all women will do things that are considered to be good and bad. History is littered with examples. So it is a statistical impossibility that anyone is all good or all bad. But assuming it were possible that everyone were either all good or all bad (which it's not) it would be another statistical impossibility that all liberals were good and all conservatives were bad. So wobbly's belief that liberals are the good guys and conservatives are the bad guys is a statistical impossibility built upon a statistical impossibility. To further highlight the ridiculousness of wobbly's argument, all one would have to do to be a good person is to join the Democratic Party and become a liberal. So serial killers, pedophiles, rapists, etc. could all become good guys in wobbly's eyes by just joining the Democratic Party. Now doesn't that sound ridiculous when it's said that way?

My refutation for wobbly's second point is similar to my refutation of wobbly's first point. It would be a statistical impossibility for everyone who is a liberal to be educated and compassionate. It's just not possible. It's a statistical impossibility. Just as it would be a statistical impossibility that everyone who is conservative are ignorant and selfish. There's no test required to join the Democratic Part to prove you are educated and compassionate. Whereby if you fail that test you are automatically registered as a Republican. In fact, based upon statistics it is likely that each party will have similar distributions of intelligence and compassion as each party is drawing from the same pool. Apparently Wobbly has confused disagreements of how to solve problems and concluded they were based upon ignorance and selfishness instead of honest differences of opinion. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Just because someone disagrees with your position does not mean they are ignorant and selfish. It means that they disagree with your solutions to the problem.

Your turn Wobbly

Very courageous considering I never disputed such a simplistic and sanctimonious statement. Did you hope this would camouflage the fact that you ran from taking any political position of your own or even challenging my liberal position or anything I actually said in defense of my position? Were you hoping that your dishonestly asserted straw man was small enough that even an intellectual coward could beat it up?

I see you went into a more long-winded bit of masturbation here than you did from where you first ran from me. I'll address that pretentious piety now.

"It would be a statistical impossibility for everyone who is a liberal to be educated and compassionate." Ooh, you punched the hell out of a position I did not take or even insinuate. As for your victim-wannabe sniveling about being criticized for holding a different opinion, you would have to issue a substantive opinion for that self-pity to have any validity.

You ever want to debate something I actually said, or maybe face your fear and state a position of your own beyond a sanctimonious dispute of dishonestly stated and simplistic absolutes.

 

[ding]

That was easy. I won. Yay for me!!!!!!

 

[Wobbly]

That was easy. I won. Yay for me!!!!!!

Ah, I did not understand this was a contest to see who was best at self-fellatio. Congratulations. Dirty job, but who else is gonna do it.

 

[ClaireH]

I’m still waiting for the rebuttal part from that second guy. This could be a worthwhile conversation

 

[ding]

Ah, I did not understand this was a contest to see who was best at self-fellatio. Congratulations. Dirty job, but who else is gonna do it.

See you in tomorrow's call out thread

 

[Wobbly]

I’m still waiting for the rebuttal part from that second guy. This could be a worthwhile conversation

My rebuttal is that Dingy the pretentious twit is beating up a dishonest straw man. I never said what he claims, and you will not find the gutless weenie actually quoting me. He has run like a scalded cat from providing such a quote or disputing anything I actually said.

 

[Wobbly]

See you in tomorrow's call out thread

Did anybody ever tell you you're cute, when you hope coy will cover cowardice?

Then why do you do it?

 

[ding]

Did anybody ever tell you you're cute, when you hope coy will cover cowardice?

Then why do you do it?

You are upset. It's understandable. Please don't take out your frustrations on those that have nothing to do with this.

 

[Wobbly]

You are upset. It's understandable. Please don't take out your frustrations on those that have nothing to do with this.

On the other thread you are lying that you used the quote function here, that you did quote something I actually said and debated it. Would you like to point to yourself doing that, or is that yet another "tomorrow"?

Or, is this just another cliche of a Deplorable squeaking proudly, "I TRIGGERED the lib!" in the sad belief that even if you ever did or do, this would be one of the great accomplishments of your life. I'm not disputing that it would be, just remarking on the sadness of that.

 

[cnm]

That was easy. I won. Yay for me!!!!!!

Oh ffs.

Can you rub yourself any harder?

 

[ding]

They mad

 

[ClaireH]

My rebuttal is that Dingy the pretentious twit is beating up a dishonest straw man. I never said what he claims, and you will not find the gutless weenie actually quoting me. He has run like a scalded cat from providing such a quote or disputing anything I actually said.

I will await your rebuttal that proves your claims and am open to seeing your skills of debate.

Full disclosure: as it stands after reviewing a few previous posts by Ding, I considered telling him to change his name to Zing as a compliment. Upon further thought I see how Ding covers it already, as in Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[Wobbly]

I will await your rebuttal that proves your claims and am open to seeing your skills of debate.

My rebuttal is I did not say what he claims I did. I don't know why you find that so difficult to understand. He made up a midget straw man he hoped was tiny enough he could beat it up. I never said one must be liberal to be educated and compassionate, and you might take a hint from his refusal to quote me otherwise.

Jeezus.

Full disclosure: as it stands after reviewing a few previous posts by Ding, I considered telling him to change his name to Zing as a compliment. Upon further thought I see how Ding covers it already, as in Ding! Ding! Ding!

We differ. I am not impressed by dishonesty and cowardice.