- Oct 25, 2019
- Reaction score
Maybe you should learn to read- second line in the very first postI don't actually see a question or proposition to discuss here. Most of your responders seem to think you want to talk about Rush Limbaugh and the possibility of inflated COVID-19 fatality numbers, but you state up front that are using that article as an example and make note repeatedly of intellectual honesty, but that's more than a little vague. You haven't come back yet in response to any of the several folks who've taken up your invitation, so, could you possibly clarify precisely what it is you'd like to debate?
I want to talk about intellectual honesty.
How vague is that! MOST responders are not very bright.
Copy and paste from first post
I'm using that article as an example because I use the term intellectual honesty a lot- Rush, is a great example as well as our own beloved, I'm sure, PoliticalChic- I've said for years Rush is very intelligent, but he is hyper-partisan. I've told our very own, beloved, I'm sure, PoliticalChic, the same thing- I give them their just due for their intelligence, (and I'll add now, their tenacity as there is a lot to be said for that trait) but I can't abide their hyper-partisan intellect. Both are intelligent enough to know better and the evidence is overwhelming that there is very little difference in the Party elite outside their rhetoric, which is used as a tool to keep citizens divided. Any half wit can see there is no difference. Hitting a brick wall at 100 or at 90 still is hitting a brick wall. The only (maybe) difference is the rate of descent to the same destination- and that rate of descent is accelerating almost daily.
In the article it says what it says- I'm not going to give away the punch line- you have to read it and make your own determination.
example: a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule