I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.
But you said you’re not going to post articles to back up your claims.
So not only do I have to find sources to inform myself, but also to prove you’re not blowing smoke when responding to the conversation.
If you want to give credibility to things you say in a debate, you need to cite where you get your information from.
You acted like citing sources in this thread to substantiate an argument is an infantile activity. As though such a practice is beneath you.Frink did your reading for you, see above. It editorializes in parts, but it’s not grossly unfair.
Not the point. Cite your own sources. The fact that this is an informal, non-scientific, non-academic setting is irrelevant to the importance of proving you’re not making things up in a persuasive argument.
I have nothing to prove. If you smell bullshit, do your own research.
Usually, When someone makes a claim, I see nothing wrong with someone else asking for evidence that the claim is true(unless we are talking about claiming something extremely obvious like 1 + 1 equaling 2). If you don’t wish to provide it, okay, but be surprised if people don’t accept your claim as the gospel truth. Just saying.
I don’t expect anyone to take my posts as gospel. I express my opinions on political matters like anyone else, and people are free to accept or ignore as they see fit.
Schumer opposes changing the law so as to keep families together because he says Trump could just choose to keep families together. I have no idea how Cruz’s bill would work but that’s a bad argument.
Congress should exert its power as a check on the executive. Complaining about the law instead of changing it is an example of their cowardice and willingness to use these kids as political pawns.
Jay said:
I do the same when the right is intellectually dishonest.I’ve yet to see this happen.
Must never have happened then.
I know it didn’t happen. You refused to call out the intellectual dishonesty of Jordan Peterson, for example. When he says that lack of religion causes immorality, he’s factually incorrect to the point of potentially being an outright liar because it’s documented that the less religious a society, the lower its crime rate. That’s just one example of right wing dishonesty that’s come up in this thread that you’ve been silent on. I wouldn’t mind if you didn’t act as though you’re a neutral voice on this. You obviously, at the very least, lean right. Every person reading this thread can tell. That’s fine, I just don’t get why you want there to be a pretense of you being a centrist.
Most of the bullshit I see in this thread is left-leaning bullshit because most of the posters are left-leaning. Naturally, I sound right-leaning compared to most of you. To the far left, anything not bleeding-heart liberalism is “to the right”.
Not true. Rightwing bullshit is brought up all the time in this thread. Granted, mostly by left-leaning people that are complaining about it, but it’s still being brought up. The “far left” by the way is barely even represented in our government. To the right, everything even just in the center is socialism. The biggest lie that the right in this country has perpetuated is that Obama and the Democratic Party, which is corporate to the bone and totally bought and paid for, is leftist and socialist. It isn’t.
If you’d like to hear about my left-leaning tendencies, we can discuss healthcare and other social programs, for example.
I don’t really think those tendencies mean much, honestly, because you constantly defend an administration and the side that is diametrically opposed to those things. Saying that you are in favor of left-leaning programs while actively conflating the most embarrassing elements of the left with the left as a whole and ignoring the dangerous elements of the mainstream right doesn’t make you left-leaning. It’s like what that interviewer Dave Rubin does (or did? He may just admit to being on the right by now). He’ll claim to be liberal, then dedicate all of his commentary to condemning the left as a whole over the actions of a select few, and then defend the most egregiously extreme elements of the right in order to make them seem more legitimate and sympathetic than they are. He’ll then ask with incredulity why everyone thinks he’s on the right when he repeatedly says that he’s on the left.
I’m agnostic, so of course I don’t agree with Peterson on religion being the foundation for morality. I don’t see that as a reason to ignore his arguments that are based on social science and his experience as a clinician. However, you seem to conflate theocracy with religious society. Western society is very religious and yet has relatively low crime. It’s theocracies that tend toward violent oppression.
It has nothing to do with disagreement. Peterson is wrong and his statements are contradicted by reality. And no, I don’t conflate theocracy with religious society. Evangelical Republicans by and large want the government to teach creationism in schools, teacher-led prayer, the ten commandments in courthouses, bans on gay marriage (which is purely based on religious thinking), and many other things. Western society, with the exception of East Asia and formerly communist states (I’m not sure if Eastern Europe counts as Western society), is the most secular society in the world. Even the United States is incredibly secular in certain areas, and, the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is. That may not on its own discount his other commentary, but his dishonesty on this subject makes me doubt him on others. As for him as a social scientist, I’ve never heard anything impressive from him. Enforced monogamy and his “sort yourself out” nonsense is just that, nonsense. The idea that marriage and culturally enforced monogamy would stop insane murderous virgins is ridiculous and some of the most simple-minded “analysis” of the issue I’ve ever heard that honestly is even dumber than “toxic masculinity,” which I previously thought was the dumbest assessment of mass killings I’d ever encountered. As for him being a clinician, I’d say his association with Stefan Molyneux who is a cult-leader that encourages people to abandon their families if they disagree with them politically, and whose wife was reprimanded for clinical malpractice for doing the same thing, makes Peterson very questionable in regards to being a good clinician. I certainly wouldn’t trust him with any patients. But anyway, Peterson’s religious commentary is an example of right-wing dishonesty that is clear-cut.
I don’t defend the administration. I defend facts — as best as I can, anyway.
I still maintain you’re conflating religious beliefs with government-mandated religion. “Secular” society doesn’t mean “not religious”. Despite climbing numbers of atheists in the overall population, western society is still overwhelmingly religious.
And good job trying to smear Peterson because of his “association[s]”. You should write for Vox or Vice. People’s views, and the world in general, aren’t as black and white and you’d like to believe; I can have a civil relationship with someone I don’t agree with and not believe or support the same things they do. Besides, claiming that everything sucks and anyone who disagrees with you can go fuck themselves (paraphrasing here) makes it difficult to take your arguments seriously.
Writing off huge swaths of people because they don’t hold the same values and don’t pass the purity test is why Democrats lost and are likely heading for more losses in November.