Can't we all just agree on one thing?

[Sethius Marlowe]

Originally Posted by Polycaster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Speaking of being scared and fearful, the reason you shitlibs think everyone is scared of what they disagree with is due to a limitation in your thinking. Basically, there are 6 or more pillars that people use to decide what is morally correct. Shitlibs only use 2 pillars, while conservatives tend to use all 6, but we use the 2 that shitlibs use the least. This is why shitlibs think all conservatives are lying about why we believe what we do; you people simply don't see or understand the basis upon which much of our moral foundations stand. So you assume it is one of the reasons you use for coming to moral conclusions; what you are scared of (this constant state of fear that shitlibs find themselves in likely relates to another theory on left/right brains, r/K selection theory: 2nd link.) On the other hand, conservatives do have some understanding of why liberals believe what they do, which is why we can explain in detail why you are wrong.

This is fascinating. Can you teach us more about these pillars?

[Benanov]

Originally Posted by Sethius Marlowe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is fascinating. Can you teach us more about these pillars?

A quick web search found this.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...s-of-politics/

I'm not entirely sure of the bias of the source, but I'm familiar with Jonathan Haidt's work.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Benanov [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A quick web search found this.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...s-of-politics/

I'm not entirely sure of the bias of the source, but I'm familiar with Jonathan Haidt's work.

It's just not the same without Teppler's unhinged ranting about gay Jews in the entertainment industry.

[TomisFeline]

not too imply the knowledge sharing shouldn't continue.

[Horza]

(((They))) program people with the idea you have to be “somebody,” and the way you get to be “somebody” is by (((Them))) giving you (((Their))) imprimatur of legitimacy. Most of all, you do not want to be marginalized by (((Them))). Those you see on TV, and elevated as “somebodies” by the media machine, have all become somebody not because they are great in any sense, but because they have pledged allegiance to the conspiracy which has subverted the concept of America and turned it into a myth.

Eminem is not somebody because he is a rapper who is so much better than everyone. According to another rapper’s recent tweet, he is a famous rapper because a bunch of gay music executives dropped their pants and he went down the line giving them blowjobs and letting them spray semen on him as somebody videotaped it. I’d assume the same thing is true of everyone else who is “somebody,” be it Taylor Swift, Amy Robach, Cecelia Vega, and on and on.

Teppler always links us to the most entertaining antisemitic propaganda.

[Polycaster]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Teppler always links us to the most entertaining antisemitic propaganda.

Nothing is mentioned of jews, only gay execs who require sexual favors. It would seem to be you are the anti-Semite for assuming that type of behavior is synonymous with them. Although in your defense, recent news stories did seem to back that up, as even some jews noticed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0eeNijdv3I

I take it as a compliment when you refer to me as Teppler, as he was brilliant. I still enjoy thinking about how a smart guy pretended to be dumb in order to troll dumb people pretending to be smart got inside your heads to such a degree. He's been living in your heads rent-free, and I hope to some day replicate that. Perhaps in a few months you'll be accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being Polycaster. I dare to dream of that day.

Originally Posted by Sethius Marlowe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is fascinating. Can you teach us more about these pillars?

Read the book. I know that is hard for you shitlibs as the danger of learning something that goes against your beliefs is large.

Originally Posted by Smellybuttface [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ironic that Polycaster/Teppler uses a government link to prove a point, yet goes on ad nauseaum about how the government is lying to us.

Laughable that you think your 'common sense' is so advanced that it can allow you to discount scientific consensus and expertise. Your brain is saturated with anti-liberal Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theories, and you simply parrot nonsense you gobble up from your "sources" and regurgitate it out here expecting us to believe you have an ounce of your own thought process in the equation.

Still have no idea why you think you're a "real American."

I use gov sources because I'm not trying to prove something to myself, I have other sources for that. I use sources that I think the audience will find persuasive. It shouldn't be so shocking to me that I have to explain this, as I know that actual debate and rational argument are anathema to shitlibs such as yourself. Yet somehow it is. You all constantly amaze me with your ignorant claims to knowledge.

We've already done the AGW thing. Recap: I post evidence that the metrics and methodology of studies X,Y,Z are flawed, thereby disproving the 97% consensus claim. The only attempt at using data to disprove that was to cite those very same studies that claim there is a 97% consensus... One of the more relevant pieces of info was that individual scientists that were supposedly amongst the 97% came forward to say they were not amongst the 97%. You can't get much more debunked than that.

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Relevant video about Alex Jones.

The levels to which you people use AJ as a way to discount valid information is itself a conspiracy theory worthy of AJ. You have no arguments, only ad hominem, strawmen, and non sequiturs.

One of my favorite AJ videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGAAhzreGWw

[Pretzelle]

Originally Posted by Polycaster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nothing is mentioned of jews, only gay execs who require sexual favors. It would seem to be you are the anti-Semite for assuming that type of behavior is synonymous with them. Although in your defense, recent news stories did seem to back that up, as even some jews noticed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0eeNijdv3I

I take it as a compliment when you refer to me as Teppler, as he was brilliant. I still enjoy thinking about how a smart guy pretended to be dumb in order to troll dumb people pretending to be smart got inside your heads to such a degree. He's been living in your heads rent-free, and I hope to some day replicate that. Perhaps in a few months you'll be accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being Polycaster. I dare to dream of that day.




Read the book. I know that is hard for you shitlibs as the danger of learning something that goes against your beliefs is large.




I use gov sources because I'm not trying to prove something to myself, I have other sources for that. I use sources that I think the audience will find persuasive. It shouldn't be so shocking to me that I have to explain this, as I know that actual debate and rational argument are anathema to shitlibs such as yourself. Yet somehow it is. You all constantly amaze me with your ignorant claims to knowledge.

We've already done the AGW thing. Recap: I post evidence that the metrics and methodology of studies X,Y,Z are flawed, thereby disproving the 97% consensus claim. The only attempt at using data to disprove that was to cite those very same studies that claim there is a 97% consensus... One of the more relevant pieces of info was that individual scientists that were supposedly amongst the 97% came forward to say they were not amongst the 97%. You can't get much more debunked than that.




The levels to which you people use AJ as a way to discount valid information is itself a conspiracy theory worthy of AJ. You have no arguments, only ad hominem, strawmen, and non sequiturs.

One of my favorite AJ videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGAAhzreGWw

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Polycaster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Teppler... was brilliant. I still enjoy thinking about how a smart guy pretended to be dumb in order to troll dumb people pretending to be smart.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Smellybuttface]

Originally Posted by Polycaster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I still enjoy thinking about how a smart guy pretended to be dumb in order to troll dumb people pretending to be smart got inside your heads to such a degree.

Response:

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As we all know there's nothing smarter than pretending to be an idiot, especially a good looking one.

Originally Posted by Polycaster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We've already done the AGW thing. Recap: I post evidence that the metrics and methodology of studies X,Y,Z are flawed, thereby disproving the 97% consensus claim. The only attempt at using data to disprove that was to cite those very same studies that claim there is a 97% consensus... One of the more relevant pieces of info was that individual scientists that were supposedly amongst the 97% came forward to say they were not amongst the 97%. You can't get much more debunked than that.


The levels to which you people use AJ as a way to discount valid information is itself a conspiracy theory worthy of AJ. You have no arguments, only ad hominem, strawmen, and non sequiturs.

Evidently you forgot about this, where all the arguments you made about global warming were completely and utterly destroyed:

Tzug, middle of page:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...348192&page=24

Also, I've seen you use the term "non sequitur" probably 5-6 times now, and am still convinced you don't know what it means. Anytime you're responded to it's exactly in reference to something you said previously. That's the exact opposite of a "non-sequitur."

Still waiting for you to respond with how you're a "real American." Also convinced you don't know what that means, yet I'm dying to see your justification for what you've done that makes you such a great patriot.

[Polycaster]

Originally Posted by Smellybuttface [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Evidently you forgot about this, where all the arguments you made about global warming were completely and utterly destroyed:

Tzug, middle of page:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...348192&page=24

Also, I've seen you use the term "non sequitur" probably 5-6 times now, and am still convinced you don't know what it means. Anytime you're responded to it's exactly in reference to something you said previously. That's the exact opposite of a "non-sequitur."

Still waiting for you to respond with how you're a "real American." Also convinced you don't know what that means, yet I'm dying to see your justification for what you've done that makes you such a great patriot.

Unfortunately Tzug didn't respond until pg 24, which is past the point I peace-outed from the AGW argument. You'll note that there was only 1 other attempt to argue rationally, on pg 14 IIRC. It's very telling that in 24 pages you all could only come up with 2 attempts at rational arguments.

I dislike responding to a post on another thread such that the OP can't respond to it, but since you brought it up:

I linked more than the Forbes article. Together they specifically mention and debunk the studies mentioned.

There were far more than 7 scientists who came forward stating they were erroneously added to the list. The article only mentions the names of 7. The deeper argument is that if AGW believers truly thought they were right they would set up a much more rigorous study. Instead of using biased researchers to make the call on whether someone agreed with them (which violates all sorts of rules on how to do a valid study) they should have asked scientists directly.

explanation of the ridiculous methodology + scientists quotes that are supposedly in the 97%:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...ublished-them/


"Why is it that the scientists' opinions are invalidated by the presence of money, but Epstein's is not?"
Because he isn't 'voting', he is compiling data and arguments that you can believe or not as you wish. Scientists are punished for not going along with the AGW orthodoxy, as one of the articles your side linked even admitted. Believing in AGW is rewarded, not believing in it is punished. This invalidates any argument in favor of AGW as besides skewing the results it shows that those who are pushing AGW themselves don't believe in it; they think it requires enforcement.

An example of the pressure put on "deniers", about 1/2 way down the page:
"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years."
https://electroverse.net/the-list-sc...limate-change/

Originally Posted by Smellybuttface [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Truth in this instance is entirely subjective. People used to believe that those of a different race were not as smart, not as capable, not as worthy, of those that were white. That was a "truth" they believed in, but it wasn't an objective truth, it was entirely of their own design. So yes, something can be "true" (in the mind of the beholder) and an individual can fervently believe it, and can be entirely racist. Your truth isn't objective.

Grats on adding 'solipsism' to the list of tactics used to avoid a real argument.
Your side used the term 'racist' as an accusation against me, I don't think it's asking too much to have it be defined.

Originally Posted by Benanov [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A quick web search found this.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...s-of-politics/

I'm not entirely sure of the bias of the source, but I'm familiar with Jonathan Haidt's work.

Thanks for posting this synopsis, I have one saved at home but I only shitpost at work (do people actually post on this forum when they could be doing something else? /shudder).


His test for left/right is interesting:
"On a somewhat related note, one of the fastest ways I can tell if someone leans right or left is by asking a simple question: “What is the bigger threat to our country today: big government or big business?” Those on the left almost always see the government as protecting against big business, and those on the right almost always see the big business as fighting governmental overreach."

Apparently I transcend the left-right paradigm as I believe big business and big gov are working hand-in-hand to screw us; there is little real difference between their interests.

Originally Posted by Smellybuttface [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, I've seen you use the term "non sequitur" probably 5-6 times now, and am still convinced you don't know what it means. Anytime you're responded to it's exactly in reference to something you said previously. That's the exact opposite of a "non-sequitur."

Still waiting for you to respond with how you're a "real American." Also convinced you don't know what that means, yet I'm dying to see your justification for what you've done that makes you such a great patriot.

non-sequiturs:

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Could someone explain why right-wing lunatics always seem to know so much more about pop music than I do?

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Neo, the Matrix has you...

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I swear that I have a friend who works for Nintendo.

I'm sensing a pattern here...

Real American:
This has rustled several of you to a great degree. Stop pretending you don't know exactly what is meant by it, and that you don't qualify. You all are a cancerous growth, not part of a healthy body.