I don’t have cable. A lot of my news actually breaks here. You guys almost certainly know more about what’s going on with the MSM than I do.
Reaching the same conclusions as someone else is not an endorsement. I agree with Q that the Earth is not flat, but Q’s opinion on it has nothing to do with my position nor lends any credence to my position.
I am also philosophically pro-life and have infuriated liberals when arguing it with them, but I don’t associate myself with the pro-life movement, because I think almost every argument made by pro-lifers is, at best, ineffective. I share an opinion with pro-lifers, but we aren’t exactly friends.
I share opinions with Trump, and I don’t like the man much.
I share opinions with Trevor Noah, and I’ve never once watched his show.
It’s okay to arrive at my own conclusions without worrying about popular opinion, wouldn’t you agree?
Like I said, I really don’t. I know you’d rather believe that people who disagree with what you see as the truth must necessarily be doing so because they’re brainwashed, but it seems extremely possible to me that I am looking at the same things that you are, and I happen to disagree.
And I think I’m rarely failing to demonstrate my thought process in unnecessarily-detailed posts, which would be challenging if I hadn’t actually considered the viewpoints and was merely parroting whatever I saw on Twitter.
My liberal friends need to realize there are non-religious, non-gross-out, non-sexist reasons for questioning the ethics of abortion.
And you need to realize it’s entirely possible that what you’re hearing in the MSM are oversimplified answers to your questions that actually come from smart people who have good justifications for their beliefs.
And that other smart people examine the evidence and also disagree with what you say. And the media can’t argue why, because they don’t care, but are more than happy to say that smart people disagree with you.
That’s why it can be kind of frustrating that you simply dismiss arguments as propaganda of the media. Maybe it is. But if I can back up what you consider to be propaganda with a real logical position, then you haven’t defeated the logic (or proven your own) just by dismissing it as guilt by association.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I accept that possibility, but that doesn’t mean the fact that we appear to agree about climate change must mean that climate change is the wrong answer.
You know the first time I ever seriously studied the control the media has over society? In college. Liberal, liberal college. In a sociology class. A soft science. By a hippie female teacher. Not based at all.
She was the one railing about the media control and such. She was the one who made us research and write papers on it. A liberal sociology teacher taking a taxpayer paycheck in a college.
This is not some unique truth you’ve found that you can give Q credit for. Bernie Sanders has been talking about this shit since the 70’s. It’s not a conservative or liberal issue. We know the media can have an agenda and execute that through media manipulation.
That doesn’t mean the points they’re making are factually wrong. And when you know how to do the research, you don’t need the media to confirm that yeah, climate change does appear to be a legitimate problem, and yes, evolution really has nothing near a strong scientific counter-argument, and yes, the argument for wearing masks while vaccinated does actually make sense if you listen to their explanation and not assume you know the strawman argument they’re going to make.
That’s my point. When you’re actually an objective, competent researcher, you assume EVERYONE is lying to you. Every single claim gets researched. Every credential is questioned.
And sometimes, the media is closer to the truth than you are.
And sometimes, I find myself lacking when trying to verify Q’s credentials and therefore cannot prove he isn’t lying to me.
And with respect, I don’t agree that you’re eviscerating lies, and feel like there are definitely arguments you may be overlooking. I just really don’t feel like it’s appropriate for me to be playing site debunker when you all have been gracious enough to keep me on so far.
I appreciate that.
I don’t have cable. A lot of my news actually breaks here. You guys almost certainly know more about what’s going on with the MSM than I do.
Reaching the same conclusions as someone else is not an endorsement. I agree with Q that the Earth is not flat, but Q’s opinion on it has nothing to do with my position nor lends any credence to my position.
I am also philosophically pro-life and have infuriated liberals when arguing it with them, but I don’t associate myself with the pro-life movement, because I think almost every argument made by pro-lifers is, at best, ineffective. I share an opinion with pro-lifers, but we aren’t exactly friends.
I share opinions with Trump, and I don’t like the man much.
I share opinions with Trevor Noah, and I’ve never once watched his show.
It’s okay to arrive at my own conclusions without worrying about popular opinion, wouldn’t you agree?
Like I said, I really don’t. I know you’d rather believe that people who disagree with what you see as the truth must necessarily be doing so because they’re brainwashed, but it seems extremely possible to me that I am looking at the same things that you are, and I happen to disagree.
And I think I’m rarely failing to demonstrate my thought process in unnecessarily-detailed posts, which would be challenging if I hadn’t actually considered the viewpoints and was merely parroting whatever I saw on Twitter.
My liberal friends need to realize there are non-religious, non-gross-out, non-sexist reasons for questioning the ethics of abortion.
And you need to realize it’s entirely possible that what you’re hearing in the MSM are oversimplified answers to your questions that actually come from smart people who have good justifications for their beliefs.
And that other smart people examine the evidence and also disagree with what you say. And the media can’t argue why, because they don’t care, but are more than happy to say that smart people disagree with you.
That’s why it can be kind of frustrating that you simply dismiss arguments as propaganda of the media. Maybe it is. But if I can back up what you consider to be propaganda with a real logical position, then you haven’t defeated the logic (or proven your own) just by dismissing it as guilt by association.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I accept that possibility, but that doesn’t mean the fact that we appear to agree about climate change must mean that climate change is the wrong answer.
You know the first time I ever seriously studied the control the media has over society? In college. Liberal, liberal college. In a sociology class. A soft science. By a hippie female teacher. Not based at all.
She was the one railing about the media control and such. She was the one who made us research and write papers on it. A liberal sociology teacher taking a taxpayer paycheck in a college.
This is not some unique truth you’ve found that you can give Q credit for. Bernie Sanders has been talking about this shit since the 70’s. It’s not a conservative or liberal issue. We know the media can have an agenda and execute that through media manipulation.
That doesn’t mean the points they’re making are factually wrong. And when you know how to do the research, you don’t need the media to confirm that yeah, climate change does appear to be a legitimate problem, and yes, evolution really has nothing near a strong scientific counter-argument, and yes, the argument for wearing masks while vaccinated does actually make sense if you listen to their explanation and not assume you know the strawman argument they’re going to make.
That’s my point. When you’re actually an objective, competent researcher, you assume EVERYONE is lying to you. Every single claim gets researched. Every credential is questioned.
And sometimes, the media is closer to the truth than you are.
And sometimes, I find myself lacking when trying to verify Q’s credentials and therefore cannot prove he isn’t lying to me.
And with respect, I don’t agree that you’re eviscerating lies, and feel like there are definitely arguments you may be overlooking. I just really don’t feel like it’s appropriate for me to be playing site debunker when you all have been gracious enough to keep me on so far.