The original statement was modest to the point of being almost boring. “We actually just love the truth.” That is not a canonization ceremony. No halo. No shrine. No claim of infallible prophets dispensing tablets from Sinai. It is simply an assertion of motive.
Your reply immediately responds to something that was never said. Suddenly we are “relying on dealers” to “dispense” truth, as though the first speaker confessed to buying epistemology from a trench coat in a dark alley. This is not rebuttal. This is ventriloquism. The responder puts words in someone else’s mouth and then bravely punches the dummy.
The False Dichotomy Fallacy in Gym Shorts
The idea that loving truth means you must do all digging alone, unaided, uninfluenced, and unschooled is adolescent nonsense. By that standard, anyone who reads books, listens to lectures, or learns from teachers is morally suspect. Apparently, if you did not personally rediscover calculus or independently verify the periodic table, you are in a cult.
This argument quietly assumes that learning from others and thinking for yourself are mutually exclusive. That assumption is false, lazy, and self-defeating. Everyone learns from “dealers.” The only question is whether they are honest ones or snake oil salesmen.
The Candace Owens Red Herring
Dragging Candace into this is pure sleight of hand. No one claimed she is the “sole paragon of truth.” That language is theatrical exaggeration designed to make the opponent look unhinged. It is the rhetorical equivalent of shouting “cult!” and hoping the room stops thinking.
Calling something “cultish” without evidence is a way to avoid engaging with actual arguments. It is not discernment. It is cowardice with a vocabulary list.
Moral Posturing Disguised as Epistemology
Your tone is smug while pretending to be principled. You signal intellectual virtue by accusing others of intellectual dependence, all while relying on tired internet tropes and unexamined assumptions. This is not a love of truth. It is a love of sounding superior.
Ironically, you claiming others should “do their own digging” did not bother to represent what was actually said that way laying upon the surface.
Your reply is dishonest because it refutes claims never made.
It is sloppy because it confuses learning with blind dependence.
It is manipulative because it smuggles in “cult” language to poison the well.
And it is arrogant because it assumes the high ground without earning it.
PS I'm not on Reddit and my post / comment history would show I'm not remotely a shill.... If you did some digging.
You asked for it faggot.
The original statement was modest to the point of being almost boring. “We actually just love the truth.” That is not a canonization ceremony. No halo. No shrine. No claim of infallible prophets dispensing tablets from Sinai. It is simply an assertion of motive.
Your reply immediately responds to something that was never said. Suddenly we are “relying on dealers” to “dispense” truth, as though the first speaker confessed to buying epistemology from a trench coat in a dark alley. This is not rebuttal. This is ventriloquism. The responder puts words in someone else’s mouth and then bravely punches the dummy.
The idea that loving truth means you must do all digging alone, unaided, uninfluenced, and unschooled is adolescent nonsense. By that standard, anyone who reads books, listens to lectures, or learns from teachers is morally suspect. Apparently, if you did not personally rediscover calculus or independently verify the periodic table, you are in a cult.
This argument quietly assumes that learning from others and thinking for yourself are mutually exclusive. That assumption is false, lazy, and self-defeating. Everyone learns from “dealers.” The only question is whether they are honest ones or snake oil salesmen.
Dragging Candace into this is pure sleight of hand. No one claimed she is the “sole paragon of truth.” That language is theatrical exaggeration designed to make the opponent look unhinged. It is the rhetorical equivalent of shouting “cult!” and hoping the room stops thinking.
Calling something “cultish” without evidence is a way to avoid engaging with actual arguments. It is not discernment. It is cowardice with a vocabulary list.
Your tone is smug while pretending to be principled. You signal intellectual virtue by accusing others of intellectual dependence, all while relying on tired internet tropes and unexamined assumptions. This is not a love of truth. It is a love of sounding superior.
Ironically, you claiming others should “do their own digging” did not bother to represent what was actually said that way laying upon the surface.
Your reply is dishonest because it refutes claims never made. It is sloppy because it confuses learning with blind dependence. It is manipulative because it smuggles in “cult” language to poison the well. And it is arrogant because it assumes the high ground without earning it.
PS I'm not on Reddit and my post / comment history would show I'm not remotely a shill.... If you did some digging.