Markmax, here’s the difference between you and me. You’re an idealogue with a manichean thought process. You’re a believer, and any evidence in conflict with the belief, you reject, dismiss or ignore. And worse, you treat all criticism as the enemy of your truth, regardless of how benign.
My world is not so black and white. I have no emotional ties to my opinions. I don’t see absolutism, purity or consistency as virtues. I’m not bound by ideologies. I don’t believe or believe in anything. I research and evidence leads to conclusions, not beliefs. End of story. If you have evidence that is better than mine, I win. Because I end up smarter. Unfortunately, I doubt that’s going to happen in this conversation.[/
Sk,
So as your logic goes your argument can necessarily only be as good as your research. Yes or no?
If so are you telling us that you have done exhaustive research on each of your counterpoints? Or are you simply implying your research is far superior to the rest of us who would hold a different view? What happens if you don’t feel motivated to do the research? Does that mean the point is won?
No, sadly my opinion of your arguments on this blog is someone indeed that has a whole lot to protect and defend, against any reasonable counterpoint. And that is that you must be a egotist of the highest order. I think for you to ever believe that you could be wrong would never fit into your “logic”
