Lame sarcasm? You have no reasonable response to my hypotheticals, so you respond with lame sarcasm? Weak. Very weak.
[quote=njtosd]
Here you go – I will admit that some people are gullible and some people use denial to deal with their problems. And I can think of a very famous example that loosely follows your hypothetical: Hillary Clinton – if you make the condom receipt the blue dress.
[/quote]
That would only be denial if Hillary didn’t believe Bill was messing around with Monica. Do you have evidence that she didn’t believe it? Your “logic” fails again. Again, one might disagree with Hillary’s decision to stay with Bill after he fooled around with Monica (or any of the other women he had). And one could say she was gullible if she didn’t believe it. But I’ve seen no indication that she didn’t believe it.
[quote=njtosd]
I think by your analysis you would decide she was gullible, but I’m not sure because, frankly, it was sort of rambling and weird.
[/quote]
As I’ve shown you, your logic is faulty, and I wouldn’t decide she was gullible based on that.
[quote=njtosd]
but I’m not sure because, frankly, it was sort of rambling and weird.
[/quote]
Rambling and weird? Or above your reading level? The hypotheticals were an attempt to get you to see the difference between “I disagree with you” and “you’re gullible.” In the married-friend scenario, the friend is a trump voter (if she believes her husband). You are somebody observing a trump voter and clearly seeing that they’re gullible. Do you “disagree” with them? Or do you think they’re gullible and not dealing from truth? It’s an important question, one that goes to the heart of your assertion that I think people are idiots because they “disagree” with me, when in fact I think they’re idiots because it’s obvious that they’re gullible, and not dealing from truth. Maybe that’s why you keep ignoring that question.
[quote=njtosd]
Do I believe that gullibility and/or denial are used more often by members of one political party versus another? No.
[/quote]
I would make a distinction. I agree that one party’s members are not more gullible than another’s. In fact, I’ve said as much earlier in this thread. But I would say that there is vastly more misinformation out there aimed at emotionally manipulating people to believe right-wing propaganda than left.
[quote=njtosd]
Do I think you are hypocritical? Yes
[/quote]
But you can’t back it up. So it means nothing. You make empty, unbacked (and unbackable) assertions, and expect them to fly. Well, they don’t fly. The fall flat on their face and make you look like a desperate fool.
[quote=njtosd]
– but you don’t want to believe it
[/quote]
Why would I if there’s no evidence of it? Do you have evidence of it? I suggest you show evidence, or shut the hell up.
[quote=njtosd]
(I think that makes you like the wife that doesn’t believe her husband is cheating – but again, rambling and weird).
[/quote]
It only makes me seem that way to you because you have this idea in your head that I’m hypocritical (and in denial about that). But, again, you present exactly zero evidence of any hypocrisy on my part.
[quote=njtosd]
Do I have the time or inclination to address each of your (many) points? No. So I guess we will just have to agree to “disagree”.
[/quote]
Ah. The old, “I have lost every argument in this debate, so I shall just call you names and quit” trick. Showing your true colors, nj.
