DiscussMormonism.com

That's true, Markk almost never acknowledges a counterpoint and adjusts his argument accordingly. So it seems I read your comment differently than you intended.

I don't think he is doing what he does from a position of comprehension of how a counterargument is valid and needs dealt with. I'm sure part of it is stubbornness as EA said above. But I also think there is something more fundamental going on where the counterargument isn't being grokked in a way that he sees it subtracting from his argument. At best, he allows for counterarguments to be additive and need explanation. But that is one of the reasons I think he is sincere. He doesn't engage like a subbie or Ajax. More like someone who has built an adamant unassailable position. I don't know. It is frustrating but it doesn't come across as knowing dishonesty. It seems he sees people's frustration with his behavior and interprets it as flailing away at what he believes are the unassailable facts of his original position. So he LOLs when he should be reconsidering.

honorentheos wrote:He doesn't engage like a subbie or Ajax. More like someone who has built an adamant unassailable position. I don't know. It is frustrating but it doesn't come across as knowing dishonesty. It seems he sees people's frustration with his behavior and interprets it as flailing away at what he believes are the unassailable facts of his original position. So he LOLs when he should be reconsidering.

For a long time I tried hard to see it this way, but can't any more. I don't think he's discussing things in good faith. But maybe I'm doing him a gross injustice.

I just logged in and I am drinking my morning cup of coffee, while I haven't read all the recent posts yet from yesterday, but glancing a the last few it appears this is what I mean by identity politics.


Many of you folks really believe you have all the right answers, it is simply amazing in my mind. In other words if I don't agrre with your ideologies, I am this and that. O'well, I have said this before and I'll say it again, the biggest lesson I may have learned from being a Mormon for 34 years is that that kind of mindset is damaging, weak, sad...you pick the word I am not even sure of the correct word, but lets just say it sucks.

Icarus wrote:Then you're just dumb. No one has ever argued impeachment is ok for "anything."

You should revisit canpakes argument on other thread then...speaking of "dumb".

Icarus wrote:Though per Alexander Hamilton, Trump has clearly violated the public trust

nope. I trust him to be President.

Icarus wrote:by using the justice dept to shield himself from the consequences of violating laws while at the same time illicitly using it as an arm of his administration to go after his political enemies.

Unproven allegation. But your wishful thinking is duly noted.

Icarus wrote:The pardoning of FOX News heroes Dinesh D'Souza and Sheriff Arpaio was just the first sign of his corrupt intents here.

No its not, its just a sign of your contrary opinion.

Icarus wrote:Now, in an unprecedented move, he's using Bill Barr to intervene in a federal case for no other reason other than the convicted felon is one of his oldest and closest friends.

Dumb is how you can disregard the prosecutorial misconduct and irregularities; and how you think the prosecution's sentence recommendation was "precendented". Heck Anthony Weiner only got 21 months for sending nudes to a minor. You really should educate yourself on the whole sentencing derails, lest ye appear dumb.

Icarus wrote:This is the same Bill Barr who ran to the cameras and immediately lied about what the Mueller Report found and repeated "no collusion" six times because he was nothing more than another "Yes man" of Trump's.

Glad to see you're still butt-hurt about the Mueller report...dumb indeed.

subgenius wrote:

Icarus wrote:Then you're just dumb. No one has ever argued impeachment is ok for "anything."

You should revisit canpakes argument on other thread then...speaking of "dumb".

You can call it what you wish. It seems to have better standing than yours, based on what Constitutional scholars have to say. ; )

honorentheos wrote:That's true, Markk almost never acknowledges a counterpoint and adjusts his argument accordingly. So it seems I read your comment differently than you intended.

I don't think he is doing what he does from a position of comprehension of how a counterargument is valid and needs dealt with. I'm sure part of it is stubbornness as EAllusion said above. But I also think there is something more fundamental going on where the counterargument isn't being grokked in a way that he sees it subtracting from his argument. At best, he allows for counterarguments to be additive and need explanation. But that is one of the reasons I think he is sincere. He doesn't engage like a subbie or Ajax. More like someone who has built an adamant unassailable position. I don't know. It is frustrating but it doesn't come across as knowing dishonesty. It seems he sees people's frustration with his behavior and interprets it as flailing away at what he believes are the unassailable facts of his original position. So he LOLs when he should be reconsidering.

LOL.. I can admit many negative aspects of the right, and of Trump... You guys are so focused on how horrible conservatism is, that is all you are focused on. I tried to get folks here to opine of what the plan is for the left and they ran away like it was a plague.

MY behavior...LOL I honestly try to show you guys the others side, and how half or more of America view things, and the identity ad homs start.

There are two sides to the debate Honor...the Biden thing is a perfect example...where is the the acknowledgement that there clear canvas of behavior that is very "dirty looking." I recommended a book , very well put together, with researched cf...and as soon as I referenced it the ad homs (identity politics) started about the other and folks without even "testing" the words of the book, basically said it was wrong and the author was a hack. However...when you mentioned a book that you believed supported you view...I bought it on kindle asap, and I am still reading the book. I read both sides, I read left wing and right wing...I acknowledge and believe that Trump is a in secure narcissist and has many faults...yet I rarely see, unless it is from Schmo, any objective review of the left.

I am going to start a thread when I get a chance as a beta on this thought. One thing for sure, it is going to be classical gas if Bloomberg with his check book, knocks off Bernie for the nomination.

I am very sincere, I know what I believe and why I believe it...and I support Trump not for who he is, but for what is being accomplished...there is a lot of good things happening...he is getting things done far beyond my original expectations, even though he is a complete ass. Can you acknowledge anything he is doing that is good?

The counter to that is what is the left doing and what do they have to offer?

Bernie? a crazy old man that the majority of the left in power is trying to screw, again.

Bloomberg...LOL...this will be again this will be classic, a asshole Billionaire many times over, who is a real racist, who changed parties to get elected. He is very smart, and there is a good chance he might win the nomination.

Amy? Probably the safest bet...will "save" the party if she gets in over the rest

Pete? who knows what will happen with this guy.

Gabby, I liked her, until I saw she wanted to legalize heroin. Are you kidding me?

So with that in mind, and to your "point" show me some objectivity from you side that you claim I ignore.

Biden, LOL is all I can say...and honestly a year ago he was my choice on the left, what a tool (talking about me)

As far as my LOL's...I am honestly a happy person, and I enjoy these conversations...and I really learn a lot about myself, and human nature in posting here, and that is how I approach this forum, with a open heart (mindset).

Tell me the good things that Trump is doing and why?

Tell me who you support for the dem ticket, and why?

Icarus wrote:.


Many people don't admit being wrong, but they still know they're wrong, and move one because of it. I've done this many times over the years and I know most other people have as well.

That's not Markk.

He doubles down on stupidity, digs in with bad faith arguments, pretends he's provided references he hasn't provided, pretends he's answered questions he hasn't answers, and the entire time he's laughing because his intention was never to have a rational discussion with anyone. His intention is to to clutter and obfuscate.

"
LOL...yes you do that as a "clone"...you are a Nah uh clone model. You claim a lot but never offer anything but "nah uh's" and "you are wrong's"...and then as you said, you basically ignore your being ignorant and move on.

Are you wrong on the Biden's potential for being dirty, is that why you won't dig in and address the evidences that are piling up?

EAllusion wrote:Markk is stubborn to be sure, but the underlying problem is he trusts bad sources and has some rationalizations to defeat information that points out his trust in bad sources is misplaced.

People like Ajax and Subgenius have this problem too, but they also delight in lying because they think that's how the game is played.

LOL, I can say the same exact thing about you EA...classic. You are not stubborn?...didn't we talk for a week or two on who might beat who in a basketball game...LOL is it safe to say it was a conversation between two mules?

I am a bottom line person, I admit that...I have to be in my profession, which is basically risk management and making sure projects are profitable and we stay out of trouble.

The bottom line in the Trump impeachment, to me, really boils do to whether or not the corruption is the Ukraine did or did not deserve an investigation. The facts for that are there in my opinion...from the Reason Z. was elected, to the Biden's. We are giving them a lot of money EA, and in my opinion, we need to investigate the heck out of them, then and now.

Is that a fair way to bottom line this, if not why, and what is your bottom line on all this?

What profession isn’t a bottom line profession?

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Moved to correct thread. I MADE A MISTAKE.

Lol.

Cam, you are probably the most likely frequent poster on the forum to acknowledge when evidence erodes a premise you supported.