|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 2, 2019 11:42:10 GMT -5
If someone is really devoted to their beliefs and those beliefs have been refuted again and again, there are only two options:
Change your beliefs, or deny reality.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 13:57:26 GMT -5
Wow, imagine being an idiot who believes that socio-political constructs aren't demonstrably real.
I wonder if Maverick Philosopher also has trouble coming to terms with the fact that green paper is a form of payment.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 2, 2019 14:59:35 GMT -5
Wow, imagine being an idiot who believes that socio-political constructs aren't demonstrably real. I wonder if Maverick Philosopher also has trouble coming to terms with the fact that green paper is a form of payment.
Where did Maverick Philosopher say that "socio-political constructs aren't demonstrably real?" He didn't. This is what he did say:
"Here is perhaps the deepest metaphysical error of the Left: leftists deny that there is a reality antecedent to our classifications and conceptualizations. (V. I. Lenin was of course an exception.) Everything becomes a social-political construct. How convenient for identity-political totalitarians!" Read more: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/3940/prove-social-construction#ixzz5piqwniLC
Maverick Philosopher is NOT denying that socio-political constructs are real. What he is claiming is that some leftists think that everything is a socio-political construct.
Well, is everything a socio-political construct?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jun 3, 2019 8:09:48 GMT -5
I deal with right-wing folk almost every day who deny reality. Creationists, anti-vaxers, anti-climate change, Trump supporters, etc. No need to get fancy. If they don't like it, it isn't true. No need for evidence or elaborate philosophical grounding. Don't like it, so it's not true. Period. 8-<
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2019 12:31:41 GMT -5
Wow, imagine being an idiot who believes that socio-political constructs aren't demonstrably real. I wonder if Maverick Philosopher also has trouble coming to terms with the fact that green paper is a form of payment.
Where did Maverick Philosopher say that "socio-political constructs aren't demonstrably real?" He didn't. This is what he did say:
"Here is perhaps the deepest metaphysical error of the Left: leftists deny that there is a reality antecedent to our classifications and conceptualizations. (V. I. Lenin was of course an exception.) Everything becomes a social-political construct. How convenient for identity-political totalitarians!" Read more: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/3940/prove-social-construction#ixzz5piqwniLC
Maverick Philosopher is NOT denying that socio-political constructs are real. What he is claiming is that some leftists think that everything is a socio-political construct.
Well, is everything a socio-political construct?
Bob
You are correct, he didn't say that. He made a dogmatic assertion without supporting evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2019 12:32:40 GMT -5
I deal with right-wing folk almost every day who deny reality. Creationists, anti-vaxers, anti-climate change, Trump supporters, etc. No need to get fancy. If they don't like it, it isn't true. No need for evidence or elaborate philosophical grounding. Don't like it, so it's not true. Period. 8-< Maverick "Philosopher" seems to go in a similar direction.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2019 13:17:22 GMT -5
Where did Maverick Philosopher say that "socio-political constructs aren't demonstrably real?" He didn't. This is what he did say: "Here is perhaps the deepest metaphysical error of the Left: leftists deny that there is a reality antecedent to our classifications and conceptualizations. (V. I. Lenin was of course an exception.) Everything becomes a social-political construct. How convenient for identity-political totalitarians!" Read more: unfacts.freeforums.net/thread/3940/prove-social-construction#ixzz5piqwniLCMaverick Philosopher is NOT denying that socio-political constructs are real. What he is claiming is that some leftists think that everything is a socio-political construct. Well, is everything a socio-political construct? You are correct, he didn't say that. Then why did you accuse him of saying something he didn't say? Maverick gave a short post. If he gave supporting evidence, his post could easily have been several pages long. Fortunately Hicks gave plenty of evidence with quotes in "Explaining Postmodernism." If you still have your copy, look at Chapter Six, "Postmodern Strategies." Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2019 13:24:19 GMT -5
I deal with right-wing folk almost every day who deny reality. Creationists, anti-vaxers, anti-climate change, Trump supporters, etc. No need to get fancy. If they don't like it, it isn't true. No need for evidence or elaborate philosophical grounding. Don't like it, so it's not true. Period. 8-< That's right Fred. They don't "get fancy" because they can't.
Left-wingers, by contrast, tend to be more intellectual, so they have to think of all sorts of excuses to deny reality.
At least your right-wingers leave reason and facts alone. And there have always been stupid people like those. Yet civilization survives.
Left-wingers, by contrast, subvert the very foundations of reason and facts. Without these, civilization crumbles.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 13:24:33 GMT -5
Maverick gave a short post. If he gave supporting evidence, his post could easily have been several pages long. So it's okay to make dogmatic assertions if you don't feel like backing them up with evidence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 13:25:58 GMT -5
I deal with right-wing folk almost every day who deny reality. Creationists, anti-vaxers, anti-climate change, Trump supporters, etc. No need to get fancy. If they don't like it, it isn't true. No need for evidence or elaborate philosophical grounding. Don't like it, so it's not true. Period. 8-< That's right Fred. They don't "get fancy" because they can't. Left-wingers, by contrast, tend to be more intellectual, so they have to think of all sorts of excuses to deny reality. At least your right-wingers leave reason and facts alone. And there have always been stupid people like those. Yet civilization survives.
Left-wingers, by contrast, subvert the very foundations of reason and facts. Without these, civilization crumbles. Bob
Once again, dogmatic assertions without evidence. Who are these "left wingers" and what "excuses" do they make to "deny reality"? I noticed that you do not give a single quote, or even mention anybody by name. And there is no evidence for your second claim, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 18:46:45 GMT -5
What's the matter, cat got your brain?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2019 19:58:20 GMT -5
What's the matter, cat got your brain?
I was busy. What's the matter, ants in you pants?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2019 20:40:52 GMT -5
That's right Fred. They don't "get fancy" because they can't. Left-wingers, by contrast, tend to be more intellectual, so they have to think of all sorts of excuses to deny reality. At least your right-wingers leave reason and facts alone. And there have always been stupid people like those. Yet civilization survives.
Left-wingers, by contrast, subvert the very foundations of reason and facts. Without these, civilization crumbles. Bob
Once again, dogmatic assertions without evidence. Who are these "left wingers" and what "excuses" do they make to "deny reality"? I noticed that you do not give a single quote, or even mention anybody by name. And there is no evidence for your second claim, either.
Right you are. Here on the FACTS board, we all have to give supporting evidence.
And the evidence is right in Maverick Philosopher's comments.
"Rachel Dolezal is black. Elizabeth Warren is a Cherokee."
He specifically mentioned two people and their famous comments.
The first was a white woman who simply claimed that she was black. Her lie was exposed by her own parents.
The second is a U.S. Senator who claimed that she was part native American in order to get into a prestigious college.
Please read the posts before you you criticize them.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 16:58:04 GMT -5
So when Maverick Philosopher talks about "leftists", he is only talking about Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren?
Is that congruent with your own definition of "leftism"?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2019 21:12:02 GMT -5
So when Maverick Philosopher talks about "leftists", he is only talking about Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren? Is that congruent with your own definition of "leftism"?
First you accuse Maverick of not giving examples of leftists. When I point out that he actually did give examples, you now Shift the Goalposts.
Dolezal and Warren are both leftists.
Donezal was the head of a local chapter of the NAACP. One of the NAACP's goals is "To ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens."
Warren policies closely follow those of Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Socialist.
"SAN FRANCISCO – Democratic presidential contenders Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are hitting many of the same economic populist notes on the campaign trail, albeit with slightly different inflections, as they make their case to voters."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 14:36:12 GMT -5
Is that a yes or a no?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 6, 2019 17:57:36 GMT -5
Sorry but I,m not sure what you are asking here.
Are you asking if those two women fit my definition of "leftist?" If you are, the answer is yes.
If you are asking if they fit my definition of liars and con artists, the answer is also yes because they both lied about their racial heritage.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 5:16:50 GMT -5
Sorry but I,m not sure what you are asking here. This: So when Maverick Philosopher talks about "leftists", he is only talking about Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren? Is that congruent with your own definition of "leftism"?
We are talking about things that all leftists believe, and according to MP, these two encompass the definition of "leftist".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 11:08:22 GMT -5
Sorry but I,m not sure what you are asking here. This: So when Maverick Philosopher talks about "leftists", he is only talking about Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren? Is that congruent with your own definition of "leftism"? We are talking about things that all leftists believe, and according to MP, these two encompass the definition of "leftist". "Encompass?" "Encompass" means to surround or enclose. The beliefs of Rachael Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren may be "encompassed" by the category of "leftist beliefs", but it makes no sence to say that the beliefs of these two "encompass" all leftist beliefs. Elizabeth Warren's beliefs are certainly "leftist." She's advocating more government control over the economy. "Elizabeth Warren Proposes ‘Aggressive Intervention’ to Create Jobs" www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-economy-jobs.htmlRachael Dolezal was an official of the NAACP which was founded by socialists including W.E.B. DuBois. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 12:09:10 GMT -5
This: We are talking about things that all leftists believe, and according to MP, these two encompass the definition of "leftist". "Encompass?" "Encompass" means to surround or enclose. The beliefs of Rachael Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren may be "encompassed" by the category of "leftist beliefs", but it makes no sence to say that the beliefs of these two "encompass" all leftist beliefs. Elizabeth Warren's beliefs are certainly "leftist." She's advocating more government control over the economy. "Elizabeth Warren Proposes ‘Aggressive Intervention’ to Create Jobs" www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-economy-jobs.htmlRachael Dolezal was an official of the NAACP which was founded by socialists including W.E.B. DuBois. Bob MP claims that it is an essence of leftist belief to deny reality. As examples, he cites these two people, and nobody else. Did V.I.Lenin, whom he namedrops, deny reality? MP does not say, and he certainly does not show us any evidence that he did. It is a sensible conclusion to make that when he talks about "leftists" denying reality, he is talking exclusively about people who provably deny reality, such as Warren or Dolezal, and not about people who have not been demonstrably shown to do so. Or do you have any evidence to support a different conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 12:33:37 GMT -5
"Encompass?" "Encompass" means to surround or enclose. The beliefs of Rachael Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren may be "encompassed" by the category of "leftist beliefs", but it makes no sence to say that the beliefs of these two "encompass" all leftist beliefs. Elizabeth Warren's beliefs are certainly "leftist." She's advocating more government control over the economy. "Elizabeth Warren Proposes ‘Aggressive Intervention’ to Create Jobs" www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-economy-jobs.htmlRachael Dolezal was an official of the NAACP which was founded by socialists including W.E.B. DuBois. Bob MP claims that it is an essence of leftist belief to deny reality. As examples, he cites these two people, and nobody else. Did V.I.Lenin, whom he namedrops, deny reality? MP does not say, and he certainly does not show us any evidence that he did. It is a sensible conclusion to make that when he talks about "leftists" denying reality, he is talking exclusively about people who provably deny reality, such as Warren or Dolezal, and not about people who have not been demonstrably shown to do so. Or do you have any evidence to support a different conclusion? Please read what Maverick Philosopher said more carefully. Maverick specifically said that Lenin was an exception. Here is the quote from the top post in this thread: "Here is perhaps the deepest metaphysical error of the Left: leftists deny that there is a reality antecedent to our classifications and conceptualizations. (V. I. Lenin was of course an exception.)" So Maverick Philosopher is saying the exact opposite of what you claim he is saying. But that's okay. We all make mistakes every now and then. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 15:11:04 GMT -5
Oh, so he doesn't say that reality denial is part of being a leftist after all?
Then why are you argueing that position?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 15:18:00 GMT -5
I deal with right-wing folk almost every day who deny reality. Creationists, anti-vaxers, anti-climate change, Trump supporters, etc. No need to get fancy. If they don't like it, it isn't true. No need for evidence or elaborate philosophical grounding. Don't like it, so it's not true. Period. 8-< That's right Fred. They don't "get fancy" because they can't. Left-wingers, by contrast, tend to be more intellectual, so they have to think of all sorts of excuses to deny reality. At least your right-wingers leave reason and facts alone. And there have always been stupid people like those. Yet civilization survives.
Left-wingers, by contrast, subvert the very foundations of reason and facts. Without these, civilization crumbles. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 16:21:51 GMT -5
Oh, so he doesn't say that reality denial is part of being a leftist after all? Then why are you argueing that position?
You said "Did V.I.Lenin, whom he namedrops, deny reality? MP does not say, and he certainly does not show us any evidence that he did."
Yep, you said it!
This is what Maverick said: " leftists deny that there is a reality antecedent to our classifications and conceptualizations. (V. I. Lenin was of course an exception.)"
So you claimed that Maverick said exactly the opposite of what he actually said.
Your post here is apparently a Red Herring to avoid these facts.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 17:56:01 GMT -5
Does MP say that any leftists other than Warren and Dolezal "deny reality"?
If yes, then he fails to provide evidence for that.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 19:51:38 GMT -5
Does MP say that any leftists other than Warren and Dolezal "deny reality"?
If yes, then he fails to provide evidence for that.
Maverick Philosopher wrote a short post on his website. This was not a full blown treatise. He made a claim and gave two examples
Now you can say that his examples were not correct (in which case, where is YOUR evidence).
Or you can give counter-examples of leftists who do not ignore reality.
But when you ask for more examples, how many would be enough for you? 2 more? 3 more? A dozen? Please give us a number of examples that you consider sufficient.
But remember, the next time you make a point, you will have to give that same number of cases.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 19:55:55 GMT -5
Does MP say that any leftists other than Warren and Dolezal "deny reality"?
If yes, then he fails to provide evidence for that.
Maverick Philosopher wrote a short post on his website. This was not a full blown treatise. He made a claim and gave two examples. Now you can say that his examples were not correct (in which case, where is YOUR evidence). Or you can give counter-examples of leftists who do not ignore reality. But when you ask for more examples, how many would be enough for you? 2 more? 3 more? A dozen? Please give us a number of examples that you consider sufficient. But remember, the next time you make a point, you will have to give that same number of examples to prove your case. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 15:36:44 GMT -5
Does MP say that any leftists other than Warren and Dolezal "deny reality"?
If yes, then he fails to provide evidence for that. Maverick Philosopher wrote a short post on his website. This was not a full blown treatise. He made a claim and gave two examples He made a claim that he did not back up, because Dolezal and Warren are not the only two leftists, and he has not demonstrated that they are representative of every other leftist, either. He simply implied it without further evidence for his claim. That's the problem, isn't it? He is making a claim about ALL leftists.
If he is making such a claim, he needs to show that ALL leftists are denying reality, or at the very least, provide a convincing argument why these two individuals are representative of every single leftist.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2019 19:10:57 GMT -5
Maverick Philosopher wrote a short post on his website. This was not a full blown treatise. He made a claim and gave two examples He made a claim that he did not back up, because Dolezal and Warren are not the only two leftists, and he has not demonstrated that they are representative of every other leftist, either. He simply implied it without further evidence for his claim. He made a claim and provided evidence. The evidence he provided does support his claim. If you want to refute him, you have to either: 1) Show that his examples are false, or 2) Give counter-examples of leftists who do not think that race is a matter of choice. Yeah. Sure. Nice try. You have just committed The Nirvana Fallacy. "A person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacySince it is impossible to study all leftists (there are millions of them) your criterion can never be met. If you insist on it, then I challenge everything you ever wrote on Stephen Hicks because you never read everything he wrote. I also cannot accept all of your posts on Climate Change Denial because you never read everything written by Climate Change Denialists. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 6:35:45 GMT -5
So if I was saying that, based on Ayn Rand's comments on native Americans, that all Libertarians were okay with the Native American genocide, would you agree with me? If I cite a single piece of evidence in favor of this claim, then it is sufficiently proven to be true, correct?
|
|