Sunday, May 14, 2023

Panicking Elitism? Or more Confident in their continued success?

Roger Kimball, "Deliver Us from Reality"
The only silver lining in this minatory storm cloud is the fact that such movements, though unconscionably cruel, arbitrary, and destructive, are also astonishingly fragile.

"Because he can.”

That’s the answer one has to give to those who ask how Alvin Bragg, a local district attorney in office by the slimmest of margins—and then only because of a huge subsidy from the anti-American billionaire George Soros—can get away with antics like indicting Donald Trump, a former (and, possibly, future) president of the United States, and, now, with charging former Marine Daniel Penny with manslaughter because he (along with at least two others) intervened to stop Jordan Neely from attacking fellow passengers on a New York subway.

Because he can. As a friend remarked when digesting the spectacle of Penny being led away in handcuffs, totalitarian movements often start slowly, almost timidly, but as they gain power, they become more brazen. After a certain point, they do outrageous things just to intimidate the public and demonstrate their power.

We now know that the FBI, the CIA, and other elements of America’s security apparatus intervened directly in the decision making of Twitter and other social media companies to influence the course of the 2020 election. One part of that intervention had to do with organizing 51 senior former intelligence figures to sign a letter declaring that Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation.” That was a lie. They knew it was a lie. It didn’t matter. They did it because they knew they could get away with it.

The United States is on the verge of being inundated with thousands upon thousands of illegal aliens. Many are from South or Central America. Hundreds are from China, even though they are crossing that notional line we used to be able to call, without irony, our southern border. Why did the Biden Administration decide to enact a real-life Camp of the Saints invasion of the United States? Because it could. There was no immediate price to pay.

In her classic study, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt makes several observations that bear on our current situation.There is no doubt,” she observes,
"that the elite was pleased whenever the underworld frightened respectable society into accepting it on an equal footing. The members of the elite did not object at all to paying a price, the destruction of civilization, for the fun of seeing how those who had been excluded unjustly in the past forced their way into it. They were not particularly outraged at the monstrous forgeries in historiography of which all totalitarian regimes are guilty and which announce themselves clearly enough and totalitarian propaganda."
It’s not only the compact between the elite and the underclass that is relevant to our experience in the United States today. There is also the incontinent deployment of the word “democracy,” not as a term describing a specific form of political organization but rather as a cognitively empty but talismanic vocable around which political animus can be nurtured and set to work. The latest variation is Our DemocracyTM, dragged out whenever the process of political demonization needs a boost.

“It has been frequently pointed out,” Arendt notes, “that totalitarian movements use and abuse democratic freedoms in order to abolish them.”

The reaction to the January 6, 2021 jamboree at the Capitol—an event egged on and at least in part organized by (alleged) state actors like Ray Epps—is a case in point. As he showed last week in his exchange with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Donald Trump began trying to diffuse the potential for violence at that protest the day before, on January 5, and he continued through the day on January 6. No matter. The script called for him to be the villain of the piece, so the villain he is publicly accounted to be.

So many things in our social and political life today seem surreal. The prospect that “misgendering” someone might be against the law—i.e., a tort that did not even exist yesterday is now illegal; the whole phenomenon of so-called “transgenderism,” a revolt against reality if there ever was one; the bizarre obsession with race, involving the demonization of whites and the fabrication of an imaginary sin called “white supremacy,” on the one hand, and the groveling obeisance of phantasmagoric “reparations” to blacks, on the other. You can’t tune into the internet these days without being confronted with scenes of blacks rampaging through fast-food restaurants, school corridors, or shops like Target and Walmart. They smash and steal and smash and what happens to them? Nothing. All this and more is part of what Arendt called totalitarianism’s “experiment against reality.”

“Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines,” she pointed out,
"totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which, through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never-ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations."
“The shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings.” That is what our masters are pretending to insulate us from with their fantastic lies about human nature, economic reality, and empirical truth.

The only silver lining in this minatory storm cloud is the fact that such movements, though unconscionably cruel, arbitrary, and destructive, are also astonishingly fragile. The last word goes to Arendt. “Nothing is more characteristic of the totalitarian movements in general, and of the quality of fame of their leaders in particular than the startling swiftness with which they are forgotten and the startling ease with which they can be replaced.”

32 comments:

  1. Oh... how glad I am, that I not involved in your inner politics. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  2. trumperism is a totalitarian movement. trumpers hate democracy and wish to see it destroyed. Why you complain about efforts to combat your anti-democracy fake news movement.

    "Oh... how glad I am, that I not involved in your inner politics"... but you are involved in discussions about them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Biden worship is a mental illness suffered by left wing extremists.

      Delete
    2. trumpturd cultists like Mystere worship the Orange Turd. Supporters of president Biden do not "worship" him. Not even all of them realize what a fantastic leader he is and what a great job he is doing.

      Delete
    3. Dervitard bin §atan-§ander$ seems to have some strange spirits possessing his carcass. Dervitard worships Joe Biden's feces as if it's some strange god. Dervitard seems to enjoy smoking Joe Biden's turds, as seen by the way Dervitard bends over to kiss Biden's bottom cheeks as he goes to sniff and snort Joe's crack. Joe's uncontollable flatulence has Dervitard hypnotized and fixated on Biden's lower extremities to the point Dervitard worships them as if it were some strange god.

      In Dervitard's mentally deranged mind, food shortages, train derailments, high fuel prices, rolling blackouts and war mongering are signs of excellent work being done by a mentally deranged senile 90 year old psychopath seated in the 0ffal 0ffice.

      Delete
  3. \\"Oh... how glad I am, that I not involved in your inner politics"... but you are involved in discussions about them.

    Oh... Derpy learned to make correct statments.

    Well... not like that is discussions... more like feces throwing across the fance.

    And I like that I am not involved in it. ;-P



    \\Supporters of president Biden do not "worship" him. Not even all of them realize what a fantastic leader he is and what a great job he is doing.

    Yap.

    They bona fide licking his ass. :-)))))))))))))))))))))

    Or... that is how it looks like. From afar. To a foreigner. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  4. homo sapiens ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Derpy learned to make correct statments"... WTF???? You have been denying involvement for months. Moronically denying it -- given that your many comments here prove involvement. That Qtard is a huge FM is undeniable.

    "They bona fide licking his ass"... That applies to tRump and his cultists. Not Joe Biden. Instead of "to a foreigner", what you mean is "to a FM". A majority of foreigners love Joe Biden and are glad the Orange Turd is gone.

    ReplyDelete
  6. \\WTF???? You have been denying involvement for months.

    Political involvment. ;-)

    Now... you statment was correct, even if marginally -- "you are involved in discussions about them."

    As I do not see it as (proper?) discussion... but well, I am openmined enough to admit that could be seen differ, by others...




    \\Moronically denying it -- given that your many comments here prove involvement. That Qtard is a huge FM is undeniable.

    Yeah. Your strawmaning that my "invovment in discussions" is somehow equal to "involvment in inner politics of USA"... and somehow -- forbiden???

    Though that is possible only by standards of totalitarian countries. ;-P



    \\That applies to tRump and his cultists.

    Whatever. Not my problem. ;-P



    \\A majority of foreigners love Joe Biden and are glad the Orange Turd is gone.

    Ha-ha-ha

    Like, chinese? Russians?
    Latin americans? Africans? ;-P




    ReplyDelete
  7. Qtard: Your strawmaning that my "invovment in discussions" is somehow equal to "involvment in inner politics of USA"... and somehow -- forbiden???

    If I had ever made that argument it would prove your claim that I am a "iv". But I never have. This moronic argument that you attribute to me is Qtard's moronic strawman. He made it up. It did not come from me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You... was not repeating ad nauseam "but yopu are involved"???

    You... was saying "go away", even if you admitted yourself, that you have no power or rights to do that?

    You... are not one who drawned in denyal of that all obvious facts?

    And now you start claiming "you made it up". :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


    I guess... that is because you "believe in facts". It's easy to for you to dismiss any facts you don't like. Am I rifgt, De-Ru-Pi? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, you are wrong. As usual. My belief in facts makes it impossible for me to dismiss those I don't like. Given that they are still facts. Qtard's rejection of belief in facts makes it easy for HIM to dismiss the ones he does not like.

    "You was not repeating ad nauseam but yopu are involved"... You ARE involved in discussions about US politics. If you were not there would be zero Qtard comments here. Your involvement is a self-evident fact.

    "You was saying go away, even if you admitted yourself, that you have no power or rights to do that?"... No. I can utilize my free speech rights to suggest you go away. I never admitted otherwise. It would the make totalitarian wannabe Qtard happy to take this right away from me, yes?

    "You are not one who drawned in denyal of that all obvious facts?"... No. You are describing yourself again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. \\No, you are wrong. As usual. My belief in facts makes it impossible for me to dismiss those I don't like.

    Yeah.
    You declaring that BS... but still, that is *I* who are wrong.
    Well, bullshit claim again.
    Nothing but bullshit from your side. Yawn.

    No... BS piled uppon BS, uppon BS.

    What a perfect u.u.r.b. talking strategy. ;-P Not. :-))))))))))))))))))))




    \\Given that they are still facts

    If it is facts... why you cannot show how it matches with Definition of Fact?

    Another word:
    how it open?
    how it obvious and self-evidnt?
    how it have ANY relation to reality?

    But.

    You can't.

    You just screaming "it is FACTS!!!"

    Bur cannot show, cannot quote ANY of it... properly. ;-P

    That is... 100% the same as... some religious fanatic, like juhadists for example -- they screaming, they even cutting heads of "infidels"...

    but still UNABLE to prove, to show that what they trying to call facts -- ARE facts.

    Because, they are u.u.r.b.s. Like you too. ;-P



    \\You ARE involved in discussions about US politics. If you were not there would be zero Qtard comments here. Your involvement is a self-evident fact.

    Yeah... but we was talking about "political involvment".

    And you trying to use that fact that "involvment" can be used in BOTH contexts.

    And to say "involvment in discussions"

    And "involvment in politics".

    To claim that I "involved" in politics... on the base of me being "involved" in discussions.

    Well... It do not look as "discussions of politics" to me personally, EVEN. :-))))))))))))))))

    Just ordinarry bullshit-talks... on the Internet... with an u.u.r.b.

    They are ubiquotus.

    And can be visible about ANY thing: climate, or gender, or... whatever.

    But what is the same -- that it is impossibl to have a proper discussion... with an u.u.r.b. ;-P

    That way... I deny that admission that I "involved" in some "discussion of politics" here. With you -- for sure. ;-P

    Cause... you have no brains for that.




    \\No. I can utilize my free speech rights to suggest you go away.

    Yeah... but that was NOT suggestion.

    That was demand. ;-P




    \\It would the make totalitarian wannabe Qtard happy to take this right away from me, yes?

    What right?

    To demand of people to do something against their natural and propected by law in democratic system rights???

    Yeah... I, as democratic-aligned person -- would like such a "right", "right" to abuse democratic freedoms and personal dignity -- to be removed.

    Off totalitarian wannabes of any kind. ;-P




    \\You are describing yourself again.

    And you can prove that with factual quotes? Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Derpy Derpy Doo, where r u? ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are really desperate for attention, aren't you Qtard?

    FYI, evidence based belief and faith based belief aren't the same. They are completely different. You dishonestly conflate them to support your BS "religious bonkery" narrative. When "religious bonkery" is not even a thing. Because you are a huge FM.

    ReplyDelete
  13. \\You are really desperate for attention, aren't you Qtard?

    Yap. I'm very desperate... to laugh. ;-P




    \\FYI, evidence based belief and faith based belief aren't the same. They are completely different.

    And you can give factual(?) or some logical, or maybe some plausible explantaion???

    Naaah. :-)))))))))))))))))





    \\You dishonestly conflate them to support your BS "religious bonkery" narrative.

    Then... disprove em. ;-P

    You are such high and mighty. You Believe in Facts.

    So it must be not a proiblem fer ya...

    Just pray to that Holy Facts you believe in. And they will respond -- with sending flames from the sky to incinerate such an unholy infidel... :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))






    \\ When "religious bonkery" is not even a thing.

    Of course.

    Of course that is not a thing -- that is a notion. Ya, dumbass. ;-P





    \\Because you are a huge FM.

    Yawn.

    You still don't get it.

    Your such an attempt of bad-mouthing is absolutely do not hit me.

    Cause... there not a scintillia of truth in it. ;-P

    It only shows YOUR OWN level of desperation and self-delusions.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Qtard: And you can give factual(?) or some logical, or maybe some plausible explantaion??? Naaah.

    Yes. The words "evidence" and "faith". You obviously do not understand the meaning of these words. When I say "I believe in facts", I refer to a belief that is evidence-based. "Faith" is belief without evidence.

    A notion is "a conception of or BELIEF about something"... So Qtard is a believer aka a "religious bonker". By his own admission.

    "Notion" doesn't allow you to make up terms. "Religious bonkery" is not a "notion". Except in the tiny mind of an extremely stupid FM.

    Qtard: Then... disprove em.

    I did. You are just too stupid to realize it.

    Qtard: You still don't get it. Your such an attempt of bad-mouthing is absolutely do not hit me. Cause... there not a scintillia of truth in it.

    No, I do get it. My truthfull comments about how stupid you truly are don't hit because you are an extreme narcissist.

    Qtard: It only shows YOUR OWN level of desperation and self-delusions.

    Desperation? Regarding what? That is your delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. \\Qtard: And you can give factual(?) or some logical, or maybe some plausible explantaion??? Naaah.

    \\Yes. The words "evidence" and "faith".

    You call mere words a factual... logical... plausible for at least EXPLANATION???

    Clearlu you are u.u.r.b.

    Do I need to cite you WHAT WORD "explanation" MEANS????

    Be my guest.

    Explanation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
    www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › expl...
    The meaning of EXPLANATION is the act or process of explaining. How to use explanation in a sentence.




    Besides.

    evidence
    /ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
    noun
    the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    Means... your "evidance" is tha same -- it's belief. ;-P

    NOT facts itself.

    And beliefs can be bent and twisted in any way someone's twisted mind can do and can proclaim it evidance.

    Like in medieval times... they was sure that there witches do exists... and they cought em... and burned em... and all that was based on "evidances". :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))




    \\When I say "I believe in facts", I refer to a belief that is evidence-based.

    But... facts NEED NOT to be believed in.

    They... just is.

    They are... SELF-EVIDANT.

    Like rise of the Sun in the morning -- WHAT difference it posing -- beliving you in that that Sun actually have risen in the morning... or not???

    THERE is *NO* f*g difference.

    Cause... YOUR beliefs ARE independent from facts. ;-P

    Do you need to know what word "independednt" means? ;-)

    Ou'Key Dou'Key.

    independent
    /ˌɪndɪˈpɛnd(ə)nt/
    adjective
    free from outside control; not subject to another's authority.

    MEANS

    You CANNOT control facts.

    But you want such cantrol THAT MUCH... that's why you declaed such a bonkery and bogus "I believe in facts".




    \\"Faith" is belief without evidence.

    YAP.

    believe
    /bɪˈliːv/
    verb
    accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

    facts
    is
    something that are part of objective reality, and IS true by definition.


    So.

    Your "I believe in facts" can be unwinded into

    "I accept as being true" -- "something that is true by definition".

    See the problem here?

    In your damn perception -- you are not ONE to decide -- is it true or not. About something that ARE self-evident.

    But with declaring that you believing -- you trying to proclaim having such an ability.

    Which is... idiotic. ;-P

    You have no agency to decide in stead of Actual Objective Reality... what it should do. ;-P


    Do you got it? No. :-))))))))))))))))))

    And you will show it just in the next your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. \\A notion is "a conception of or BELIEF about something"... So Qtard is a believer aka a "religious bonker". By his own admission.

    Tinsy little problem here. ;-P

    You NOT showed how it relates with each other.

    Your first claim that is obviuoussly true -- that notions, that mere words -- that is manifestation of our human beliefs.

    But.

    It have NO visible obvious true relation with your second claim --- "So Qtard is a believer..."

    On what base???

    HOW it can be connected?

    What breadcrumbs can lead from one to another???

    An EXPLANATION needed for that. ;-P

    Explanation... you'd not be able to present... cause you are u.u.r.b. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))




    \\Qtard: Then... disprove em.

    \\I did. You are just too stupid to realize it.

    Ha-ha... it do not work like that. ;-P

    Because... EVERYBODY would be wisemans. :-))))))

    Just by declaring "see, I proved it... and if you did not understand -- your problem".

    Just imagine that World full of bonkers.

    Detective that declaring "I PROVED that you are criminal. Go to jail!"

    Doctor that declaring "I PROVED that that is not a tumor. Go pay me your fortume... before you are dead"

    Scientist declaring "I PROVED that Perprtuum Mobile possible. Give me 1 BILLION $$$ of tax money to build it"


    Probabaly... that is exactly the World such a religious bonker like you would desire, isn't it, De-Ru-Pi? ;-)


    But to you regret... this World, this whole Universe -- not even close to anything like that.

    Possibility of proving something, anything with just miserly declaring "I. PROVED!!!" -- exist only in mind of such u.u.r.b.s. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



    proof
    /pruːf/
    noun
    argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.


    See.

    That is what *I* do.

    All of the time.

    When give direct facts -- citations.

    PLUS.

    Giving some logical explanation -- why that facts matter and what they prove. ;-P

    I guess... I cannot be MORE obvious here. But, you are free to test my ability... with your absolutely idiotic creativity with which you trying to oppose facts... Reality itself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. \\No, I do get it. My truthfull comments about how stupid you truly are don't hit because you are an extreme narcissist.

    And you can give factual... logical... plausible... or ANY AT ALL???

    Explanation -- why "extreme narcissist" should not be shaken by "truth"???

    :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    My bet -- that you will show that you are complete u.u.r.b.

    and will not even try to. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))



    \\Qtard: It only shows YOUR OWN level of desperation and self-delusions.

    \\Desperation? Regarding what? That is your delusion.

    And what all that "I did", "I do", "you are stupid", "you are FM", "I proved" and etc... mean?

    If not desperation? If not delusions?


    Give with that that you unable to give CORRECT citations, logical EXPLANATION or anything viable at all... to any of your claims. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  18. \\"Notion" doesn't allow you to make up terms.

    Why not? ;-P

    Anytime you saying something like "A is B" -- you making a new notion.

    That is obvious and natural thing to do.

    Now you trying to be "grammar Nazi"... idioticly to boot? ;-P

    As you use that "making new notion" yourself. Like with "you are FM" you throwing at me.

    WHY YOU allowing to yourself "to make up terms"!!!!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Are you totalitarian?

    Cause that is DEFINITE trait of a totalitarian -- to segregate people into categories of who allowed and who NOT allowed to do this ir that. ;-P

    See... YET ONE trait of totalitarian LOGICALLY explained. And factually attached. TO YOU. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))




    \\ "Religious bonkery" is not a "notion".

    Is it bunch of words? Yes. "Religious". And "bonkery".

    Is some definition of what that bunch of words mean -- provided? Yes.

    That's it.

    That is a notion. ;-P




    \\Except in the tiny mind of an extremely stupid FM.

    Yep. For such a u.u.r.b.s as you are. Or FMs for short. That is hard to grasp what word "notion" mean.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "And you will show it just in the next your comment".

    I won't.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Got you. ;-P

    Your "I won't" that is just another example of your sheer denial of Reality.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And.

    "
    My bet -- that you will show that you are complete u.u.r.b.

    and will not even try to. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
    "

    My bet -- works! You UNABLE to give an explanation. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  22. Qtard: Your "I won't" that is just another example of your sheer denial of Reality.

    I accept reality. Denying it is pointless. Only those happy living in delusion deny reality. People like Qtard live their lives in denial of reality. Because the truth is abhorrent to them.

    For example, your "got you" and "my bet works". When neither claim confirms with reality. These are just your delusions. But they clearly make you happy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. \\I accept reality. Denying it is pointless.

    Hurray!

    But still... you leaving a backdoor, it seems. As you "accept" could mean that you are free to NOT accept it... on your whim.

    I myself see it only as -- recognize Reality.

    With having in mind that our mind, our brain, our senses -- are not build with purpose of recognizing it clearly and without errs. (do you know about daltonism, for example? ;-))



    \\Only those happy living in delusion deny reality.

    Well? Why? One can be unhappy... and still in denial. ;-P



    \\People like Qtard live their lives in denial of reality. Because the truth is abhorrent to them.

    Oh, yeah??? :-))))))

    And you can demonstrate that with facts and give some (even if illogical) explanation -- why so? ;-P




    \\For example, your "got you" and "my bet works". When neither claim confirms with reality.

    Factually incorrect. As always. ;-P

    My claim was: "My bet -- works! You UNABLE to give an explanation. ;-P"

    And where you provided AN EXPLANATION here? None. Nada. Zilch.

    You only showed that you are totally obliovious about meaning of word "explanation" even. :-)))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I myself see it only as -- recognize Reality"... But you don't.

    "And you can demonstrate that with facts"... Yes. Your insistence that my condemnation of J6 rioters is because I am a "totalitarian wannabe". When it proves the opposite. Just one example.

    "where you provided AN EXPLANATION here? None. Nada. Zilch"... You lie. I have given many explanations. You just keep saying I haven't no matter what I do. So why should I play your FM game?

    "You only showed that you are totally obliovious about meaning of word "explanation" even"... That's you talking about yourself again.

    ReplyDelete
  25. \\But you don't.

    Explain? ;-P



    \\Your insistence that my condemnation of J6 rioters is because I am a "totalitarian wannabe".

    What "insistence"???

    That is hypothesis. ;-P

    But you really behaving in accordance with it, with hypothesis -- that you are totalitarian wannabe. :-)))))))))))))))))

    And that is factual -- as well as here in this your claim -- when you twisting meaning of my words and strawmaning em in tryes to gaslight me.
    To put me in some nasty cathegory in accordance with your views/beliefs.

    PLUS. Your very blindness to idea of Human Rights.

    That is quite totalitarian trait... even you cannot oppose to it, as that is damn too obvious. ;-P




    \\When it proves the opposite. Just one example.

    Facts... do not "prove" anything. They just IS. As in "as is".

    That is logical inference or some plausible explanation that "proves".

    IF... and only if, correctly and unambigiously based on facts... or some more logic.

    Your "proofs"... nothing like that.

    Means... that is merely a non-proofs... based on non-facts. :-)))))))

    But just some emotional screams and feces-throwing. On the base of sheer your political emotions. ;-P




    \\You lie. I have given many explanations.

    Definition. Again.

    Explanation Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
    www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › expl...
    The meaning of EXPLANATION is the act or process of explaining. How to use explanation in a sentence.


    So... WHERE, point at to at least one "act of explaning" -- you think you did????

    For simplicity.

    Explanation... that is when you saying that something is something BECAUSE... afterward EXPLANATION happening.

    Where YOU using word "because"??? Or giving some... ANY base for you claims???

    ONLY your sheer baseless claims I see. Like "you are FM" -- THAT IS a claim, NOT an explanation.

    Your Captain Obvious. ;-P




    \\So why should I play your FM game?

    Really. Why you need (to learn) to talk with basing your claims on logic and facts?

    I... dunno?

    Idiots do not need to. That's for sure.

    So? Are you ready to admit that you are nothing else but miserly idiot-wannabe? ;-P
    One who do not want and do not need all that high-brow intelligent things like Logic and Facts understanding? Rational thinking and discussing ability.
    Just... say it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "\\But you don't.\\ Explain?"... WTF is there to explain? You falsely claimed that you recognize reality. But you don't.

    "...you are totalitarian wannabe. And that is factual"... A 100 percent false assertion cannot be factual.

    "when you twisting meaning of my words and strawmaning em in tryes to gaslight me"... The operative word here is WHEN. The answer is NEVER.

    "Facts... do not prove anything"... They do. When presented as evidence in support of an argument. But this is something you obviously do not understand.

    "WHERE, point at to at least one act of explaning -- you think you did????"... There have been MANY. Like when I explained to you the difference between evidence-based belief and faith-based belief. Or when I explained why the J6 rioters had no "right of revolution".

    "Where YOU using word "because"??? Or giving some... ANY base for you claims???"... This is a complete and total lie (see above). Just because you don't like the explanation I gave does not mean I did not give one.

    "Really. Why you need (to learn) to talk with basing your claims on logic and facts? Idiots do not need to"... An admission that you are an idiot? Sounds like one to me. Because you do not do either of those things.

    ReplyDelete
  27. \\"\\But you don't.\\ Explain?"... WTF is there to explain? You falsely claimed that you recognize reality. But you don't

    And you said that, because?

    What was the reason for you to say that???

    Or... that is just another baseless factless blurts of BS from your side? ;-P




    \\"...you are totalitarian wannabe. And that is factual"... A 100 percent false assertion cannot be factual.

    But... it based on facts. And logic.

    HOW it can be false???

    That is only "believer in facts" can say something like that -- because it do not "believe in facts" it don'tlike. ;-P




    \\The operative word here is WHEN. The answer is NEVER.

    Are you that illiterate? Or just stupid?

    There MORE meanings of "when".

    Here is FAQ for you. ;-P

    when
    /wɛn/
    adverb
    at what time.
    "when did you last see him?"

    adverb
    at or on which (referring to a time or circumstance).
    "Saturday is the day when I get my hair done"


    conjunction
    at or during the time that.
    "I loved maths when I was at school"

    after which; and just then (implying suddenness).
    "he had just drifted off to sleep when the phone rang"

    in view of the fact that; considering that.
    "why bother to paint it when you can photograph it with the same effect?"

    although; whereas.
    "I'm saying it now when I should have told you long ago"



    The same meaning as when you said

    \\When it proves the opposite. Just one example.

    higher... and in this my sentense.





    \\"Facts... do not prove anything"... They do. When presented as evidence in support of an argument.

    For that... they must be:

    1) correct by itself

    2) presented correcly

    3) be relevant (as an evidance and into given circumstances)

    4) precisely placed in some logically sound inference.

    Facts cannot be "an evidance" by itself -- ONLY, and ONLY IF... all that stages was performed correcly -- evidance CAN be factual. ;-P

    But well... EVEN, IF evidances ARE factual -- logic still can be incorrect... same as in case with whitches burning. :-)))))))))))))))



    ReplyDelete



  28. \\But this is something you obviously do not understand.

    Ya-ya... I, "do not understand". That's why I just spelled directly from my mind, not after some googling, only correct procedure of how facts can became evidances. ;-P

    But... you will not understand that... and will continue behaving like that militant u.u.r.b. Yawn.

    I "believe" in you. ;-P

    "Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this… and totally redeem yourself!"





    \\There have been MANY. Like when I explained to you the difference between evidence-based belief and faith-based belief. Or when I explained why the J6 rioters had no "right of revolution".

    Hah...

    that was not explanations...

    Where's word "because" in em???

    What facts and logical constructs was used in them?

    None, nada, zilch. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    You just like to call an "explanation" anything you blurting out -- that's for sure. As confirmed many-many times, to boot.




    \\"Where YOU using word "because"??? Or giving some... ANY base for you claims???"... This is a complete and total lie (see above). Just because you don't like the explanation I gave does not mean I did not give one.

    To that... I can only repeat that parable about World of Wisemans(Idiots, really) -- where everyone and each time can just say "I proved!", "I explained!" and "I'm right!"... and it'll would work... somehow. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))

    But that is... not in our mundane World. In our world... such people, convinced that their words have such a divine power ("god said be and it was") recide in asylums. ;-P




    \\"Really. Why you need (to learn) to talk with basing your claims on logic and facts? Idiots do not need to"... An admission that you are an idiot? Sounds like one to me. Because you do not do either of those things.

    And you CAN confirm that your "conclusion" -- "you do not do either of those things"

    with facts???

    or some logic???

    or some even if least plausible explanation???

    why it could be true?

    Naah. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))

    You only trying to DISMISS need for stating facts (giving CORRECT quotes), for using only correct logical explanation.

    Obviously. Cause idiots freakingly CANNOT talk with logic and do not understand what facts is. ;-P

    So, who's idiot here? Rethorical question.
    "-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    ReplyDelete