weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 1, 2020 14:23:19 GMT -5
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110 
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on May 1, 2020 19:15:24 GMT -5
MAGAninny lied big time about the ‘sarcasm cleaner up light’ episode, so that’s 2 already.
|
|
jelloshots4all
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2013 15:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 4,642 
|
Post by jelloshots4all on May 1, 2020 19:23:43 GMT -5
The people that think anything that comes out of the WH can NOT be swayed. Not by facts, by deaths, etc. I wish it were laughable but its pathetic and sad!!!
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,042
|
Post by teen persuasion on May 2, 2020 9:07:08 GMT -5
This is the part that thoroughly confuses me - the selective belief/disbelief.
I can understand being cynical about everything ever said and mistrusting it all.
I can understand being naive and believing everything you are ever told.
I can understand separating individual things you are told into a spectrum of truthfulness, with a large gray region in the middle, based on some criteria (preponderance of evidence, polling, track record of source, etc).
But how do you blindly accept everything said by one source/side/group as infallible truth, while also blindly rejecting everything said by a different source/side/group as vile lies? How did you initially hit upon labeling one side as ever truthful, and the other side ever lying? What is the criteria? And having made one such decision, why stop evaluating new things said?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,077
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 2, 2020 15:32:37 GMT -5
This is the part that thoroughly confuses me - the selective belief/disbelief. I can understand being cynical about everything ever said and mistrusting it all. I can understand being naive and believing everything you are ever told. I can understand separating individual things you are told into a spectrum of truthfulness, with a large gray region in the middle, based on some criteria (preponderance of evidence, polling, track record of source, etc). But how do you blindly accept everything said by one source/side/group as infallible truth, while also blindly rejecting everything said by a different source/side/group as vile lies? How did you initially hit upon labeling one side as ever truthful, and the other side ever lying? What is the criteria? And having made one such decision, why stop evaluating new things said? in the past we would call that behavior "cultism". |
|
