And once more you prove why this is the case. A perfect example of everything wrong with the right. You say, “in fact slanderous of a myriad of people who from any decent.” I have explained the difference between “libel” and “slander” no less than five times. It is not terrible complex, it is something easily looked up, it is something most people should know. You consistently use the wrong word, even when it has been explained why it is wrong, why it can not possibly be the right word. The reason you do this is simple: you don’t care. You don’t care about truth. You do not care about reality. You do not care to even get something as simple “libel” right. Not only do you not care about about truth, or honesty, you do not care about not caring. You have a complete lack of curiosity about the world around you, as this demonstrates. Note the differences in our posting styles. I hop from subject to subject, posting lengthy lists of facts, evidence, I refer to experts, I quote at length. You… do no such thing. You lie about things in these comments. You repeat statements that have already been falsified (yet another form of lying). You have maybe once offered objective, external support for you statements. It is obvious that one of us cares a great deal about the world and everything in it, and that person is not you.

“well past exasperation,”

Of course you are well past exasperation. You have no case, you have no support. All you have are talking points given to you by people who at best do not care about you and at worst despise you. Your monstrous incuriosity leaves you with a complete inability to not just to formulate a response to facts and evidence outside your delicate ideology, but a complete inability to even consider them. Again, note the difference between this post, and my post. I go to great length to offer explanations, facts, evidence proving every single thing I say is correct, you can’t do that. both because you can’t because you are simply wrong (as perfectly exemplified by your consistent inability to learn the difference between “slander” and “libel”), but also because you simply do not care. This is what the right wants. A passive slave race that accepts what they are told is the truth and lacks all ability towards critical thinking, lacks even the will to try. It is an abomination.

“And in context you are wrong.”

Nope, not wrong. Here, I’ll quote Webster’s.

“slander noun

1 the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation

2 a false and defamatory oral statement about a person

libel noun

1 a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt

2 defamation of a person by written or representational means”

So no, in context I am not wrong.

“My mom would consider herself a conservative, fundamentalist/evangelical, born again Christian, for example, and I know she is not insidious or flawed as a person as you repeatedly insist (accuse) they are.”

And how, oh how, do we know you are not lying, right here, right now? You have a demonstrable history of lying. There is no objectively provable way to determined if she is not a living saint or the most vile creature on the planet. You might not even have a mother. Or you could be biased in her favor and not able to judge her objectively. Your mother is irrelevant. This is a simple appeal to emotion. It’s not even the equivalent of a “yo mama” joke, instead it is taking another person’s statement and claiming it is about your mother and so you should have sympathy. Sorry, but I do not fall for logical fallacies, especially not appeals to emotion.

“So when you proclaim that evangelicals or conservatives are bad, and my mom reveals she is a conservative, you are placing her in a category which describes a bad person”

She might be a bad person. Or she might not exist. Your statements at least indicate this is not someone you can be dispassionate and objective about.

“This is the type of slander I’ve been really talking about. ”

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, you aren’t talking about slander at all. But you do not care if you are talking about slander or not. Because that would require caring about truth, that would require a curiosity about the world. But, as we have seen, you do not care, nor do you not care that you do not care.

“You see, again, conservatives always say that their are many nice people on the left, with bad ideas.”

They do say that. And they are wrong, about the bad ideas. Psychologically speaking the left is the most moral, decent, trustworthy, law-abiding group of people on the planet.

“Leftists will always reveal that they believe those on the right are not only wrong, but bad people.”

Something that is empirically true.

“This crucial difference between us is one you are not grasping.”

Oh no. I grasp it perfectly. In fact, I’ve addressed it multiple times through out this conversation. The right believes itself to be morally superior, but, again objectively, they are the most immoral, least decent, untrustworthy, most likely to act in a criminal manor group of people on the planet. The only reason they think they are morally superior is because they have the empathy block which prevents them from seeing things from other people’s perspectives, so they lack any and all self-awareness.

“For it is obviously true that born again Christians and conservatives are more often than not decent people.”

That’s a scientifically untenable position. Born again Christians and conservatives are the most likely to be violent, and amoral (and cowardly) people you will meet.

“The fact that they give more time and charity than their secular counterparts alone suggests this.”

A statement I already falsified elsewhere. As you know this statement is false, and yet you choose to repeat it, you are lying.

“So, Loki, since you are trying to perpetuate what is obviously an untruth”

“Obvious?” Obvious to whom? Certainly not anyone who looks at the evidence objectively.

“and a negative about others who do not deserve your accusation, yes, it is a type of slander.”

Nope, still not a type of slander. This really is the perfect symbol of our discussion. Here I am with facts, evidence, proof and reality. And there you are rejecting them.

“As for me, you have called me a liar and worse, even after I’ve told you that any misunderstandings have been just that, a misunderstanding”

You have lied, and worse. Such as this: when you pointed to specific “misunderstandings” it turned out it was impossible for the “misunderstanding” to actually be a “misunderstanding.”

“or a more gentle example, think the George Macdonald quote, and what you perceived as my reason for trying to share it and what it actually was”

Except I did not “misunderstand” that reason. You just tried to change it after the fact with an explanation that made zero sense.

“You have not been able to show us even one time I have lied to you, much less a “history of lying” lol ”

Okay, let’s make this super simple. You just said, “For I have not been calling you a liar” but earlier you said, “You are lying right now.” There. Perfect, irrefutable, objective example of you lying. The fact is, must be a hundred examples of you lying on this thread at this point. All of which I’ve pointed out. So the very fact that you claim I have not been able to show “us” even one time, is in itself a lie.

“Anyway, as to your asking how you can know if I’m telling the truth about my mom. One way people discern truth and reality, even when not having 100% empirical facts to go on, is to recognise patterns and conclude probability, etc.”

That’s not the truth, or reality. That’s prediction. You know how the future is not now? It hasn’t happened yet, therefore it can’t be true or real. Of course you would not want prediction to come into play here. Because in recognizing patterns and concluding probability, you have a well documented history of lying. So, therefore, the most likely probability of any situation is going to be… you lying. According to this, I should presume every statement you tell is a lie and work from there, rather than recognizing the lies as they come.

“In a similar way, because you have these blinders over your heart and mind (that’s the kindest way I can think of to put it) that distorts your view of reality to think that most conservatives actually tend to be far more “selfish”, “angry”, “racist”, “Un-empathetic”, Uncaring, and on and on, you are not able to see clearly”

Oh this is adorable! Projection! The only person that has empirically and objectively been proven to have “blinders” to reality is you. This is something that has, again, been demonstrated ad nauseum here. The only person who has demonstrable lack of judgement, is you. The only person whose “sight” is questionable, again is you. Again, not the difference between us. I read scientific studies, examine their methodology and conclusions and then integrate it into a cohesive whole for understanding the world. You… well ignore reality.

“You are literally unable to recognise the patterns available to you which could let you conclude that not only am I telling the truth in speaking about my mom, but am also trustworthy and not as deeply flawed as you have made me out to be. ”

And what pattern would this be? The (probably at this point) hundred lies you’ve told? Once more, patterns are working against you.

“I have hinted that your identity seems wrapped up in *needing* to contrast yourself against others whom you *must believe* are bad to thus make you (in comparison) quite ‘good’; presumably for your sense of identity and self-worth.”

And again, what with the projection. No, that’s a trait of the right, one which has been scientifically proven. Yep, all that self-righteousness and moralizing are what makes the right the violent, unstable people they are. Nothing would make me happier than if everyone woke up tomorrow without the peculiar strain of authoritarianism that was grafted onto our psychologies when we were a dying species in the African savanna and required it, the strain that has caused all this wretched tribalism in the first place.

Oh, and just for kicks, please ignore this. But I took the Right-Wing Authoritarian Personality Index test, and I scored almost a zero, which is about as low as one can go. And pretty much falsifies this claim.

“In this case you clearly do this via how you see the right and ‘born again’ type believers in general as bad compared to you, apparently.”

Please quote me ever inserting myself into these discussions. I can think of only two examples, neither of which involved me making some sort of self-righteous claim about myself, both of them were falsifying your claims. But please, quote me to prove you are not lying.

Nope, everything I have said comes from a lifetime of reading everything from psychological reports to religious reporting. It can all be very carefully and meticulously be backed up. Heck, I’ll do it right now, To quote Dr. Robert Aletmeyer, “This was supported by an experiment I ran in which subjects were (supposedly) allowed to deliver electric shocks to someone trying to master a list of nonsense syllables. The subject/teacher could choose the level of shock for each mistake the learner made. Since the punishment was sanctioned by the experimenter, this opened the door for the authoritarian. The higher the subject’s Right Wing Authoritarian scale score, the stronger the shocks delivered.”

Gerald wrote (in beginning his devolving towards getting personal; as I predict with most people on the left
“Born again Christians are among the most passive aggressive in the world.”

No Gerald, I am, as I’ve admitted, angry at the bad ideas of the left; because of how they hurt people (including me in my life) Yet I have reached out to Loki to consider the biblical claims that we are “all one in Jesus” in way, to see if it was even possible for him to connect with me on that. The way he maligned that George Macdonald quote and has not responded to my plea to remember that as Christians, we actually are one in Him, and our identity is in Him alone, ideally. This is something to strive for. Loki’s irrational maligning of me (and I know it is irrational because I know that what he’s said about me is not true. Proving this to you is not my point) confused and discouraged me until I came up with the idea about one’s identity. People on the left truly do seem to depend on their opposition being bad to contrast themselves, perceptually, as good. This led me to the thought about our identity actually being in Him, and that we really are not good, any of us, compared to God.
Yet there is nothing I can say to connect with him obviously, else he would have by now. I suspect you will not either. I am becoming more and more convinced that for religious leftists, their leftism is, at the end of the day, more important to them than their religion. And this ignoring and insulting of my by Loki, and your attempt to distort my scripturally sound words by projecting a false presupposition of my motives demonstrates this idea.

Loki, the accuser, wrote:
“” because of how they hurt people (including me in my life)”
This, of course, being yet another lie.”

I really wish you could hear how silly you sound. I am not lying about anything, and again, you have not shown or proven somehow that I have. You maybe think you have, but honestly I think you might be lying about that. I have to be honest with myself.

Loki, the ‘desperate’ accuser writes:
“Yes, yes I have. You said, “For I have not been calling you a liar” but earlier you said, “You are lying right now.” There. Perfect, irrefutable, objective example of you lying.”

lol you are quite silly with this. But I will explain why for you. You are saying that I am a liar because at one point I said you were lying and later said “I have not been calling you a liar”, yet the difference here is that I have not been basing my opposition to you on the presupposition that you are a consummate liar (and inherently selfish, and angry, all around subhuman, etc.) like you do with me, rather that I disagree with the ideas of the left in general, and find it wrong to get so personal as you do. (Then I started wondering why this happens so often on your side and hoped you would discuss it with me; which you will not.)

But yes, I forgot about challenging your honesty at that point in this thread. (Did you hear that, I forgot…which doesn’t technically make me a liar, by the way…;)

Anyway, again the point is that when I said that must be lying because you must know that there is no way you could condemn such a large swathe of people (that’s what this nitpick is about, isn’t it?) I pointed out that logic suggested you were therefore being dishonest in saying this. (For how could you honestly believe that so many millions of people are as bad as you accuse, Accuser?) Yet again, the difference here is that your whole premise of being right, or an all around better person than I, depends on your presupposition that I am an inexorable liar, or incapable of being honest really. You’ve even said that I’ve lied repeatedly here, so I challenged you to show me where, and this is the best you can do? Morally speaking, you should apologise.

Loki,
At the end of the day, what you have accomplished in this thread, for me, is clarity. It has been a wonderful contrast, between left and right, “believer” in the resurrection and non-believer. You have offered a glimpse into the soul of the left, sharply reflected into reality for others. On the surface what you seem to have to offer is reasonable, but when up against the contrary side these reveal themselves an but ends to a means; which is condemnation, pride, indignation and despair. Your relentless ability to keep your eyes closed to truth has been a testament to that something rotten at the core of the Left itself. I happily shared my conviction that every position I held which you disagree with is held from a deep compassion for others, and years of thought, suffering and experience to back it up. Even within the conversation I’ve admitted mistakes and asked for grace, and received none. In fact you’ve been a stark or clear example of a lack of grace possible in a person. This is why I started referring to you as the Accuser.

Your condemnation is the point of your reason, rather than the other way around. It has been nearly frightening at times, the tenacity of your dullness.

Okay, sure, I enjoyed writing that last sentence. In fact, because of the severity of your apparent lack of decency (at least how I understand decency; which insists on at least a modicum of initial trust) a contrast developed which was almost irresistible to dabble within, a bit. I mean, I didn’t for a moment believe you would change your mind about anything important; it isn’t or wasn’t my place. You are as hardened as trying to argue simple fairness with someone from a multi generational feud. You’ve been hurt a lot, and there’s not much I can do or say to salve that.

I’ll admit that I did enjoy the opportunity to try and accentuate this moral difference in fruit, or cultural behaviour, attitude and character between left and right; by at least asking why it existed, and to try and maintain my own respect for your potential decency and reason in the process.

Anyway, it is over now.

Any email I see with this website or your self associated with it, I will delete before reading. As I said, or tried to say; conversing with you has been like a virtual conversation with a demon. The depth of lack in your care for truth, or compassion, and especially grace, was in near perfect character. Well done.

“Some of your notes have been, understandably, so personally offensive that I couldn’t or didn’t read them as carefully and fully as your efforts, at least, deserved.”

If they are “personally offensive” then you need to rethink your entire ideology, as I have yet to say something that is not true.

“much of someone screaming in your face that you are a bad person that I can take. (That’s why I said it was ‘understandable’.)”

Oh, and here you go, lying again. Sorry, darling, but nothing in my posts could actually be taken to be “screaming.” If anything they are clinically detached, ruthlessly rational, and utterly grounded in fact. I do believe that’s the problem you are having. You are being incredibly emotional, while I am being robotic. Which is, of course, the difference between the right and the left, the right is filled with fainting, preening divas and overly emotional train wrecks, while the left is filled with people who are rational, logical, and objective.

“Still, as to your issue, I have heard this issue addressed many, many times, Perhaps mostly on the Dennis Prager show and in his columns.”

Isn’t it rather funny that you do not turn to the bible here, but rather to right-wing talk show hosts. I thought you were a Christian, not Radioian? And then there is the fact that you turn to Dennis “How Offensive Is It That People Do Not Know Who I Am” Prager. you do realize that all the evidence you’ve presented from him is… stupid. Very, very stupid. And that’s being kind.

“He deeply disagrees with you about socialism or socialistic values being in harmony with the bible; either old or new Testament.”

That’s because socialism was an idea started in the 1800s, and thus over a thousand years after the New Testament was written. Of course nothing in the Old or New Testament has any problems with socialism, not like they do with capitalism. The bible is basically a polemic against Capitalism, so much so that the original capitalists, back in the 1700s openly stated that a person could not be a capitalist and a Christian.

“As for me, after years of hearing the religious left’s arguments for this idea, and eventually finding them silly or emotionally dependent,”

Wait, after beginning this post in hysterics over your feelings, you want to label the left “emotionally dependent?” You really do have problems with projection.

“And remember, I have tried now, repeatedly, to tell you that what I’d really like to explore between us”

And I’ve repeatedly rejected the premise that such exploration is based upon. I’ve repeatedly shown it to be false. Sorry, but I am not going to concede to a series of false ideas in order to have some sort of “exploration” of those false ideas.

“I have yet to meet a religious leftist who is honestly willing to do this.”

Probably because, again you are starting on an empirically false premise.

“The Bible mandates free market capitalism. It is anti-socialist. The proof is here: 10,000 pages of exposition, verse by verse. Free.”

What absolute, self-serving, pure crap. And here is why, “The next time you hear someone say that the Bible teaches anything but free market capitalism, ask him or her which Bible commentary demonstrates this.” Bingo! Pure crap, pure, pure, pure crap. Instead of reading the bible, he wants you to read “bible commentary,” specifically, his. Because if you read the bible, you might wind up coming to your own conclusion. Sort of based on how almost every page of the bible contains disparaging things about wealth, power, and property, and explicitly forbids the entire system that capitalism is based on. It’s rather funny that you do not want to actually look at the bible, you want to look at conservative commentators discussing their opinions of what the bible says. It’s actually sad, you really are a Radioian.

“You’ve basically built your whole premise of opposition on accusing many decent people of being inherently indecent; which is you saying something that is untrue; ie. not the truth.”

No, you are lying. I have based my whole premise upon what is scientifically determinable about the groups in question. Again, if you have a problem with that, take it up with reality, not me.

“Yet, I would not ever do to you what you have done to me.”

That’s because you can’t. You can’t physically construct the kind of argument that I have, because, again, the science is clear on this.

“I would not imply to outright call you a consummate liar”

You have, several times now.

“a bigot, a selfish person”

Again, because you can not.

“and inordinately angry”

You already have.

“You have as much as called my mother these things as well since I brought her up.”

Then you probably should not have brought her up if you didn’t want to make her a topic of conversation. Although the idea that you can use guilt on me is simultaneously hilarious and sad. Yet another sign that the right are entirely creatures of emotion and not logic. Speaking of which…

“That felt bad.”

Again, back to your feelings. Notice how I have not mentioned my feelings once?

“You have called millions of decent, loving people, many who are deeply believing Christians and Jews, very bad things.”

Which you care about more than if they are very bad things. Or if people are making them into very bad things. I think I’d be more upset at the latter. In fact, the right’s immediate support for Donald Trump shows just how much they do not worship Jesus, just Mammon.

“it is offensive: Personally and otherwise.”

And back to your emotions. The right are so emotional about everything. It’s pretty much why they are the right.

“if it is about anything, is not about throwing links and studies back and forth to try and prove points”

Which you only say because you know you can not. Once again, all evidence supports liberalism, no evidence supports the right.

“Since we both have likely thought through most of these issues for years, have read and listened to scads of people much more informed and wiser than ourselves”

And there’s the fundamental difference between us. I do not simply take the word of people “more informed and wiser” than I am. I examine the evidence, and the methodology and come to the conclusion that something is true, or that something is false. This is an inherent difference between us. Remember when you presented an article from townhall where a random person made the off the cuff, unsupported statement about what nation gives the most per capita, and I responded with a scientific study from a well respected organization? No, I do not passively listen to people, that’s what you do.

“I wanted to discuss the more core issue of the divide between right and left. ”

And yet every single time you’ve attempted to discuss the “core issue” you’ve been wrong both in the specifics, and in the generalities. Something that is proven by those studies that you want desperately not to bring up.

“I mean, I already know that you think I am wrong for thinking you are wrong in many of things you’ve tried to insist are true.”

What I think is irrelevant to whether you are wrong or not. Only reality determines who is wrong and who is right. And reality has decidedly determined you are wrong. Hence why you are so eager to exclude reality from the conversation.

“I happen to know, often via experience, that what you say is overwhelmingly not true.”

Welcome to the wide world of the Anecdotal fallacy. First off your own experience is not debatable, nor verifiable. The very fact you would bring it up is deeply suspicious and in 99% of cases where anecdotal evidence is brought up it merely serves as an illegitimate attempt to establish authority on the topic and shut down a debate the person using it is losing. Secondly it is inherently unreliable, biased, cherry-picked, and basically useless.

Of course, more importantly, what you “know” is irrelevant. Only reality matters in such things, and again, reality dictates I am right. Hence the need to remove reality from the conversation.

“Therefore, other than agreeing to disagree”

We are not disagreeing. A disagreement is a difference of opinion, and as I have pointed out, opinion is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is reality. And reality states, unambiguously, you are wrong.

“I was challenging you to self reflect on why it is that you tend to see those on the right as bad”

I do not have to reflect on it. It is clearly explained in psychological studies of the right’s mental state. My reflection would be irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what is objectively provable. In this case, it is objectively provable that by the standards of what we consider “bad” the right falls into.

“whilst we see those on the left as most often fine people, but destructively wrong.”

And what you “see” is completely irrelevant. What matters are the facts. And the facts show the left is entirely in virtually all its positions, be they economic, social, political, environmental, or any other.

“There is a big difference here.”

Yes, it is the difference between rational, logical, intelligent people who look at the world objectively and base their conclusions on what is and is not. Those people are the left. And then there is the right: irrational, emotional, willfully stupid people who look at their ideology and believe that the world conforms to it, even when it does not.

“I’ve been trying to point out to you how you are demonstrating this, and your lack of self awareness is astonishing.”

I like how when I reject your entire premise wholesale, point out its flaws, and show how it has no intellectual or spiritual value whatsoever, it is me lacking “self awareness.” Remember what I said before about the right being actively hostile towards empathy? Yeah, had you been able to see things from my perspective (something you’ve repeatedly admitted is an impossibility for you), you would have noticed that I repeatedly have rejected every premise you have based not just your ideology upon, but also every premise you built your argument upon. Therefore it is not me lacking “self awareness” but rather me rejecting your perspective, values, goals, and aspirations. Of course the difference between us is that I absolutely can see things from your perspective, as warped as it is. Hence why I know to reject them,

“Umm, but I did notice”

No, you didn’t. Otherwise you would not have said I lack “self-awareness.”

“as I’m sure you’ve noticed that I disagree with you wholeheartedly, and have explained that I have many years of hearing people far smarter than you and I discuss these matters.”

And during all those years you failed to develop the necessary critical thinking skills required for understanding those arguments and separating the good ones from the poor ones.

“We on the right have George Will, and Thomas Sowell, and Dennis Prager, and Peggy Noonan, and Walter Williams, and Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer and just so many more calm, thoughtful, in depth commentators on these issues.”

I actually just laughed now. That group of what could, generously, be called corrupt genetic defectives is your example of the intelligence and sophistication of the right? You are really, sincerely, testing my ability to be charitable. Jonah Goldberg alone is… well again, the most generous thing I could call him is an idiot. And Dennis “I get offended when people do not know who I am” Prager, George “I cash Glen Beck’s Checks” Will, But I do love that you would trot out these as an example of the intelligence of the right. It sort of proves my point about how the right destroys the ability of a person to think clearly.

“On the left your best commentators most often seem as personal, screechy, sarcastic, angry and accusatory as you have shown yourself to be towards me, Loki. In fact, I can’t think of a single well known left wing commentator who does not rely on smearing the person if they cannot convince otherwise, often with a lie or distortion of the objective truth.”

Of course you can’t think of such a person. Because as we’ve demonstrated, you can’t think very well. And I would not go talking about “lies” or “distortions” of “objective truth.” You’ve repeatedly shown you are no friend to objective truth.

“Since than I’ve noticed that there is not a single conservative, *ever*, whom the left will not call stupid and/or evil, or else just do their very best to ignore them.”

What if there is not a single conservative *ever* who is not stupid and/or evil?

“This is where I think you and I have a different idea of objective truth.”

Wait… did you really just say this? Did you really just say there can be different perspectives on objectivity? No. There can, quite literally not be different ideas of objective truth. If there are different ideas, it stops being objective and starts being subjective. You do realize that “objective” is not a figurative or metaphorical word?

” I believe that it is objectively true that a person is a universe unto them-self”

Objective truth is that people are part of the universe. You’d have to come up with some rather interesting quantum physics, possibly opening an entirely new branch for that statement to be objectively true.

“infinitely precious”

Precious is a value judgement, and so inherently can not be objective.

“and that God loves them specifically”

You can not say objectively God exists. That is entirely a subjective belief. So, you are three for three on this entire notion of “objectivity” not counting your first statement.

” I would never put agenda over the individual”

Except you have. Repeatedly and demonstrably and objectively, in these comments.

“Look at what your secular leftist, Stalinist, Mao-ist, Pol Pot, Ho and Hitler monster comrades in secular, anti-Christian ideology have done to prove themselves. Yet you keep on going. Do you still have Mao’s little red book? Or the monstrous murderer Che’s t-shirt, Loki?”

Wow. The lies come fast and furious, don’t they? Once more, all of this has already been falsified. You know it is false, therefor you know you are lying. You are being intentional deceitful and willfully bearing false witness.

“Now, as to my not having empathy. Haven’t I been very patient with your abusive demonstration of your own lacking in empathy?”

Well, first off, you do not seem to know what “empathy” means. It has nothing to do with patience whatsoever. And speaking of abuse, you’ve referred to me as “Satan” forty or so times. It is not something I particularly mind, as I already explained, the fact you think I am the ultimate evil means I must be a very, very, very good person and I must really be bothering you. Which will, hopefully, lead you towards making better life choices. Let’s just say nothing I have said about you qualifies as abuse, unless “abuse” suddenly means, “speaking the truth.”

“For I have not been calling you a liar”

Uhh, yes you have. Here’s but one example, “You are lying right now.”

“and bigot”

Just in a more roundabout way.

“and stupid”

Well that one you just can’t do. Although I do so love the passive-aggressive “smarter than you or I” posts. Smarter than you perhaps. I certainly do not concede that any of the great “intellects” you posted earlier are smarter than me.

“selfish”

It’s rather hard to accuse people who advocate egalitarianism of selfishness.

“angry”

Again, yes you did. Here’s another lovely quote, “You seem to have a heart filled with bitterness and irrational anger.”

“like you have repeatedly tried to call me or imply that I must be.”

Never once have I called you anything or implied anything about you that is not true.

“So yes, objectively speaking you have been showing in your actions the truths that I’ve been wanting to explore with you about the left.”

That we are honest, rational, intelligent people?

” For example, you laugh at my suggestion that you are lacking in self awareness about this, yet later in the note go on about my lacking in empathy.”

These two things do not have anything to do with each other. Although the confusion you have about this topic most certainly has to do with the fact that you do not understand what “empathy” is. Which is sad, because empathy is the basis of all morality. It is what allows morality to be possible. It is what separates sentience for non-sentience.

Gerald wrote:
“you really need to look up the meaning of the words “slander” and “libel”, because you clearly don’t understand the meaning of these words.”

And why is that? I was basically saying that it isn’t nice to say mean things about people he doesn’t know. If I said, as he did, that lliberals believe what they do because they are inherently selfish and angry and bigoted, than this would be very nice of me. Do you agree, Gerald? For there are indeed many good people on the right and on the left, and to wipe a brush across everyone on one side, as Loki has done, is at very least not very nice. I was calling him out on this and you seems to have a problem with this? Why is that?

Also, re your evidence, (and if I even know what that is) By your condescending and confrontational tone you’re revealing that you are a man of the left. Am I write? (Try taking the “Am I Liberal” test by Dennis Prager:
http://mnprager.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/are-you-a-liberal-find-out-by-taking-the-dennis-prager-test/ )

Also, re statement that I’ve made ‘grandios’ claims; I don’t know what you’re talking about frankly. Most everything I’ve said seems to be common or at least easily available knowledge. Mao murdering 70-75 million is from “Mao: The Untold Story” book. That he was a secular, big government, Statist, Communist is not news Gerald. Nor is it the Che was a bad man for what he did to that family, at least. So why is it outrageous for me to ask why people of the left wear their t-shirts? hmmm? Or is it news that education has decreased in the 40 years since the left has taken over so much of the US schooling, and especially since the Unions and prayer was dropped, etc. That isn’t news, and debating the causes of this is not my point. Clearly the left have had control, they have 2nd in the world in money, (kansas city was given over 1 billion dollars for Ed., they bought nice swimming pools and state of the art facilities, and a few years later *nothing has changed*. Nothing. Do you understand that word? This is the case across the board with the left. They just keep wanting more and more money for less and less results and demanding less and less accountability or merit based reward. It is so clearly ridiculous, that someone asking for more evidence is clearly the one that has issues which I would be unable to deal with.
As I’ve written, people on the left (the cultural left which is most of society, and the serious left which is Loki) can live their entire lives without hearing much of the other side. From early school through to adult-hood, in movies, tv, music, people are saturated with ideas of the naturalistic, secular left, and do not have to hear much of the right if they do not seek it. On the other hand, those on the right are very familiar with most of the arguments of the left, since being raised in that culture. So I am not here to “hide” from anything, or to prove anything really. If you really want to know how I arrive at a truth different than yours or Loki’s, like I’ve said, seek out the numerous people and fantastic columnists (a click away) who have written extensively on all aspects of every single one of these subjects.

In other words, I do not think I can convince you or Loki of anything, unless you really care about the truth before your agenda. Yet since you are on the left, and while the left does value truth, it does not put it above their agenda, or demand that it be prioritized above their opinion or emotional based agenda. (think the Dan Quail or the contemporary Sarah Palin issue, of calling them stupid. They’re clearly not actually stupid, yet I see repeatedly people in high positions of media refer to them as if they are retarded human beings. How is this an example? You see them prioritizing their agenda (to malign Sarah and project a bad feeling about her into the cultural ether) above the truth that she is not actually a stupid woman.

Again, it is just not possible for me to convince either of you, so I thought I would challenge you to discuss this interesting dynamic I’ve mentioned, between people of the left and right. Loki is not interested and I doubt you will be either.

Loki, the accuser, wrote:
“You mean the dynamic that, empirically, does not exist?”

Is that another way (you’ve had a few) of saying you don’t wish to discuss it? The only thing ‘empiric’ in that sentence is your hubris lol. But that’s fine, if you don’t, or won’t, I don’t really care.

One last P.S. as I go over this thread before ending it. Your study was entertaining, if only in that it reminded me of how pointless many studies can be. Basically, if a study doesn’t reveal what it already presumed by common sense than it is likely wrong and more likely in context with what a person wished to believe about reality but cannot be proven.
Here is a study from my side which shows how common sense wins the day. It suggests that people who take their sense of self and character, from a more macro view as a “greeney” or environmentalist, as compared to those who take a more micro view as, eg. ‘not lying’, ‘cheating’, ‘staying loyal’, ‘self control’, etc. makes one feel like a good person. (as compared to macro values like recycling)

I mean, like being self sacrificial for another and what the other virtues are as the real standard for/towards a better person. (Like if your kid went out of their way to sit next to the fat, ostracised kid in the lunch room; would you be more proud of them than if they got all the check marks for the school champion recycler? One is a good kid, the other was just potentially a nice thing, I guess. A huge difference and this ‘common sense’ study proves it.)

It says that the more green you are, the more mean you become. You are six times more likely to steal and cheat, for example. (from a test where they would leave the room and leave it up to the participant to make the right change, give the right answers, etc. basically. Here’s the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/15/green-consumers-more-likely-steal

The more left the participant the less honest., is the gist; and which you’ve exemplified here, in this thread. Thanks Loki and again, toodle-doo

Loki writes:
“And you are lying. That’s not a scientific study written by a scientist, that is a news article”

If you’d like to argue that psychologists are not real scientists, that’s fine. But please recognize that here is a good example of you using what sounds like truth, with the goal to denigrate my person (ie. calling me a liar) Clearly, I have not “lied” yet you have accused me of this, based on a lie from yourself, or at least a distortion of truth, that this study was not done by scientists so I have am lying to reference it as if it has more credibility than it deserves.

Here is from the article:
“Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. “Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours,” they write. [See footnote].”

BTW and anyway, these two are left leaning, ‘environmentally or left minded people, who were “surprised” by the scientific results of the study. Yet they still published which is a testament to their character. Do you agree?

Christian, Gerald Arthur Cooper writes:
“You got your ass handed to you.”

lol I just saw this, and by accident. I thought you deserve a bit of clarity; just for fun. So how do you figure my “ass” has been handed to me, Gerald? (btw nice language, ‘low class’, much?
You ideological companion throws out a pathetic study so I throw back another, which shows that your side, the left, not only is filled with more selfish and dishonest people (greenies are 60% more likely to lie, cheat and steal) but it actually suggests reasonable explanations as to why this is. That sounds to me like you’ve had your ‘buttocks’ handed to you, genius.

Loki9, the accuser, writes in response to me saying that it isn’t nice to say mean things about people he doesn’t know:

“And what about saying true things?”

Yet we both know that you couldn’t possibly know everyone you are calling selfish, angry and bigoted. Like my mom, or myself. I was simply suggesting that you are not being very nice or logical by presupposing other’s motives to such a core degree as to denigrate their very humanity. You have called us “monstrous” in our world view, but again, I think what you are doing is quite literally monstrous, and can be proven by the logic I’ve just shared above.
Nonetheless, I am still waiting to see if you have the cahoonas to admit and discuss any of this?

Loki wrote:
“Did you watch Katie Couric’s interview with her? ”

Yes, and I’ve also seen her in dozens of interviews since than. Are you able to distinguish one’s intelligence from these as well? lol.
Anyway, I also know (which you should know too) that the interview we saw was edited from hours (was it three?) and with an agenda to make her (Sarah) look bad. Anyway with a degree in film editing can sway an interview one way or another; sometimes more than other times obviously. Yet in this case Sarah wasn’t expecting it to be as confrontational or irrational as it was, and didn’t deal with that well. Katie acted horribly and vicious, and that is in part why she’s losing her job btw. If you go back and look at the interview (or err, the edited portion which they’ve showed) most can see from the look on Katie or Charlie’s faces a condescension and worse the reveals exactly what I’ve been talking about here. You on the left see us as bad, and we see you as possibly just fine, with bad ideas. Do you get this point, or not?