America is not the most powerful country, and until the scientists who perpetuate humanity's guilt in global warming present evidence of it, there is no reason that not believing in it is "crazy". Evolution is not fact either, it is a theory and you can believe as you wish.

I rest my case... again!

Oh, I understand the ideas. That's why I find it hard to understand why people *believe* them.

Then you don't understand them if you find it hard to understand why thousand millions believe it. So shut up until you get smart.

And, "half the world"? You think Republicans are representative of half the world? Have you really not understood the key point that America's political climate is a huge outlier? Way more right-wing than most of the rest of the developed world. Way more religious. Way more deluded.

I mean right in general. And there you go again, you're the archangel, and the Republicans are poor black sheep somehow irrationally lured in by Satan's daemons. Hail atheism.

However, if I interpret your phrase more literally, then actually I do agree that "half the world is wrong". I'd say the majority of the world is wrong. Nearly all of it in fact. Myself included. It's by understanding this that I'm motivated to investigate reality and find out good ways to become 'less wrong' in my worldview. If only more people would do this.

Get off your high horse. Your most powerful argument here are that rightists are baboons. You're not open-minded one bit.

I'm not asking about perfection. Do you really believe that no president has done a decent job since the 1800s? Not one?

I'm not too taught in American presidents, but George Washington basically violently got rid of British patronage, and the presidents in the 1700s began the campaign to plunder the Aboriginal Americans. But it only got worse and worse, so, not really, no.

Clearly, if someone can do a decent job at something, they must have been, as a simple matter of fact, qualified for that job. I'm having a hard time seeing how that could *not* be the case. Perhaps they just got extremely lucky and things worked out okay, despite them being inept? I suppose, in principle; but in practice the job of a president has too many contingencies, too many decisions that have to be made, for mere blind luck to pass muster. In a sitcom, sure, but in real life? Nah.

No, what you are saying is all irrelevant to the point of democracy - if the folk like, you're qualified, that's it, no more things to say. Nothing can really prepare you for ruling a country, anyway, as I said before.

Sarah Palin would have been disastrous as a president. Same for the vast majority of the Republican nominees. That's the whole point. Dancing around the choice of words to express that fact won't actually avoid or change that fact.

I'm not aware of Sarah Palin, but Republican Candidates this year, Rand Paul definitely was by far the best, before he has lached. Ben Carson and Donald Trump would be pretty good for America, but bad for everyone else. Bernie Sanders would be terrible for America, but better for everyone else. And H. Clinton is the worst of both worlds.

Second, if you want to know a real fact - Evolution is a theory and not a law (even if it is well evidenced).

Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a creationist? (Maybe I'm misremembering.) You realize that line is just creationist pap, eh?

What's wrong with you...why do you always gravitate towards the more complex and inevitably less logical. There's no need to link to a scientific or statistical formula to calculate diversity in the Presidential Election....it just requires simple elementary school arithmetic. Here I'll even do it for you!

Diversity in the GOP Presidential Race:
1 Women = Carly Fiorina
1 African American = Ben Carson
2 Latinos = Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
1 Indian-American = Bobby Jindal
5 Candidate with at least 1 immigrant parent - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump, and Rick Santorum
0 Jewish

Total GOP Diversity = 6

Diversity in the Democratic Presidential Race:

1 Women = Hillary Clinton
0 African Americans
0 Latinos
0 Indian-Americans
0 Candidates with at least 1 immigrant parent
1 Jewish = Bernie Sanders

Total Democratic Diversity = 2

Ratio between GOP and Democratic Diversity = 6/2 = 3. You should be happy I didn't even consider ideological or age diversity (it would have made the ratio even worse!!).

Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't.

Hey man, don't complain to me. You're the one who brought "numbers don't lie" into this. If you can't actually get the real numbers, that's your own problem.

Call me whatever you want. It does nothing to bolster your arguments.

Arrogantly assuming the high ground does nothing to bolster your arguments. So I guess we're in the same mud pit.

it's still fricken crazy to say that the Republican party is more diverse than the Democratic party.

Several different arguments debunking that subjective assumption have already been posted on this thread. Take a moment to consider, even the possibility, that you could be the crazy one in this equation.

If you want to make a crazy claim like that, you have every right, but I also have every right to point out just how crazy it is.

If you want to be an ass, you have every right. We also have the right to tell you you're being an ass.

only those who already are on your side will find any amusement of it

I hope they do, too. :-)

and those who are against you will just become more hostile in response to the arrogance.

More power to them. It makes my job easier, that's for sure. ;-)

And what is your job exactly? Ticking people off? This is borderline on a troll confession.

As a final note. The only one making unfounded arguments here is you. 90% of your posts consist of calling people crazy with only your own subjective viewpoint to back it, if even that.

You've made no case. All you do is call other people crazy and assume that you're right.

Edit:

Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a creationist?

You don't have to be part of a group to defend said group. Stop putting religious zeal into science. The irony is gut-wrenching.

"Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a witch?"

Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't.

Hey man, don't complain to me. You're the one who brought "numbers don't lie" into this. If you can't actually get the real numbers, that's your own problem.Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't.

He just gave you the real numbers. Right in front of your face. See? This is what we're talking about. You preach to us endlessly about facts,evidence,etc. Yet whenever we provide you with said things you ALWAYS deny them. Any fact that counters your viewpoint you ignore outright.

All your talk of intellectual honesty is just hypocrisy. You don't care about the truth, you care about your own viewpoint.

Edited 2/17/2016 02:03:08

Then why are you talking about them as if you are objectively and subjectively well informed about them?

This question, coming from you, who regularly talks about your opponents as if you know all about them, is priceless.

My answer to your question is that I read/heard just enough about them to figure out that they were very likely incompetent. Once I knew that, I had little interest in them any further. In short, I know just enough to know that they suck.

This should be evidence for anyone on the forum for how out of touch you are with America. You think the most hated Republicans in the field should be the nominee for the Republicans?

No. I really can't figure out how you can so frequently misread what I write.

You keep saying they!!! Who are "they"!!!

The word 'they' is what's known as a pronoun, whose meaning depends on the context of the words around it.

Give me a specific quote of a usage of the word 'they', and I'll identify who I mean in each instance.

This question, coming from you, who regularly talks about your opponents as if you know all about them, is priceless.

My answer to your question is that I read/heard just enough about them to figure out that they were very likely incompetent. Once I knew that, I had little interest in them any further. In short, I know just enough to know that they suck.

As someone who argued with both him and you, he shows 95% less smugness than you do. Anyhow, so you just went on "Are they openly Christian? Must be bad, then."? And/Or just listened to whatever your socialist friends said, they themselves might not doing research.

You're trying to make yourself sound "resourceful" - why waste your time reading when you get the general gist? If you did that with Iosif Stalin - "Joseph Stalin (/ˈstɑːlɪn/;[1] birth surname: Jughashvili; 18 December 1878[2] – 5 March 1953) was the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953." Seems fine to me, gets loads of unearned hate.

Don't argue about things in which you yourself have said that you didn't read much into it. It certainly doesn't make you look smart if you say "I think Iosif Stalin was just this guy, he ruled the Soviet Union for about 30 years, he was ok, I got the gist of things, I read enough, even if I didn't read much. His moustache was cool"

Edited 2/17/2016 02:22:05

Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a creationist? (Maybe I'm misremembering.) You realize that line is just creationist pap, eh?

1) I'm not a creationist (probably closer to deism).
2) So just want to clarify...are you saying that evolution is a law or do you accept that the scientific community still calls it a theory?

Wikipedia: "In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his book On the Origin of Species (1859)."

Wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired."

Evolution is a theory by scientific standards for theory formulation, because it is still being adjusted in accordance with new testable hypotheses and experimental results.

WCT, your ignorant.

*You're

I agree with the others. yer ignornt, and an ass

Also, where are my Palin quotes?

Give me quotes of Palin being crazy.

Contribute something useful to the discussion first. Or do your own homework. Google is your friend.

Wow, great comeback. Asked to back up something, says to do it yourself.

Then you don't understand them if you find it hard to understand why thousand millions believe it. So shut up until you get smart.

That getting smart idea. You might want to try it yourself. Your claim is a non sequitur.

And there you go again, you're the archangel, and the Republicans are poor black sheep somehow irrationally lured in by Satan's daemons. Hail atheism.

You know atheists don't believe in Satan or daemons either, right?

Get off your high horse. Your most powerful argument here are that rightists are baboons. You're not open-minded one bit.

... said the one trying to tell the other to "Get off your high horse." Hypocrisy doesn't suit you well.

That getting smart idea. You might want to try it yourself. Your claim is a non sequitur.

If you want to bring up logic fallacies, you're using fire-against-fire (and also, not even speaking English, come on. Speak English or Latin, but not in between.). And all you can say is essentially "you're dumb", where as you said yourself that you didn't read much into it and can't understand the appeal - you clearly need to read up on this stuff.

I don't like communism, nor socialism. I don't like left, nor authoritarianism. But I understand why folk like it. It's not amazingly hard - right is economic freedom, left is basically (kind of) free things, authoritarianism is safety, anarchism is freedom.

And there you go again, you're the archangel, and the Republicans are poor black sheep somehow irrationally lured in by Satan's daemons. Hail atheism.

You know atheists don't believe in Satan or daemons either, right?

Like Smedley said earlier, you're just as smug as the Christian fundamentalists. Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous it all is. And Christian fundamentalist says

Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous their "scientific discoveries" all are.

You're just as faithful and bigoted. You say that you think you could be wrong - clearly you don't - then accept that the other opinions may be right.

... said the one trying to tell the other to "Get off your high horse." Hypocrisy doesn't suit you well.

Said by Archangel Gavril here As I've said before in previous threads, I'm not primarily interested in changing the minds of whoever I'm responding to. I *am* interested in that, tangentially, but not primarily. Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous it all is., showing Muhammad the ways of Islam.

Find me one bit in this talk in which I say something like - I am making sure that the wrong stupid folk like you are getting taught the right ways, and turn the world a page better. Hypocrisy doesn't suit me well, that's why I rarely use it.

Edited 2/17/2016 05:18:20

it's still fricken crazy to say that the Republican party is more diverse than the Democratic party.

Several different arguments debunking that subjective assumption have already been posted on this thread. Take a moment to consider, even the possibility, that you could be the crazy one in this equation.

Done. Now you try.

and those who are against you will just become more hostile in response to the arrogance.

More power to them. It makes my job easier, that's for sure. ;-)

And what is your job exactly? Ticking people off? This is borderline on a troll confession.

It's kinda like trolling, but it's actually more like anti-trolling. In anti-trolling, you let the trolls expose themselves as trolls, without getting caught up in the trolling yourself. In this kind of exchange, I let people who make crazy claims expose their claims as crazy, without getting caught up in the craziness myself.

Reacting with 'hostility' and claims of 'arrogance' to someone who merely criticizes someone's claims as crazy is not really a good way to bolster those claims as not crazy. In fact, it kinda works the other way around. A *better* way to respond would be to counter the criticism with a good rebuttal, preferably with facts and evidence to support it, but sometimes just a good counter-argument suffices.

As a final note. The only one making unfounded arguments here is you. 90% of your posts consist of calling people crazy with only your own subjective viewpoint to back it, if even that.

I think the only one I've called crazy in this thread is Sarah Palin. (Could be wrong; I may have called some of the other "Sarah Palin" types crazy as well. I'm not bothered by the possibility; they are public figures after all.) I haven't called anyone participating in this thread crazy, though. If you think I have, I would appreciate you actually *quoting* me on that. I've called claims crazy, I've probably called some behaviour crazy, but I've not called any *people* here crazy.

So yeah, trying to argue that I'm the only one making unfounded arguments with an unfounded argument kinda backfires, if you ask me.

He just gave you the real numbers. Right in front of your face. See? This is what we're talking about. You preach to us endlessly about facts,evidence,etc. Yet whenever we provide you with said things you ALWAYS deny them. Any fact that counters your viewpoint you ignore outright.

I don't think you know how to measure diversity either, based on your response. That's my point there, and you're missing it.

All your talk of intellectual honesty is just hypocrisy. You don't care about the truth, you care about your own viewpoint.

When you can demonstrate that you've got a good grasp of intellectual honesty yourself (hint, your second sentence there violates it already), then maybe I'll start taking your critique of my own intellectual honesty seriously. Here's a quick intro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

it's still fricken crazy to say that the Republican party is more diverse than the Democratic party.

Several different arguments debunking that subjective assumption have already been posted on this thread. Take a moment to consider, even the possibility, that you could be the crazy one in this equation.

Done. Now you try.

That's it? All you have to say against that is, nah, I'm Archangel Gavril, God didn't make me crazy, despite all evidence otherwise. You should start an imamate with this bigotry.

It's kinda like trolling, but it's actually more like anti-trolling. In anti-trolling, you let the trolls expose themselves as trolls, without getting caught up in the trolling yourself. In this kind of exchange, I let people who make crazy claims expose their claims as crazy, without getting caught up in the craziness myself.

Yeah, since you definitely aren't crazy. You're just divinely right.

Reacting with 'hostility' and claims of 'arrogance' to someone who merely criticizes someone's claims as crazy is not really a good way to bolster those claims as not crazy.

No, calling someone else's outlook mostly unfounded-ly crazy is definitely worse than the reply that you are being hostile and arrogant. I mean, you're just bluntly refusing to accept that you could be wrong about anything here, and thinking that you're the one who has the divine answers here, and lights up us black sheep. And whether you intend it or not, that's pretty hostile.

In fact, it kinda works the other way around. A *better* way to respond would be to counter the criticism with a good rebuttal, preferably with facts and evidence to support it, but sometimes just a good counter-argument suffices.

Mate...you're the one making the ungrounded claim...don't try to teach your illness on. If insults like "crazy" are on, then expect some back - "hostile" and "arrogant" are pretty light, I'd say mentally insane, needs help right away?

I think the only one I've called crazy in this thread is Sarah Palin. (Could be wrong; I may have called some of the other "Sarah Palin" types crazy as well. I'm not bothered by the possibility; they are public figures after all.) I haven't called anyone participating in this thread crazy, though. If you think I have, I would appreciate you actually *quoting* me on that. I've called claims crazy, I've probably called some behaviour crazy, but I've not called any *people* here crazy.

You're calling the ideology that folk believe in crazy - a flaw of the antique Greek logic system is that it doesn't have a logic fallacy for this, insulting the opposing argument. I won't call you crazy, though, I'll just call all your brain's thoughts crazy. You are not crazy, no, it's just all your brain's thoughts are.

So yeah, trying to argue that I'm the only one making unfounded arguments with an unfounded argument kinda backfires, if you ask me.

Fire-against-fire, and no it doesn't - if you need evidence, see you saying that you didn't even read much into this, and that you are going to "guide us".

I don't think you know how to measure diversity either, based on your response. That's my point there, and you're missing it.

Well, it's just pretty much division by the population...what else do you want (already talked about your "qualifications")?

When you can demonstrate that you've got a good grasp of intellectual honesty yourself (hint, your second sentence there violates it already), then maybe I'll start taking your critique of my own intellectual honesty seriously. Here's a quick intro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

The second sentence may have been misphrased. You think your viewpoint must be the truth*, despite you saying otherwise, you're clearly confident though you haven't read much at all. That's just irrational bigotry, again. All intellectual frankness is thrown out the window here - you're basically unfoundedly calling other arguments "crazy", refusing to talk about some arguments against you, and refusing to believe that you could be wrong. Smedley's first comment hits it well: "Wct and people like him are why I hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me." I will often defend outlooks that are different than mine, mainly since dogmatists like you do their thing.

The most freedom (not counting the anarchy kind)? The best movie industry? The best tech/pharma industry?
Again this is very debatable, your military points and economy points ( although china is catching up) are valid but the rest is subjective

Evolution is not fact either, it is a theory and you can believe as you wish.
Theory in science means something which has been thoroughly tested over and over again and has overwhelmingly been shown right by experiments. Gravity is a theory, go jump off a cliff and see if its true