Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[Dill]

(10-17-2022, 05:23 PM)Quote:No, JUST SAYING I am "partisan" because I think Tulsi not that smart and you think she is, is not specification. Wrote: What I'm saying is that, to me, she is obviously not unintelligent to the degree that finding her so makes me question the motives of the person making that claim.  You have shown yourself to be firmly entrenched on the far left, to the point that I honestly can't recall a position you hold that could be considered right of center (even in Europe).  This logically leads me to conclude that your issued with Gabbard, i.e. finding her "unintelligent", is, at the very least to a significant extent, based on her political leanings.

Why didn't I find McConnell "unintelligent" then, based on his political leanings, given that I have shown myself "firmly entrenched on the far left"? 

It's because I posited standards of knowledge, competence and judgment independent of right or left, and which could be met by either side. And I then applied them to statements Gabbard actually made, as I did to McConnell's statements and actions, coming to a different conclusion in her case because of a difference in quality.

She went Republican because it's the Dems who "weaponize the security state." It's a fact she said that, not my subjective impression. And the validity of such claims can be tested against factual, not subjective, grounds.

But you discard the argument I actually made to "logically" conclude that my beef must solely be with her "political leanings," not what such poor and factually ungrounded judgement reveals about her low ability to assess political events and positions. 

You argue from my political stance to claim that is what I am doing to Gabbard--i.e., arguing from her political stance to a desired conclusion, according to no other standard.

And anyway measurement of intelligence is all "subjective" you say. Except it is "objective" enough for you not only to decide which pols are smarter or dumber, but also to claim those who disagree with your assessments lose "credibility."  How could they, unless assessment of some objective state of affairs were at stake?  Without some independent measurement, no one's "opinion" is any more credible than anyone else's.

And from that you conclude that I--the guy working to set judgment on politically neutral standards that are not merely subjective--am "not reasonable enough to even attempt a discussion."