10-22-2022, 08:45 PM
(10-22-2022, 07:23 PM)Dill Wrote: You are explaining your standard—“Laughable.” That’s the test you use. It’s a pretty weak peg upon which to hang all posturing and positioning to avoid the other option.
Noooooo, it's the word I chose to use to describe my assessment of your position. It has no more, or less, weight than that.
Quote:That other option is to agree on standards that are independent of personal/political orientation. These can include values. Then agree on statements made by each woman which can be evaluated with respect to actual events and facts we also can agree are not just “perception.” E.g. the mar a lago raid was not a Biden weaponization of the DoJ but the National archives legal action to recover stolen records.
Nooooo, we can't agree on your standards for a subjective opinion. Probably because it's, you know, subjective and I find your assessments "laughable".
Quote:Assertions about “intelligence” then become testable, measurable just as meeting or failing to meet legal standards is measurable. And we leave the simple opinion/fact dichotomy of high school arguments, with its attendant confusion of judgments of fact with judgments of value.
Lots of words to say nothing here. I see why you like Harris' word salads, you're quite the chef in that regard yourself.
Quote:You don’t seem familiar with this option. I see no evidence that you understand when value judgments aren’t simply personal opinion. But you do sense the danger when fact can condition “perception.” (That’s why you called gabbard’s public statement a “subjective dill opinion”.) There is a safety in perceptionland, where you can claim all perceptions equal, but some more than others, without accountability. Smears and sneers replace reasons.
I see no evidence that you aren't just attempting to build a position that only benefits your point of view. Odd how different perspectives play into subjective arguments, is it not? As to your assertion that there are "smears" in my position but not yours, well that's simply par for the course for old Dill. It's ok when Dill does it, but no one else. You come across as a hyper partisan actor who is completely unaware of their status.
Quote:Someone who so frequently speaks for the group should know—I’m not the only one in the forum who knows and prefers the accountability option.
Yeah, more aspersions to deflect from your soft as Sponge Bob argument. You find solace in the hivemind and assume it lends your arguments validity. As I've said before, I'd expect a person of your age to have progressed past that type of sophomoric thinking.
To summarize, I acknowledge my assessment of Harris and Gabbard's intellect to be solely my subjective opinion. You declare your assessment objective fact. Yet you somehow feel justified in claiming an odd sort of victory. It's honestly a bit sad and desperate on your part.
