Believing in experts

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 05:56 PM)Leon Wrote: if your such a free thinker and aint programmed how come i never see you challenge pally or ludicus or dill on the things they say? thats weird how that never happens, like me. ive challenged folks on here on religion and trump even though i agree with them on most other stuff. why dont you do the same with the folks i mentioned. i cant find any post of yours challenging them even though they are wrong about a lot of things. you have no problem disagreeing with me on every time i say something

Um, Bels is a big 2nd Amendment supporter. I'm a gun owner too, but have disagreed with his stances on that issue, for example. 
And other consequences, like the Rittenhouse case in Wisconsin. But you are relatively new, so you've missed that. 

But he's going to agree with me on most major issues--the Russia investigation was not a "witch hunt," Trump earned his impeachments,
attempted a coup, and would be a national disaster if re-elected, science is a good thing and ought to be the basis of health policy, etc. 
So that's why you don't see him "challenge" me. Or Pally or Lucidus.

Same reason you don't challenge SSF or Luvnit--you mostly agree with them. You have much in common as  you
all feel threatened by something Fox defines as "the left." 

Also, we are not "wrong about a lot of things" just because you say so. You claim to know what's what, without being able to argue your case with adequate support on a number of issues, most of the time without demonstrating you even understand the issue at hand--while claiming to know more than others.

Bels probably has no problem disagreeing with you for the same reason I don't:
You repeat disinformation and don't demonstrate claims you make. 

When people offer you clear reasons and ground for what they believe and why, you simply dismiss it as a lot of words,
as you just did when Bels explained how he sorts articles on science issues. He was trying to show people how he arrives
at conclusions, and doing that in an open and transparent way. That way, if there were a flaw in his method, people could
point it out. That's the OPPOSITE of someone claiming, authoritarian style, to know "the WORD," so end of argument.