One Farmers point of view

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Let's not bother, I haven't got time to waste on keyboard warriors trying to prove their manhood!

Meaningful and dispassionate analysis is king. It's never about the individual, it's always about the underlying facts.
Running away doesn't make underlying facts disappear - but it will avoid individuals being forced to face them or acknowledge them, I suppose, - metaphorically sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting lalalalalallalalallalalalalala tells its own story.

 

[mudman]

Well, let's analyse, shall we?

When someone says I've noticed a lot of "this" in right wing thinking.... This doesn't say whether "this" is prevalent in any measure in any other type of thinking, or whether it is entirely absent.

Assuming from the original post that "this" is entirely absent from other's thinking is just plain wrong. It reflects your personal interpretation and not the intent of the writer.
So to object to the writer on the grounds of your probable misinterpretation is not tackling the writer's post. At all.

Yes let's analyse it but to do so properly, we really need the entire comment.

If you like getting a kick out of yet another conspiracy theory just don't drink any milk!
Don't worry about the rest of us.
Your little chap in the vid is not very convincing, have you got anything scarier or more comical to show us?
Why are conspiracy theories such a feature of right-wing "thought"?

If you like getting a kick out of yet another conspiracy theory just don't drink any milk!

The first sentence is a bit of nonsense, the way he has written it is to say that refraining from drinking milk will enable one to enjoy a new conspiracy theory. He should have been more specific, maybe 'If you are worried by the latest conspiracy theory, then don't drink any milk'. Most likely a poor attempt at facetiousness.

Don't worry about the rest of us.

This is referring back to the first sentence and implies that he considers himself to be a part of a group that do not share a belief in the conspiracy theory and will continue to drink milk. It is difficult without hearing the inflection of the poster's spoken word but it does seem to be in a rather sneering vein. Knowing the poster's usual jeering attitude to others that don't share his views, I think this is well founded.

Your little chap in the vid is not very convincing, have you got anything scarier or more comical to show us?

This starts off with a rude attack on the video maker but the rest can be said to show that he finds the subject of the video and hence the object of his attack, the original poster of the video, risible and contemptible.

Why are conspiracy theories such a feature of right-wing "thought"?

So, that brings us to the final sentence. I have already said that he is showing contempt for the conspiracy theory, and that he believes himself to be of a group that shares his beliefs. As we know, this particular chap is a member of those that are on the left of the political spectrum and so we can conclude that he feels that those 'on the left' will share his point of view. It may have been that originally he was only talking about this particular theory, but, he then goes on to talk about conspiracy theories, (in the plural) and then maintains that it is a common feature of those on the right, and I think we can say he means most or even all, of those. But the important point is that as he feels that the others in his group, the left, will share his view, this implies that he thinks it is only a feature of right wing thought that manifests such beliefs.

So, I would say that it is perfectly reasonable to maintain that the poster does indeed think that it is only right wingers that would believe such theories.

And yes, this is a personal interpretation, but isn't all of this?

 

[ey_tony]

Meaningful and dispassionate analysis is king. It's never about the individual, it's always about the underlying facts.
Running away doesn't make underlying facts disappear - but it will avoid individuals being forced to face them or acknowledge them, I suppose, - metaphorically sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting lalalalalallalalallalalalalala tells its own story.

Whatever you say!

 

[selectortone]

Let's not bother, I haven't got time to waste on keyboard warriors trying to prove their manhood!

Physician, heal thyself!

 

[artie]

So you didn't understand that I did make an obvious point?
That's not on me.

To spell it out for you: I was asking you to be guided by "your own previous words"?
(Which would then contradict the point that you were trying to make!)

Try it here:



On the one hand you appear to disagree with experts in their own fields of expertise, claiming absolutely incorrectly before and later that this is "Argument from Authority" and therefore is fair game to disagree with - and go on to say that you think someone being paid for research is a "shill".


Then, on the other, you later propose that:



After claiming <just above> that experts can freely be disagreed with (because "Argument from Authority" and "knob heads with a degree"), you then suggest that a panel of experts might be a positive step...? facepalm.
And then suggesting that "we" could pay some experts -
- wouldn't that make them "shills"?

On a broader level, there is the fundamental misunderstanding that "why have a government?" (LOL), while at the same time suggest that "we" pay some experts. Oh, I don't know, maybe some kind of collective body which gathers payment from all citizens (maybe government could do that?) such that selected individuals or groups don't pay researchers for the answers that they want to receive - which would be more like, oh, let's think, oh yeah, the TOBACCO industry. facepalm.


I won't actually do this but your contradictions and points make me want to ask you whether you are eight years old, such is what your argument might appear to be from an onlooker's perspective.

I checked back, I think it's six days since you contributed to this thread.
I don't know where you've been in that time or what you've been smoking, but your attitude and reasoning ability have not improved.
Have a nice day.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I checked back, I think it's six days since you contributed to this thread.
I don't know where you've been in that time or what you've been smoking, but your attitude and reasoning ability have not improved.
Have a nice day.

I'll freely tell you that I have not been on the forum - at all - in the past 6 days. Why is that of any significance? Answer - it isn't. facepalm.

Now it's over to you - you're turn - now you can describe (unless you are not able) how you're thought process works (or not) going from one viewpoint to the exact opposite in one easy step:

Your viewpoint one is represented by:
Experts can be disagreed with - my own opinion is just as valid; <which now gets a hearty guffaw from me>
"Argument from Authority" (although you clearly got this wrong as is evidenced above);
Your disdainful quote "Knob head with a degree";
Your characterisation of scientific/biology researchers as "paid shills".

Your viewpoint two is represented by:
A panel of experts being a potentially positive idea (as opposed to your viewpoint one consisting of "knobheads with degrees" being "paid shills" and providing "Argument from Authority");
That somehow "we" could pay for research answers (as opposed to paid researchers being paid shills as well as the other insults)
That "why do we even have government" (if not to collect the funds to pay for research? or if not all of "we" are paying for the independent unbiased research how to avoid lobby group research the likes of which the tobacco industry used to indulge themselves of)


Go ahead and let us know how you justify these two absolutely crystal clear mutually contradictory viewpoints. It ought to be entertaining or interesting in some measure, maybe both?

If nothing else, at least I am entertaining myself here, and find it very amusing to witness this contortion of beliefs and (mis)understandings unfold.

Maybe it is a possibility that you forgot what you believed in only 6 days ago? And this is why you mention my absence of less than a week to justify your lack of consistent viewpoint? I dunno - this is your opportunity to set me straight on what you actually meant with those contradictory viewpoints - and maybe the joke will be on me. In which case I will happily join in the laughter at you laughing at me.

 

[artie]

and maybe the joke will be on me. In which case I will happily join in the laughter at you laughing at me.

No I would never laugh at you.

As you say you are entertaining yourself and that's ok but I'm not playing.

Have a good day.

 

[Sideways]

Locked.