The Emperor has no clothes

[TSBU]

Im not trolling, i post basically cause im bored and i want to talk sometimes, even knowing its useles. And i expect to be readen, people read just by insctint, i do that too sometimes, and my posts usually have no direct relation with my interest in them. But it doesnf matter if people answer or not.
To be honest, i usually prefer if people dont talk to me.

[Walker]

More rationalized doublethinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymrBzgssSY8

[Walker]

The fact that one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of the United States was ignored for eight years and counting.

That's not a "fact". It's your opinion. And there are probably more people who disagree, than agree, with you.

Bush was an idiot. Trump is a fucking idiot. That's my opinion. And there are probably more people who agree, than disagree, with me.

It's all perspective... and yours isn't as clear and accurate and complete as you seem to like to crow about.

Opinion can be based in fact.
This is called rationality.
Plenty of facts in the OP.

Opinion can also be based in delusion.
This is called ignorance, which is also the basis of delusion.

No matter how neatly it may tie together in the noggin, sound reasoning based on a delusional premise is irrational.

[mickthinks]

Walker, Breitbart is an American (but fast becoming global) scandal. It is just about possible for an intelligent, honest philosopher to share an opinion here and there with the editorial team at Breibart. What is beyond all possibility is that such a philosopher could cite anything from Breitbart as authority for any opinion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Walker]

Walker, Breitbart is an American (but fast becoming global) scandal. It is just about possible for an intelligent, honest philosopher to share an opinion here and there with the editorial team at Breibart. What is beyond all possibility is that such a philosopher could cite anything from Breitbart as authority for any opinion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sorry, but that fails to refute a single instance of factual corruption enumerated in the OP, however it does offer insight into the ignorance of delusion.

Sad, this evidenced anemic level of inquiry, perhaps even of integrity.

You can do much better. Why? Because an idiot could do better than that, and you can do better than an idiot. Simple logic, speaking of which, ad hominem tops the list of logical fallacies not only alphabetically, but these days, also in usage.

It’s a favorite tactic of Progs, who studiously ignore the corruption, thereby promoting it.

Don’t continue the idiocy by further shaming yourself within a philosophical venue.

Ad hominem
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... em_Abusive

Have a nice day.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Walker, Breitbart is an American (but fast becoming global) scandal. It is just about possible for an intelligent, honest philosopher to share an opinion here and there with the editorial team at Breibart. What is beyond all possibility is that such a philosopher could cite anything from Breitbart as authority for any opinion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sorry, but that fails to refute a single instance of factual corruption enumerated in the OP, however it does offer insight into the ignorance of delusion.

Sad, this evidenced anemic level of inquiry, perhaps even of integrity.

You can do much better. Why? Because an idiot could do better than that. Ad hominem tops the list of logical fallacies not only alphabetically, but these days, also in usage.

It’s a favorite tactic of Progs, who studiously ignore the corruption, thereby promoting it.

Don’t continue the idiocy by further shaming yourself within a philosophical venue.

Ad hominem
Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... em_Abusive

Have a nice day.

Saying something that is true isn't an 'ad hominem'. Crying 'ad hominem' every time someone says something you don't like is known as the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.

[Walker]

Saying something that is true isn't an 'ad hominem'. Crying 'ad hominem' every time someone says something you don't like is known as the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.

In this specific case, the ad hominem is attacking the writer of the list, rather than addressing the facts, thereby willfully corrupting logic, rationality, sanity, and common decency, by erroneously implying that because some folks (targets of Brietbart) don't like Brietbart, then the list that is never addressed, the list enumerating the antics of a most and perhaps the most corrupt administrations in the history of the Constitution, is invalid.

Sometimes it's enough to make folks wonder if people actually think they're fooling people with that crap.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Saying something that is true isn't an 'ad hominem'. Crying 'ad hominem' every time someone says something you don't like is known as the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.

In this specific case, the ad hominem is attacking the writer of the list, rather than addressing the facts, thereby willfully corrupting logic, rationality, sanity, and common decency, by erroneously implying that because some folks (targets of Brietbart) don't like Brietbart, then the list that is never addressed, the list enumerating the antics of a most and perhaps the most corrupt administrations in the history of the Constitution, is invalid.

Sometimes it's enough to make folks wonder if people actually think they're fooling people with that crap.

You have a very odd perception of 'attack'.

[Lacewing]

Sometimes it's enough to make wonder if people actually think they're fooling people with that crap.

Well it's clear that you are fooled by your own crap.

You're presenting one isolated set of what you claim to be facts, in order to support your delusionally skewed (as usual) perspective. If you were honest and courageous, you would pull up the "facts" that speak against your delusionally skewed perspective. Presenting "one side or subset" does not provide a complete view of truth. That's why you're full of crap.

[Walker]

Saying something that is true isn't an 'ad hominem'. Crying 'ad hominem' every time someone says something you don't like is known as the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.

In this specific case, the ad hominem is attacking the writer of the list, rather than addressing the facts, thereby willfully corrupting logic, rationality, sanity, and common decency, by erroneously implying that because some folks (targets of Brietbart) don't like Brietbart, then the list that is never addressed, the list enumerating the antics of a most and perhaps the most corrupt administrations in the history of the Constitution, is invalid.

Sometimes it's enough to make folks wonder if people actually think they're fooling people with that crap.

You have a very odd perception of 'attack'.

This is the attack, for the authority is not Breitbart. The authority is factual history that can be corroborated elsewhere: factually, by factual opinion, however not by delusional opinion, because delusional opinion is not on par with factual opinion, just because both are opinions. That’s like calling Obama a golfer, and also calling Jason Day a golfer. Even the non-agenda driven-relativist would agree with this.

Walker, Breitbart is an American (but fast becoming global) scandal. It is just about possible for an intelligent, honest philosopher to share an opinion here and there with the editorial team at Breibart. What is beyond all possibility is that such a philosopher could cite anything from Breitbart as authority for any opinion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But you have to wonder. This close the event, and history is trying to be rewritten so soon. Orwell couldn't keep up with the conditioning.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

In this specific case, the ad hominem is attacking the writer of the list, rather than addressing the facts, thereby willfully corrupting logic, rationality, sanity, and common decency, by erroneously implying that because some folks (targets of Brietbart) don't like Brietbart, then the list that is never addressed, the list enumerating the antics of a most and perhaps the most corrupt administrations in the history of the Constitution, is invalid.

Sometimes it's enough to make folks wonder if people actually think they're fooling people with that crap.

You have a very odd perception of 'attack'.

This is the attack, for the authority is not Breitbart. The authority is factual history that can be corroborated elsewhere: factually, by factual opinion, however not by delusional opinion, because delusional opinion is not on par with factual opinion, just because both are opinions. That’s like calling Obama a golfer, and also calling Jason Day a golfer. Even the non-agenda driven-relativist would agree with this.

Walker, Breitbart is an American (but fast becoming global) scandal. It is just about possible for an intelligent, honest philosopher to share an opinion here and there with the editorial team at Breibart. What is beyond all possibility is that such a philosopher could cite anything from Breitbart as authority for any opinion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But you have to wonder. This close the event, and history is trying to be rewritten so soon. Orwell couldn't keep up with the conditioning.

Breitbart is hardly a fine example of objective investigative journalism.

[TSBU]

Sometimes it's enough to make wonder if people actually think they're fooling people with that crap.

Well it's clear that you are fooled by your own crap.

You're presenting one isolated set of what you claim to be facts, in order to support your delusionally skewed (as usual) perspective. If you were honest and courageous, you would pull up the "facts" that speak against your delusionally skewed perspective. Presenting "one side or subset" does not provide a complete view of truth. That's why you're full of crap.

He is full of you because he doesn't think like everybody? :O

[Lacewing]

He is full of you because he doesn't think like everybody? :O

I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you represent things honestly?

[TSBU]

He is full of you because he doesn't think like everybody? :O

I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you represent things honestly?

Everybody see his truth as facts, now you are doing it XD, but I'm being honest.

[Lacewing]

He is full of you because he doesn't think like everybody? :O

I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you represent things honestly?

Everybody see his truth as facts, now you are doing it XD, but I'm being honest.

What is it that you think I am doing, and why do you think that? I think you misunderstand a lot, which leads you to make wrong conclusions about people... further complicated by your confusing communication. I gave reasonable feedback to Walker based on the limited set of ideas he represented as facts leading to a lop-sided conclusion. Now how about if you stop making up your own stuff to wrongly accuse people of?