Behind any pathological delusion there is one or more pathological lies. To find the pathological liars, one could search for who benefits from the pathological delusions. A similar analysis applies to "deep" thoughts. So behind both categories, there are pathological liars, who use the pathological delusions, and "deep" thoughts groupings as vehicles to achieve their objectives.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Poll: Are Far Right ideologues brilliantly deep thinkers or pathologically delusional
- Thread starter Brass
- Start date
Quote from Brass:
Submitted for your consideration:
1. Most Far Right ideologues dismiss the scientific community's overwhelming acknowledgment of evolution. Instead, these Far Right ideologues abide by the beliefs of the relatively very few and unremarkable proponents of alternative theories, who lie on the fringe of the scientific community.
2. Most Far Right ideologues dismiss scientific community's overwhelming acknowledgment of climate change. Instead, these Far Right ideologues abide by the beliefs of the relatively very few and unremarkable proponents of alternative theories, who lie on the fringe of the scientific community.
3. Most Far Right ideologues dismiss the idea that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, even though the historical evidence and the most notable economists and experts in matters financial readily acknowledge that, for all intents and purposes, tax cuts do not in fact pay for themselves. Instead, these Far Right ideologues profess an alternative theory relying on an indoctrinated belief with no meaningful basis in historical fact.
4. Most Far Right ideologues dismiss the notion of separation of church and state, even though the overwhelming historical evidence clearly states otherwise. Instead, these nuanced Far Right ideologues propose to delve into the minds of the founding fathers and what they were supposedly thinking at the time rather than what they had actually said and written.
And so, against this background, the question is: Are these Far Right ideologues smarter and more intelligent that all of the various renowned experts in their related fields, or are these Far Right ideologues well and truly pathologically delusional?
Good grief, now it is time for one of your stupid "I hate the far right" threads. Next up is is one of your idiotic polls. Aren't you capable of coming up with a topic that will spur serious debate? I can't believe people waste their time on this tripe. Bored, I suppose.
This IS a poll. As for serious debates, you couldn't identify one in a lineup, so what would be the point? I have gone down that rabbit hole too many times over the years at ET to take it seriously any longer given the general vacuity of response. There was a time I remember when the debates were legitimate. That time has passed. The other side of most reasoned arguments is now just too fringed out to be worth the bother aside from occasionally poking a stick at stupid.Quote from budcampbell:
Good grief, now it is time for one of your stupid "I hate the far right" threads. Next up is is one of your...polls. Aren't you capable of coming up with a topic that will spur serious debate? I can't believe people waste their time on this tripe. Bored, I suppose.
Quote from jem:
even in a twisted English way - which is what you jokingly implied... there is no fucking way can you say that.
Because cooling precedes the de accumulation of the CO2 as well.
Replying to two of your posts here:
Is it true that any and every tax cut would necessarily cause economic growth (and so an increase in overall tax revenue)?
Why are greenhouses (no joking answer this time, please) warmer inside than outside? Why are double-paned greenhouses warmer than single-paned greenhouses?
Quote from Brass:
This IS a poll. As for serious debates, you couldn't identify one in a lineup, so what would be the point? I have gone down that rabbit hole too many times over the years at ET to take it seriously any longer given the general vacuity of response. There was a time I remember when the debates were legitimate. That time has passed. The other side of most reasoned arguments is now just too fringed out to be worth the bother aside from occasionally poking a stick at stupid.
As usual you said nothing, absolutely nothing of substance outside of the usual insults and antiquated reasoning outside of your pet, narrow topics. Face the facts, the world is rapidly changing, leaving you behind as a relic.
Warming precedes CO2 increase most of the time in the past. This is due to orbital variations.
But, and this is the big but that jem and others seem unable to acknowledge, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so if CO2 goes up like it has been, so will temperatures. Why the deniers cannot see this is beyond me.
But they can't even grasp evolution which is an even better established, proved and agreed on by virtually all biologists. One truly has to be major idiot not to believe in evolution, thus it's not surprising they would not get GW either.
But, and this is the big but that jem and others seem unable to acknowledge, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so if CO2 goes up like it has been, so will temperatures. Why the deniers cannot see this is beyond me.
But they can't even grasp evolution which is an even better established, proved and agreed on by virtually all biologists. One truly has to be major idiot not to believe in evolution, thus it's not surprising they would not get GW either.
There's a reason you're still posting:Quote from budcampbell:
As you resort to one-liners when nothing else will work, running out of what little logic you possess to begin with.
Quote from Thunderdog:
One of the pitfalls of engaging an imbecile in an exchange of any kind, is that he doesn't even know when he has been eviscerated. Hence the expression, "He's too dumb to die."