Data does not lie. Republicans deliver and believe more BS than the Democrats

Well, I guess I look at tax credits as being a benefit of being married with children. Those not able to have children don't get the same credits/benefits.

I remember the days when it paid (literally) for people to have more children if they were on welfare (government benefits). Of course marriage wasn't a requirement. This might have been one time the government didn't get into the marriage question.

 

Your anecdotal experiences don't prove anything.

I could play the same game with progressive ideologies. The idea that gun control laws reduce violence, that progressives believe systematic racism exists, the claim that Trump told people to drink bleach, or that January 6th was an insurrection.

None of which is true.

 

You just don't get it. If you want to put Fascists on one end of left/right political spectrum all totalitarians must be there with them.
Think it through.

Try again: Bolshevik Revolutionary Communists were labelled Fascists by "scholars".
Were the "scholars" right?

 

Confirmation bias is typically wed to anecdotal experience. It trips many people up because they usually won't look for it.

 

Anecdotal experiences is what differentiates an opinion from knowledge. If you lived it over and over again, it becomes knowledge. If you did not live or experience it, it is simply an opinion.

Life is all about knowledge. You study for it, you practice and live it and it makes you knowledgeable about it. Would you rather go to a doctor that is experienced at his craft or go to one that just studied or simply read about it?

Oh, and by the way, his forum is not about "proving" anything because the people I have met here, care very little about the difference between fact and fiction. They are looking for confirmation of their beliefs and not looking to knowledge or what is real.

 

My responses have been very consistent and well supported.
Have Communist governments deemed "absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition"?

 

It looks like OP was susceptible to that BS article he shared.
Doing the SAME things he accuses conservatives of.
Can these guys get anymore sad?

 

Substantive rebuttal works better than evasion.

From your source: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum."

Hence my question: "Have Communist governments deemed "absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition"?"

Please try to answer it.

 

Tell me, did Stackelberg ever define what he means by equality and inequality? Did he also define "absolute equality"? Equality of outcome? Equality of opportunity? Equality under the law? All of the above? What definition was he using?

 

I asked if Stackelberg defined it. Not what wiki says about it. You keep quoting him yet we don't even know what he meant by those things. Don't you think it would be helpful to know what his definitions were? We can't assume that he meant whatever it is Wiki says about it.... Or at least I won't. Context matters.

 

Yet it was CNN and MSNBC who lost over 80% of their viewership and tanked to ratings below Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Channel.
An then the left lost their Twitter megaphone
But if you really want to compound it even more, isn't it the left who has egg on their faces for the thousands of criminal claims against Trump with ZERO indictments over 7 years?
Making him the most exonerated citizen in US history.
You're right, the data don't lie.

 

Trying to apply your anecdotal experiences to an entire population isn't knowledge. Its bias.

 

I'm not deflecting at all. I'm asking a serious question. I know nothing of Stackelberg. Why are you so hesitant to answer the question? You're quoting him so you must know about him. Surely it'd be easy enough for you to provide an answer as someone who is apparently knowledgeable about him?

 

I'm not the one quoting the guy. You are. You are supporting him. The onus is on you. Not me. Besides, I did look up the name. Found about 20 different Roderick Stackelberg references. Facebook, Gonzaga University, a German, Kent State University Press, Linkedin and more. Since I don't know the guy how am I supposed to know who you're talking about out of those people? If its even any of them that I saw. So...going to answer the question? Or just keep deflecting? I'm not going to do anymore research as the onus is on you anyways. How can any discussion be had if you refuse to provide context? Or are you just one of those people that just shouts down and keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over to anyone that dares to question you?

 

The data doesn't lie. This thread has been an exercise in partisan confirmation biased thread failure.

 

So, you're not going to answer the question. You're just going to ignore your responsibilities and keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again. Fine. You're not worthy of any more of my time. But I do find it funny that a person that visits a debate forum... refuses to debate or back up his/her stances. @FatBack is correct.... "This thread has been an exercise in partisan confirmation biased thread failure."

 

And this "study" is real? Because you have experienced its findings?

 

Knowledge by itself doesn't prove anything. It is open to interpretation and thus can be erroneous.

When you look at a doctor's diploma hanging on their wall, do you have knowledge of what type of student he/she was? Getting a medical license doesn't require straight As throughout their academic life. It just requires a passing grade.

Have you've never had the experience of thinking you knew something only to discover you were wrong?

 

Ironically enough I cannot see the post of the person you are replying to, thus further confirming I made a good decision.

 

He did post some information from a link the other day proving that "men" can get pregnant.

Anyone who actually believes that has no business berating others knowledge base.

 

Knowledge, then, appears to be flexible.

Facts are influenced by our knowledge. As our knowledge grows, the facts can change. I'm more interested in truth.

 

What do you expect from people that cower in their houses from a sickness with a 99.7% survival rate.

 

then he hilariously invoked "mother nature" in a later post.

Laughed my head off.

 

So, a liberal report states Data does not lie . . .

 

All I see is Extremist Left Wing Wacko's promoting left wing propaganda data stating if you don't believe crap like they do, then you are a right wing wacko who is worse at distinguishing truths and falsehoods.

This is atypical Left Wing Propaganda and agenda they push. Their think tanks are working overtime to fool the sheep.

Same thing happens with Extremist Right Wing wackos as well, so all is good in warfare, but this is absolutely deplorable for Left Wing Sheep to lump all right wingers as being uneducated and misinformed.