To all anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists

@SumKindaMunster It does nothing for me ego, it's just fun to dismantle facebook science.

And yes, I agree with you, being skeptical of a new vaccine isn't the same thing as being antivaxx. That's why I specifically said anti-vaxxers. 😉

@EuphoricTurtle Hm, well then if it doesn't do anything for you, why bother? I'm highly skeptical of that statement. If you didn't enjoy doing this, why would you spend such a significant amount of time on here constantly engaging and bickering with users with whom you disagree?


Excellent, well I am glad at least you agree with that.

@SumKindaMunster
I didn't say it didn't do anything for me, I said it does nothing for my ego.

I spend a significant amount of time doing so because I enjoy the conspiracy theories and trying to understand how and why some people are so willing to not only beleive them but hold them as fact without evidence.

If making comments and asking questions is "engaging and bickering" then I'm afraid that would mean you too are guilty of such a sin just by your comments. (Just to clarify, I don't think you're bickering).

@EuphoricTurtle Pfft, oh c'mon. What's the difference? Your ego is the sum of your personality, its the truest sense of yourself.


Really? That's not what I see. I see a guy who goes around demanding that others provide concrete, certified, left wing sanctioned studies and other "evidence", and if not forthcoming you start mocking and condescending the person's viewpoint.

That's not the behavior or words of a person looking to understand. That's insecurity, masked as authority as you demand the other person produce a study that satisfies your EGO, otherwise the person is to be dismissed as a crackpot.

@SumKindaMunster

You have to make up your mind. Either the ego is the sum of a persons personality and therefore doing something for the greater good is part of it OR it is possible to do something without it having anything to do with your ego.

Like I said before. I don't do it "in service" of my ego.. I do it because it's fun to pull apart bold claims supported on poorly constructed assumptions and lack of evidence and I am genuinely curious as to why people beleive the crazy shit.

As for what you see, I can't really help you with that. You know, from our long history, that whatever I defend I provide ample sources to substantiate. Is it so unfair that I ask others to do the same?

And yes, I'm afraid that you are a crackpot if you beleive without evidence (sans facebook) that;
- 5G causes covid
- the world is flat
- vaccines cause autism
and many more...

@EuphoricTurtle
I didn't contradict myself here and am wondering why you believe I did...


It's fair. However, that's not what I was calling attention to. It was your response when you don't get what you are asking for. You don't ask why the person feels this way and try to understand. You immediately either condescend and call into question the evidence provided or you ignore it and move on.

Nowhere have I seen you genuinely and sensitively ask where a person's beliefs come from.

You just want to distinguish yourself from said beliefs once you realize you disagree.

@SumKindaMunster

You contradicted yourself on you use of the term ego.
At first you referred to ego as something related to self-esteem (4)
And then you referred to it as a component of Freud's personality theory

If I say you're on fire it could mean different things.
You could be on fire playing trivial persuit or literally ON FIRE.

I replied to your sugestion that it could have something to do with a fragile ego, ergo self-esteem.

As for "getting what I want". Like I said I ask nothing more than I give myself. If I engage someone and talk about facts, supply sources which substatiate my arguments, the other party has (at least) two options.
1. Stick to "it's so because I beleive it is so" and dismiss any notion of facts and/or sourced evidence.
2. To counter my arguments with valid evidence, and once again...No...facebook doesn't count, and engage in a logical argument.

What they cannot do is make a bold claim, dismiss my sources without providing any of their own.

In terms of distinguishing myself from whatever beleifs others might have, that can be easily done with just one comment. Our first interaction was a thread of over 20 comments going back and forth as I tried to honestly understand you issue with foreign-born George Soros influencing politics but no problem with foreign-born Melania Trump being first lady. Do you really think it took me >20 comments to disagree with you or distinguish myself from your beleifs?

@EuphoricTurtle
Those aren't mutually exclusive, its a nebulous concept that has a lot of overlapping meanings and I did not contradict myself using it in 2 different comments. And no, using an idiom like "on fire" in different contexts is not the same thing.



No, but I never said it was a requirement to only reply once and once only to distinguish yourself. Again, my observation is about the meaning behind your behavior.

Why do you do this?

You say its because you want to learn and understand, I say its so you can distinguish yourself from those you disagree with, and put them down both subtly and overtly as a way to feed your ego and feel superior. You say it is to better learn and understand, but I really don't see that in your responses and behaviors.

@SumKindaMunster One refers to self-esteem and the other is their identity, these are indeed very different things.

And for the third time I'm replying to your question of "why do I do this".


Have I put you down in any way?

In this thread alone, you've hinted that;
I engage and bicker with people
I mock and condescend those who do not agree with me
that most people like me (whatever that may be)

And flat out said that my reasons come from;

Seems to me like you're the one making judgements here

@EuphoricTurtle
Source?

At times. You choose to speak in a condescending manner, and refuse to acknowledge my points many times now. You were totally wrong about what Flynn and Manafort were convicted of, and never bothered to acknowledge that, nor accept factual statements about what they were convicted of.


I am, no doubt about that.

@SumKindaMunster I gave you the whole defintion.

Here's the link:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ego#:~:text=the%20%E2%80%9CI%E2%80%9D%20or%20self%20of,from%20objects%20of%20its%20thought.&text=egotism%3B%20conceit%3B%20self%2Dimportance,Your%20criticism%20wounded%20his%20ego.

If it came across I was putting you down in any way then I can only apologize and assure you that was not my intention in any way. As for being "totally wrong" about what Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn were convicted of I honestly do not remember but if you have the link to that thread I'll gladly go back and conceed to anything I got wrong. I'll try to find it.

As for making judgments, cool, that's fine by me.

@EuphoricTurtle No offense but that doesn't contradict my usage of the term. Both times I used it correctly, not sure why you are insisting on this. It's a nebulous concept and I refute your notion it is an either/or type of concept.


I don't believe its an either or proposition. Everything after the OR statement is not contradicting what came before it.


You don't owe me an apology. I'm not a baby who needs swaddling because you said something condescending. From my perspective, we are just talking. I'm not upset.

Thanks for the thought though.


Great!

Have a good New Year if I don't talk to you.

@SumKindaMunster Thanks, have a good new year too.

Beleive it or not, I always enjoy our discussions 😉👍

@EuphoricTurtle I do too. I appreciate your persistence, most people on the internet are wishy washy babies who run away the moment you challenge them to defend their beliefs and opinions. I like being challenged. I get better at debating with every experience I have.

@SumKindaMunster For once we completely agree with each other. 😄