Why Do Leftists Hate FACTS?

@Abrienda This was said below:


You don't have time for conspiracy theorists, you said. Does that not imply that Gwangi's comment was a conspiracy theory?

You're first paragraph, from the last comment you gave me, is on topic, but I question it's legitimacy because of what you told me in the picture above. You say I called it a conspiracy, yet you imply that it's a conspiracy.

Everything after your first paragraph is another attempt to change subject. Fall back plan? 9/11? Einstein? What??? Be clear. All you say is "I have evidence" then share none of it, but rather change subject and place facts on that change in subject. If I were to say "I have evidence you are wrong about everything" you would rightfully ask me for proof. That is what I'm asking of you. And you provide nothing. All talk, but nothing to show.

But let's say you don't consider what Gwangi said to be a conspiracy theory. Then do you agree with what he said in his comment? I mean, it's one or the other. It's either a conspiracy theory or he is correct. Will you answer me that one question? Was it a conspiracy theory or was he correct?

In case you forgot, this is what Gwangi said:

@SW-User I delete bots, too.

How convenient! You decided to hide behind the "Bot" excuse right as you were left with a choice between admitting that what Gwangi said WAS a conspiracy or admitting that he is correct. Feeling cornered? Uses bot excuse. How convenient.

You think I'm a bot that is able to snip out exact moments in our conversations, take notice that you fail to answer all of my questions, are constantly avoiding them, AND can point out the irony in what you've said before regarding "filthy language"? Technology is much better than I expected! Don't play the bot card unless you are ready to lose all credibility from your own allies. You're changing subject again and avoided the question, yet again. And keeping only topics you feel you won. After all, even if I was a bot, you lose nothing from keeping this post up. Deleting this only makes you come off as cowardly from not wanting other people to see what you've said.

And you still haven't spoken about the conspiracy. Go ahead and hide behind deletion of comments. The moment you do, you've lost all credibility, including anyone who sees you delete these comments because you have no answer to them other than a change of subject, ad-hominem attacks, or assuming you're talking to a bot that can snip out conversations accurately, as well as have memory to find contradictions from your other comments that you always avoid. Because even if I were a bot, it doesn't change the fact that you can't provide evidence or answer questions directly. It's a sad excuse to hide behind and only reinforces my belief that you lack critical thinking skills. What makes you think I'm a bot? Or will you fail to explain that, too? Don't know how to post pictures like I did? It's called the "Snipping Tool" it's on all Windows computers after Vista.

@SW-User

Gwangi's comment was just another example of the vast left-wing conspiracy :)

And the strategy of that conspiracy is to pretend that there is a (vast) right-wing conspiracy :)

Haaaahaa ...

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwtkorQKGFE]

I think this was when we came to recognize Hillary's double-blink as the tattle-tale sign that she was laying on a well rehearsed and practiced lie.

@Heartlander Then we can all agree that Clinton is a bitch lol. I don't like her. I like Trump more than Clinton. Nonetheless, Abrienda and you STILL give NO evidence to what Gwangi said being a conspiracy. If anything, now it seems like you are both at odds. Abrienda just said that I was the one who proclaimed it was a conspiracy, which implies that she doesn't think it's one, while you say that it is. I mean, as much as I hate Clinton, she has nothing to do with this, unless you provide evidence that she does. If you don't, then don't bring up a 20 second video about what she says. And don't make this into some right-wing vs left-wing thing, either. That would be changing the subject. Just provide evidence if it's a conspiracy or not. That's it. That should be REALLY simple to do, if you already have evidence. And yet, no one is doing this.

Btw Abrienda, if I'm a bot, I can apparently also take notice that the video has Hillary Clinton saying "The great story here... *blah blah blah* is this vast right wing conspiracy that has been... *blah blah blah*" in black and white. Do you want me to say who the creator of the video is or what the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd comment says, as well? You will be amazed at how much bots can supposedly do! I'm surprised bots haven't ruled the world yet! Btw, at this point if you delete these comments, we can guarantee one person taking notice of how crazy you are regarding me being a bot. Please keep in mind that just as you jumped to conclusions about this, you could have made the same mistake politically or at the very least been wrong regarding Gwandi's comment. Oh wait, I mean Gwangi's* comment. Goddamn, I must be an amazing bot. I'm human enough to make mistakes, then correct them and am programmed to do it in a sarcastic manner? Technology never ceases to leave me in awe. So good, much amazing, wow (Look at that, the bot knows memes, as well).

I think I made my point about you jumping to conclusions, Abrienda. If not, WOW.

@SW-User

Bitch?

I don't think I have ever in my life referred to someone as a bitch. It's not my vocabulary. "Bitch", "cunt", piss". "asshole" are words popularized by leftists.

I believe the definitions of "collusion" and "conspiracy" overlap one another, and become almost the same when referencing colluding in secret.

Ecidence? By inductive logic. The sun will rise tomorrow morning in the East, not based on scientific proof but because it did so every morning for at least 10,000 years.

Clinton has everything to do with the current assault and insults that leftists are throwing at Trump, conservatives, Republicans and anyone that doesn't swallow the leftist bait. Had she won, leftists would instead be squabbling over how to distribute the spoils and the windfall of what they call "revenue" created by higher taxes.

@SW-User You need to take to heart your username. Your including messages to me while replying to someone else is neurotic. You are now only showing your intense insecurity.

Meaning you are a neurotic, insecure bot.

@Heartlander Changing subjects again. If you want to believe those words are words popularized by leftists, you can. Maybe you're right, but that's another discussion and one I frankly don't care about if it's true. So let's stick to the subject. The first sentence of the last paragraph is related to the topic. Inductive reasoning can lead to a true or false conclusion. I will use the same example spoken in my philosophy class on inductive reasoning: It is also inductive reasoning to believe that every rock in Mars is red. After all, every rock you pick up seems red... but that doesn't mean that this is necessarily true. If every Hispanic you came across appeared to be a dick, inductive reasoning would say that all Hispanics are dicks... but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. Inductive reasoning is a form of creating a valid argument, but isn't evidence that the result is correct. It is still an assumption. It's an EDUCATED assumption, but an assumption, nonetheless. But I thank you for at least being more logical about this. Because while it isn't evidence to Gwangi's comment being a conspiracy, it IS evidence to why you BELIEVE it is. Nonetheless, it's not concrete.

Abrienda, you lost all credibility. Now that you realize I'm not a bot and couldn't provide evidence to any of my or Gwangi's points, you're saying i should move on. But no worries, Abrienda, I don't care what you have to say unless it seems reasonable. Heartlander is more logical than you, right now. As of now, I only care for what he has to say. So no worries, I've moved on. Just please remember that it's OK to be wrong, as it means you've learned something new. If anything, it's reason to celebrate.

@SW-User

Mathematicians have a slightly stricter interpretation of inductive proof than philosophers :)

If what appears to be true for ANY number "n" and it can also be shown to be true for n+1, then that's proof enough to take to the bank.

The conspiracy/secret collusion between Trump and Russia hasn't come close to a logical conclusion. If anything it points to a collusion/conspiracy by leftist that fits their pattern.
You can't prove that all the rocks on Mars are red by hiding the yellow, brown and black rocks. And the leftist-leaning media can't prove that the moon is red by putting a red lens in their camera :)

@SW-User To continue the discussion about proofs and facts, I think we can make a case for leftists using non related facts in their arguments. Like when they start blaming rich people for the misery of poor people. Or when they start blaming our 2nd amendment for the school shootings. It's like they hide the non-red rocks on mars when they ignore the violent crimes and economic wastelands in our big cities so as to prevent anything but their interpretation of the world to grace top of our news hour or the front pages of the New York Times.

@Heartlander It's true mathematician inductive reasoning is a bit stricter than philosophers, but you're using the wrong form of inductive reasoning in this scenario. This isn't a mathematical concept, it's one regarding human actions. Math will always work under a set of rules, but humans don't. This is why there is a difference between what is considered logical in math and philosophy. Math is always consistent. So yes, in most cases, inductive reasoning is correct in math. But events that take place worldwide, is not consistent, especially if it relates to human action. It does not follow under the same set of rules as math does. Inductive reasoning in math should be used with numbers, not decisions made by individuals around the world. You are using the wrong tool for the wrong problem. It's like using a meter stick to figure out how much an object weighs.

Here's a simpler way to look at it. This is essentially your thought process, or at least from what I understand of it:
"Clinton was behind a bunch of conspiracies! And this looks like a similar pattern to Clinton's other conspiracies!" So far, this is a valid argument.

"Therefore, Clinton is behind all this!" This is an inaccurate conclusion. Why? Cuz your conclusion is an assumption. You BELIEVE she is behind all this but you cannot say for sure. Look at it this way, if your inductive reasoning is solely used to reach a conclusion, then anyone Clinton attacks is free to do whatever they want illegally and they could easily say that there scandal is simply another conspiracy. And anyone who only uses inductive reasoning would believe that 100%. Don't fall for it, so easily. Clinton has made plenty of lies in the past, but this doesn't mean that this is another one of her lies or if she is strung up in all this, to begin with. Politics is deception. Anyone can be fooling you to get out of a crime by putting the blame on her, cuz they know you would easily believe it. If the proof isn't concrete, we cannot jump to conclusions. Your premise is correct, as Clinton is a hell of a liar, but let's be fair and point fingers only once we are sure she also lied about this. We don't have the information that she is involved with this particular, possible conspiracy. Not at all, not even close. Inductive reasoning doesn't hold up all the time. It only means you have an argument that is worthy of being looked at, but it doesn't mean you are correct.

Or as livescience explains it:

https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

[b]Here's the important part[/b]

It can be incorrect. Just because you use inductive reasoning, it doesn't mean you are correct. But I agree, Trump and Russian collusion have not reached a logical conclusion, as of yet. This is why I am all for the investigation to continue. Nonetheless, I question what people think of why they believe this to be a conspiracy theory. I believe I understand why you think you do now, though.

I'd like to not get into the last paragraph, as it goes into another subject again. You can believe leftists are illogical, that's fine. Maybe they are. But for as long as it doesn't pertain to evidence of a conspiracy theory, it's irrelevant.

@SW-User

[quote]Clinton has made plenty of lies in the past, but this doesn't mean that this is another one of her lies or if she is strung up in all this, to begin with. Politics is deception. Anyone can be fooling you to get out of a crime by putting the blame on her, cuz they know you would easily believe it. If the proof isn't concrete, we cannot jump to conclusions.[/quote]

Haaa .... the practical side of inductive reasoning is the "birds of a feather" thing. Or the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...". And seriously, how different is Hillary's rhetoric about money, firearms, healthcare, etc. from Bernie Sanders' or the other parade of leftists trying to blame all the ills and misery of humanity on Trump and the rest of us non-leftists?

If leftists were seriously concerned about feeding the hungry, health care for all, and advancing equal opportunity for all, they would say so in simple terms. They don't. It's always in the context of misery and an associated blame for that misery ... and that blame always goes to non-leftist.

I believe in feeding the hungry, health care for all, and equal opportunity for all, yet I'm not a leftist. Leftist are so busy blaming me for all the world's misery that they will shout down my beliefs. Ahhh .... makes one think that what they really want is control.

@Abrienda Lets just all drink 🥂

🍷@bhatjc If only it were that easy. Besides I am very particular with whom I drink...