socalfitness saidWhen I read from the OP in above messages that the responses to questions from liberals who share his same politics were intelligent, but the responses from conservatives were generally defective, my first impression was the OP was not as objective to dissenting views as he indicated. Then I realized he had been recently interacting with riddler78. I saw these recent messages, but did not read them, so obviously I cannot make a definite comment. I do know from past messages, that riddler78 provides an intelligent articulation of conservative positions, backed up with significant facts further backed up by resource references. Unless riddler78 has changed, I suspect the OP was not open to an intelligent conservative discussion, further suggesting to me he does not have the objectivity he claims and probably believes that he has.
I do emphasize this is only an impression because I have not read those recent messages from the OP and riddler78. I do suggest to any of my conservative friends who may be considering spending the time here, look at both profiles to see common recent threads, read the interactions and decide if you want to get involved here.
Bad dog! (swats nose)
I did not
say responses were "generally defective " so stop it. You are doing right there what I am talking about. You have fabricated a dishonest rewording
of what I said, and react to that
The post was worded carefully, so your misreading of it feels willful. If that is indeed the case - that is precisely my point.
I am talking about disingenuousness.
That is a disingenuous response.
I did not want to, but it seems I need to be specific with people:socal fitness:.
8/10 - 90% of the time.
You always present a consistent perspective. When asked a question, you will argue your position convincely, but only after a preliminary deflection. If the deflection does not deter someone from pressing, you will then show your work, but it is cluttered with editorial adjectives. Stripped of the partisan adjectives , your points are good.
When you do an Initial post (any new statement not responding to a question), what you write has been well thought out. your responses are well crafted and do not show sloppy thinking. I may not always like the conclusion you reach, (because we are starting from diametrically different worldviews), but I understand the reasoning, and it is consistent with your previous statements.
You believe what you write, and only write what you believe. When asked a question, you answer in the pattern I decribed, and I am generally always satisfied with your response.
You avoid extreme characterizations, but you editorialise too much. Not everything needs a describing word that tells us how you feel about THAT particular subpoint. It is secondary and redundant as its "undesirability" decriptor is implicit by it being mentioned at all.
In a Response Post, then, strip as many "loaded" adjectives as you can before you hit the final post. It makes the logic clear and inarguable when you really edit it down, as every adjective isbecomes point of possible derailment
for both YOU and deflection
, in response. Skip that step - it wastes time and impedes the productive flow of discussion.
My main issue with your posts is when reading others' posts, I feel you ascribe characterisations that are just not there
.. To illustrate:notice above I did not
say "a preliminary " lazy deflection", or a "humorous" deflection, or "aggressive" deflection. I did not characterise it in any way, I mention it without any adjective.
It would be much more productive were you to take a moment to be sure you are reacting to what was written, without mentally inserting adjectives that aren't there to keep yourself on point and progress the discussion.
In summary - I I read you, have interacted with you, and a ultimately get an answer but there is a tedious dance first.
offers good insight in conservative analytical thought but it takes a lot of patience.mocktwinkie: 9/10 - 50% of the time
Very consistent perspective. Initial Posts are well stated, and are pretty rarely apparently meant only to be provocative. You have a 50-50 chance that when asked a question or a follow-up, he will answer directly,fully and argue his position convincely. Generally avoids extreme characterisations.
It can be very satisfying to have a discussion with mocktwinkie .
Sincere, he believes what he writes and does not waste his own time.
The main impediment to discussion is he will seize upon any word as a means of drailment and willful avoidance of answering. and will will waste your
time with minor tangential deflections that become tiresome, rather than just acknowledge "OK, I cannot really reconcile that.
One question gets answered but a subsequent question is rarely answered .
mocktwinkie presents conservative summary perspective, but not analysis.