GOP insanity spinoff: UP interviews lagtight

[Cactus]

Why’s it funny? People declaring that they’ll continue holding a view even when it’s shown to be wrong is no laughing matter

[pvn]

@Cactus

Why’s it funny? People declaring that they’ll continue holding a view even when it’s shown to be wrong is no laughing matter

because the person posting that stuff is not “associated” with it. He’s posting on an internet forum using a screenname. He’s not suffering reputational damage.

[Melkerson]

@Cactus

But when people refuse to accept facts (and these people vote), don’t you think it’s in our interest to figure out why?

I think those who would tell you not to engage with him would say that we have a pretty good idea of why already. No further clarity on that issue will be forthcoming.

[Cactus]

So what would you say the difference is between rejecting all evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and rejecting all evidence that Trump is a liar and lifelong fraudster?

Should we differentiate?

[lagtight]

@bigt2k4

@Cactus

This is nothing to be proud of

He’s happy to live inside his bubble and pretend he’s right. The outside world is scary, deep down he knows there’s a very high chance everything he’s told himself is wrong and his whole world view is a lie. However, he has learned how to separate and ignore things that go against his world view and not think about them too much so he no longer is threatened by anything he is faced with as he can just compartmentalize it as being a separate thing he doesn’t have to think about. It’s easy: bible is right, God is good, that’s all that matters.

‘Psychological reductionism is the last refuge for someone without an argument.’ - Dennis Prager

[lagtight]

@clovis8

Why did you all keep falling for lqgtight? He is fucking with you. It’s so obvious. Stop giving him what he wants.

I would like to encourage y’all to pay no heed to clovis8’s advice and instead keep giving me ‘what I want.’ Thanks.

[lagtight]

@Cactus

I don’t think so. There’s a type of brainwashing that causes victims to wear their ignorance as though it’s a badge of honor. It’s appropriate this got brought up in the GOP Insanity thread. When you try to reason with a MAGAt and point out their demonstrable errors in logic or facts, you often get the same thing

No reasonably intelligent person would ever admit to, or want to be associated with such an ignorant comment as the one lagtight posted. There’s a reason these people take such stubborn pride in being wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Learning how to deal with them might be important although I have no idea how when they tell you point blank that they are immune to reason and logic. Do we write them off as hopeless even as they impact our elections, laws, civil rights, and society in general?

1. I guess I’m at least fairly articulate for someone who is not “a reasonably intelligent person.” That certainly makes me an overachiever given that I earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Cal State Fullerton (1982) and taught part-time for a few years at two community colleges (1982-1990).

2. I only share opinions that I truly in my heart-of-hearts believe to be true.

3. I doxxed myself several years ago in the “other forum” several years ago. Same SN as here.

[lagtight]

@Cactus

But when people refuse to accept facts (and these people vote), don’t you think it’s in our interest to figure out why?

There are no “facts” that I am “refusing to accept.” Please give an example or three. Thanks.

[lagtight]

@pvn

@Cactus

Why’s it funny? People declaring that they’ll continue holding a view even when it’s shown to be wrong is no laughing matter

because the person posting that stuff is not “associated” with it. He’s posting on an internet forum using a screenname. He’s not suffering reputational damage.

I doxxed myself on the “other” forum. And I have suffered no “reputational damage.”

[Cactus]

@lagtight

There are no “facts” that I am “refusing to accept.” Please give an example or three. Thanks.

You said you would reject scientific consensus in favor of a 2000 year old book written by men who didn’t know the shape of the planet they were standing on

[lagtight]

@Cactus

@lagtight

There are no “facts” that I am “refusing to accept.” Please give an example or three. Thanks.

You said you would reject scientific consensus in favor of a 2000 year old book written by men who didn’t know the shape of the planet they were standing on

Apparently you fail to see the difference between “scientific consensus” and “scientific fact.” I am unaware of any scientific fact that I knowingly deny. Please give a specific example, if you can. Thanks.

[MrWookie]

Carbon-14 radioactive decay

Dating the age of the universe via measuring the expansion of galaxies and observations into the distant universe.

The evolution of species

The fossil record indicates a changing population of species spanning approximately 4 billion years and 4 distinguishable eons rather than a single cataclysm circa 4-5000 years ago.

The existence of intersex individuals

That the behavior of particles at a very small scale is fundamentally probabilistic, unknown and unknowable prior to measurement, not predetermined, and not explainable by hidden local variables.

[Cactus]

Your ignorance of how science works is on full display itt. There are no scientific facts. Only varying degrees of certainty. Scientific consensus and theories are only the best explanations we have at any given time. That doesn’t mean they’re infallible. As new data and evidence becomes available, scientific consensus can and does change

That said, the theory of evolution and the Earth being older than 6000 years are about as close to facts as science gets. Maybe it’s time to change your interpretation of thr bible?

[Melkerson]

@lagtight

Apparently you fail to see the difference between “scientific consensus” and “scientific fact.”

So, what is the difference?

[Cactus]

@MrWookie

The fossil record indicates a changing population of species spanning approximately 4 billion years and 4 distinguishable eons rather than a single cataclysm circa 4-5000 years ago.

Evolutionary theory would be so easy to disprove too. All it would take is a single fossil in the wrong place (like a rabbit dug up from the mesozoic era) and poof! So much for Darwin

[simplicitus]

You’re a disgrace to your philosophy degree. To me it is inconceivable how someone who has been exposed to philosophy could adopt the most ignorant version of a comically ignorant belief system.

[Cactus]

If I’m not mistaken, I think philosophy majors are one of the more likely degrees among believers. Math and science majors much less so

[simplicitus]

I would need a cite. I would expect significantly less religious belief among philosophy grads than say engineers. Sometimes ones sees stats where philosophy is lumped in with theology or religious studies, which would alter the results.

[lagtight]

@MrWookie

Carbon-14 radioactive decay

Dating the age of the universe via measuring the expansion of galaxies and observations into the distant universe.

The evolution of species

The fossil record indicates a changing population of species spanning approximately 4 billion years and 4 distinguishable eons rather than a single cataclysm circa 4-5000 years ago.

The existence of intersex individuals

That the behavior of particles at a very small scale is fundamentally probabilistic, unknown and unknowable prior to measurement, not predetermined, and not explainable by hidden local variables.

Cactus and I disagree that these are examples “scientific facts.”

[Melkerson]

If you’re not too busy, can you give us your definitions of “scientific fact” and “scientific consensus”?