Good Faith Debate

In order for a person to argue in good faith they must be willing to admit that they are wrong.  Socialists/Marxists pretend that socialist paradise is inevitable and they therefore are unwilling to admit that they might be wrong.  If they are unwilling to admit that they might be wrong then they cannot argue in good faith.  The socialistic; therefore, must be intellectually ostracized.  You're welcome. 
Location: Pasadena, CA, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Imprimis Article by Dr. Larry Arnn

I read with great interest the article in the December 2016 issue of Imprimis adapted from a speech given by Dr. Arnn titled "A More American Conservatism". Unfortunately Dr. Arnn fails to accurately define the concept "conservative" by attempting to define the term psychologically. Psychology is idealistic, emotional and therefore indefinite. Concepts are realistic, intellectual and therefore definitive. The better definit ion of the word "conservative" is "to make the presumption for the status quo". Making the presumption for the status quo is an intellectual, rather than psychological, exercise.  It is therefore a better definition than the one provided by Dr. Arnn in the Imprimis article.  The socialist is idealistic and idealism makes the presumption for change.  It makes the presumption for an "ideal" state, perfection.  Perfection is pluralistic and therefore imaginary. (It can only be implemented by manipulation, intimidatio...
Read more

Immigration

President Obama has signed and will continue to sign executive orders to "fix" our "broken" immigration system. The Republicans in congress have declared that they will fight the executive order "tooth and nail". Of course the Republicans are screwed. All efforts to resist the president will be seen as petulant and rightfully so. Many years ago the Republicans conceded the intellectual point by admitting that our immigration system is broken. As a consequence President Obama's actions look reasonable and rational by default. You're welcome.
Read more

John McEnroe Gets Baited

John McEnroe, world champion tennis player, was successfully baited by an idealistic interviewer a few days ago. One of the most often used traps employed by the political left is the "prove a negative" game in which the victim is baited into trying to prove a negative and when the victim fails he/she is ridiculed. When Mr. McEnroe told the interviewer that Serena Williams was the best woman's tennis player ever the interviewer baited him by asking him why not the best period? (Meaning regardless of gender) Unfortunately Mr. McEnroe took the bait and tried to prove "why not". He failed and was promptly ridiculed. Controversy ensued. What Mr. McEnroe should have done was make the presumption for the status quo and insist that the interviewer prove a positive i.e. "why" Ms. Williams is the best period.
Read more