What makes us who we are?

[hanimmal]

First, it is a monumental mistake to compare the type of science involved in the hard sciences to those in the behavioral sciences. Even by the most rigorous standards, behavioral science deals with educated guesses in comparison.

lol so if some fucktard comes up with a 'educated guess' and has no data to back it up other than their own make believe shit, they should have a podium that our students pay for because some of the behavioral sciences have less sophisticated methods?

Are you sure?

Because academia is always having to adjust as new things are discovered. And the same is true with the social sciences. Things become more accurate over time, so any new idea someone has, is going to have to go through a lot of work to be excepted.

So pushing stupid shit like abstinence only in schools, because it makes people believe it is the best way, because of some idiots 'educated guess' that it is the best way to do it doesn't get taught in schools.

But then again it does doesn't it? And that is the fault of idiots that think any fucktard should be able to spew what they wish to as a professor, causing people to think that because they are saying it it must be true.

 

[RickWhite]

I hate to break it to you guys but unlike you, I actually have a background in science. I have conducted experiments, produced and submitted for grading, ready to publish scientific journal articles. I'm pretty sure this means I know more about the subject than you do. Many people do not consider the behavioral sciences to be true science - if you understood scientific criteria, you would understand why.

And, there are a great many questions in life that that can not be answered with science. For instance, one probably can not prove that slavery is immoral, though this is an obvious truth.

The notion of a step parent resenting stepchildren actually has a scientific bases. All this requires is a basic understanding of evolution. Raising the offspring of another is an inherently unnatural act, especially for males. This is why many animals will kill the offspring of other males when the natural father is not there to protect them.

See, the way evolution works is that the male seeks a female based on her ability to produce and nurture healthy offspring. That is why men are attracted to women who show signs of high fertility such as large breasts or a certain hip to waist ratio. Females on the other hand select a male based on his ability to protect and provide for her offspring. That is why women are attracted to tall men and men with high social value. Just as each parent is acting in the best interest of their offspring, it is also true that ensuring that the lion's share of the resources go to their offspring and not the offspring of another. We see this every day in people's desire to provide for their children. If you look at jealousy, you see that men are primarily jealous when there is a threat of another man inseminating his female. Women on the other hand become jealous when another woman threatens to steal her male and steal her offspring's resources. Both of these are a testament to the basic evolutionary drive to produce and raise healthy offspring. Infidelity threatens this and that is why it produces the feelings it does. These feelings come from slightly different places in each gender but are equal in their cause. other people's kids simply don't enter into this equation. Now this isn't to say that people are not capable of loving a child that isn't theirs biologically. many people adopt kids and love them just like their own. But that is an entirely different dynamic that generally involves no other parents or ex-spouses and is generally a decision made together by the couple.

But see, this is what I mean when I talk about having a basic understanding of what makes people tick and of understanding the psychological aspects of issues. Sure, I can provide studies that show that divorce hurts children, but why is this necessary when the answer ought to be as plain as the nose on your face.

If you want to know more about what children learn from each parent, it is really more a matter of taking a class in social psychology. There are many theories that involve how personalities are formed, how children learn their gender identities and how children become socialized and learn to function in a complex social world. If you are that fond of studies, you can even find studies that demonstrate that things as simple as birth order can influence childhood development. In fact, my sister majored in early childhood development. The fact that someone can major in this subject kind of takes the question beyond the realm of "proving" something as if we are kids on the playground arguing about who's dick is bigger. It is more a matter of understanding larger concepts and different theories.

If you just want to observe the obvious in real life just go to a local mall and see how differently kids behave when dad is there. Honestly, have none of you ever heard the words "wait until your father gets home"? How is this not all the proof you need that moms and dads bring different things to the table? A child sees mom as a nurturer and the teacher of compassion and empathy because that is her nature - dad on the other hand is the disciplinarian and the teacher of what we need to take on the world because that is by his nature who he is.

What has happened to you guys is that you have been brain washed by a Feminist agenda that for years sought to remove any notion of difference between the genders. So, they made up a bunch of lies and taught them in our schools and they told everyone that if you don't buy their BS, you are closed minded and a bigot. The notion that men and women are fundamentally the same is such and it is so obviously wrong that proof is unnecessary. For years men have known that men perceive the world through logic and women through emotion. For years the Feminists insisted this was nothing more than an old sexist notion designed to oppress women. That is until we were able to prove it. Even now I am sure the Feminist view persists. Before Feminism, it was taken for granted that children did best in traditional, intact homes. And, it was taken for granted that the number one cause of delinquency was the absence of a father in the home. It was Feminist nonsense alone that changed people's thoughts on the issue. It was not science or studies, it was pure political correctness. I hate to break it to you, but that is the genesis of your opinions.

In the end, I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide the equivalent of a semester of college so that all of your questions on every issue will be satisfied. If you doubt what I say, you are entitled to do your own research and draw your own conclusions. In fact, I would highly encourage it.

Also, I will lay down the same challenge I did previously. The point of the thread is the question of who among you makes an effort to study the psychological nuances of political issues. So, pick a topic and write a piece demonstrating your insight in the way I have described. Don't cop out and continue to argue about the example I picked. Here is our chance to put your keyboard where your mouth is and show me what you are made of. If you can not think of a topic, I will be glad to suggest one.

Here - I'll make it easy for you. Having a job Vs living off on welfare.

 

[PadawanBater]

And, there are a great many questions in life that that can not be answered with science. For instance, one probably can not prove that slavery is immoral, though this is an obvious truth.

Morality is subjective, so your question is invalid. I can't prove morality with science any more than you can prove what the color purple tastes like.

The notion of a step parent resenting stepchildren actually has a scientific bases. All this requires is a basic understanding of evolution. Raising the offspring of another is an inherently unnatural act, especially for males. This is why many animals will kill the offspring of other males when the natural father is not there to protect them.

Really? Do you know what a bonobo is? From wiki;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

"Females are considered to have a higher social status in their matriarchal culture. Strong female bonding allows groups of female Bonobos to dominate the community. Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. A male's status is derived from the status of his mother. The mother-son bond often stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, rank does not play so prominent a role as it does in other primate societies."

There are plenty of species, primarily of the primate category, who show clear signs of group living. Parent species raising the young of other members of the community.

But see, this is what I mean when I talk about having a basic understanding of what makes people tick and of understanding the psychological aspects of issues. Sure, I can provide studies that show that divorce hurts children, but why is this necessary when the answer ought to be as plain as the nose on your face.
Scientific studies provide us with a way to observe the facts without the bias, which is extremely necessary, especially today.
If you just want to observe the obvious in real life just go to a local mall and see how differently kids behave when dad is there. Honestly, have none of you ever heard the words "wait until your father gets home"? How is this not all the proof you need that moms and dads bring different things to the table? A child sees mom as a nurturer and the teacher of compassion and empathy because that is her nature - dad on the other hand is the disciplinarian and the teacher of what we need to take on the world because that is by his nature who he is.

Like I told you before, this is a delusion. This happy go lucky white pickett fence world you have in your mind is not reality.

Provide me with one example of something a mother could do that a father couldn't do equally as well, or vice versa.

What has happened to you guys is that you have been brain washed by a Feminist agenda that for years sought to remove any notion of difference between the genders. So, they made up a bunch of lies and taught them in our schools and they told everyone that if you don't buy their BS, you are closed minded and a bigot. The notion that men and women are fundamentally the same is such and it is so obviously wrong that proof is unnecessary. For years men have known that men perceive the world through logic and women through emotion. For years the Feminists insisted this was nothing more than an old sexist notion designed to oppress women. That is until we were able to prove it. Even now I am sure the Feminist view persists. Before Feminism, it was taken for granted that children did best in traditional, intact homes. And, it was taken for granted that the number one cause of delinquency was the absence of a father in the home. It was Feminist nonsense alone that changed people's thoughts on the issue. It was not science or studies, it was pure political correctness. I hate to break it to you, but that is the genesis of your opinions.

Men and women are equal Rick. Does that mean they're equally as strong as men, or equally as tough as men? Of course not, you retard. Do you think people just can't think for themselves or something? This "Feminist agenda" (is everything a fuckin' agenda with you creeps?!) influences nobody but you and your kind. Any reasonable person can look at a man and a woman and SEE the CLEAR DIFFERENCES between them. Your view of 1950's America is GONE BUDDY. Sorry women have the right to vote, sorry women get equal pay in the workplace, sorry women have the right to decide what they want to do with their body... but hey, that's America, love it or leave it, right?

Don't like equality? Go to the middle east where your beliefs would be welcomed.

Also, I will lay down the same challenge I did previously. The point of the thread is the question of who among you makes an effort to study the psychological nuances of political issues. So, pick a topic and write a piece demonstrating your insight in the way I have described. Don't cop out and continue to argue about the example I picked. Here is our chance to put your keyboard where your mouth is and show me what you are made of. If you can not think of a topic, I will be glad to suggest one.

Here - I'll make it easy for you. Having a job Vs living off on welfare.

Having a job makes a person independent and self reliable. Teaches them the value of the dollar and it's importance. Living on welfare provides a person with limited comfort and resources at the expense of incentive for them to become independent and self reliable.

What's my grade?

 

[hanimmal]

I hate to break it to you guys but unlike you, I actually have a background in science. I have conducted experiments, produced and submitted for grading, ready to publish scientific journal articles. I'm pretty sure this means I know more about the subject than you do. Many people do not consider the behavioral sciences to be true science - if you understood scientific criteria, you would understand why.

And, there are a great many questions in life that that can not be answered with science. For instance, one probably can not prove that slavery is immoral, though this is an obvious truth.

lol man seriously? You really think that everyone else has not thought up of this shit too?

I mean do you really think that you have some kind of insight that everyone else is not aware of? Go rent a stoner movie, and a underlying joke is the fucked up thoughts we have. And the soft sciences are full of stoners, so you don't think this has come up in conversation? You think that all the crazy shit we dream up, has not been before?

I mean I am baked right now, and cannot help but think I wonder what the stats are on slave owners that where mean to the amount of ones that treated them like they were employees and gave them the means to have a good life. And how it would affect the surrounding villages, if they were economically better if the slaves were treated as people.

These things have all been debated, and the cream has risen to the top. And until there are better things to offseat the old ideas that are outdated, we are here, the best conclusions and how they got to them. And if you really think that you have some insight that people that have devoted their entire careers to studying, you really should write the new paper on it, and debate it with the people that know these things by todays standards, and if you can convince them, awesome, thank you. But if not, maybe you should maybe give them the benefit of a doubt that maybe they are trying to do the right thing.

 

[Osoheil]

I hate to break it to you guys but unlike you, I actually have a background in science. I have conducted experiments, produced and submitted for grading, ready to publish scientific journal articles. I'm pretty sure this means I know more about the subject than you do. Many people do not consider the behavioral sciences to be true science - if you understood scientific criteria, you would understand why.

If you understood scientific criteria, or even basic logic, you would not make many of the claims you do. The background is irrelevant, these words only show your arrogance to think your points are somehow more valid because you did some labs or wrote up lab reports. Regardless of background, scientists can still be wrong and make mistakes. I am not going into my personal scientific background because it is irrelevant, I prefer my words stand on their own and not my credentials.

And, there are a great many questions in life that that can not be answered with science. For instance, one probably can not prove that slavery is immoral, though this is an obvious truth.

It is not an obvious truth, by any means. I disagree with slavery, but that does not make it any more "obvious".

But see, this is what I mean when I talk about having a basic understanding of what makes people tick and of understanding the psychological aspects of issues. Sure, I can provide studies that show that divorce hurts children, but why is this necessary when the answer ought to be as plain as the nose on your face.

Your arrogance shows again, you have to remember what is "obvious" to you isn't obvious to everyone. We are not psychic and we do not share your sensory inputs to perceive things as you do.

If you want to know more about what children learn from each parent, it is really more a matter of taking a class in social psychology. There are many theories that involve how personalities are formed, how children learn their gender identities and how children become socialized and learn to function in a complex social world. If you are that fond of studies, you can even find studies that demonstrate that things as simple as birth order can influence childhood development. In fact, my sister majored in early childhood development. The fact that someone can major in this subject kind of takes the question beyond the realm of "proving" something as if we are kids on the playground arguing about who's dick is bigger. It is more a matter of understanding larger concepts and different theories.

If you just want to observe the obvious in real life just go to a local mall and see how differently kids behave when dad is there. Honestly, have none of you ever heard the words "wait until your father gets home"? How is this not all the proof you need that moms and dads bring different things to the table? A child sees mom as a nurturer and the teacher of compassion and empathy because that is her nature - dad on the other hand is the disciplinarian and the teacher of what we need to take on the world because that is by his nature who he is.

Nothing you said there supports or proves your point in any way. You gave anecdotal evidence and irrelevant personal history.

What has happened to you guys is that you have been brain washed by a Feminist agenda that for years sought to remove any notion of difference between the genders. So, they made up a bunch of lies and taught them in our schools and they told everyone that if you don't buy their BS, you are closed minded and a bigot. The notion that men and women are fundamentally the same is such and it is so obviously wrong that proof is unnecessary. For years men have known that men perceive the world through logic and women through emotion. For years the Feminists insisted this was nothing more than an old sexist notion designed to oppress women. That is until we were able to prove it. Even now I am sure the Feminist view persists. Before Feminism, it was taken for granted that children did best in traditional, intact homes. And, it was taken for granted that the number one cause of delinquency was the absence of a father in the home. It was Feminist nonsense alone that changed people's thoughts on the issue. It was not science or studies, it was pure political correctness. I hate to break it to you, but that is the genesis of your opinions.

I have not seen one person disagree with you on the fact that men and women are not the same. What is with this ranting about the feminist agenda? Why do you close and section you mind off like this and seemingly throw everyone into piles depending on what you think their agenda is?

In the end, I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide the equivalent of a semester of college so that all of your questions on every issue will be satisfied. If you doubt what I say, you are entitled to do your own research and draw your own conclusions. In fact, I would highly encourage it.

"I will not support anything I say with hard evidence, because I don't have the time and I don't want to. So instead of me supporting my points, you should go find evidence that supports my points."

Also, I will lay down the same challenge I did previously. The point of the thread is the question of who among you makes an effort to study the psychological nuances of political issues. So, pick a topic and write a piece demonstrating your insight in the way I have described. Don't cop out and continue to argue about the example I picked. Here is our chance to put your keyboard where your mouth is and show me what you are made of. If you can not think of a topic, I will be glad to suggest one.

"I still refuse to support my points with evidence, so if you do not want to talk about these unsupported points, go away."

Why don't you show some supported insight into these issues, rather than blathering on your misconceptions and our "liberal agendas".

 

[RickWhite]

If you understood scientific criteria, or even basic logic, you would not make many of the claims you do. The background is irrelevant, these words only show your arrogance to think your points are somehow more valid because you did some labs or wrote up lab reports. Regardless of background, scientists can still be wrong and make mistakes. I am not going into my personal scientific background because it is irrelevant, I prefer my words stand on their own and not my credentials.

It is not an obvious truth, by any means. I disagree with slavery, but that does not make it any more "obvious".


Your arrogance shows again, you have to remember what is "obvious" to you isn't obvious to everyone. We are not psychic and we do not share your sensory inputs to perceive things as you do.

Nothing you said there supports or proves your point in any way. You gave anecdotal evidence and irrelevant personal history.


I have not seen one person disagree with you on the fact that men and women are not the same. What is with this ranting about the feminist agenda? Why do you close and section you mind off like this and seemingly throw everyone into piles depending on what you think their agenda is?

"I will not support anything I say with hard evidence, because I don't have the time and I don't want to. So instead of me supporting my points, you should go find evidence that supports my points."

"I still refuse to support my points with evidence, so if you do not want to talk about these unsupported points, go away."

Why don't you show some supported insight into these issues, rather than blathering on your misconceptions and our "liberal agendas".

You make it clear by your style of writing that you are the same person who has a few different screen names on this forum - your others escape me at the moment.

And I see you have the same poor reading comprehension regardless of which screen name you choose.

I don't know how else to phrase things that will enable you to understand. At this point it is becoming clear that this subject is simply over your head.

Let me see if I can make this so simple that even you can understand it.

I am not here to try to prove any of the examples I gave. Let us assume for the sake of simplicity, since it is so needed at this point, that all of my examples were bad ones.

Putting aside all of these examples, the question remains of whether or not you take the time to contemplate the psychological impact of a given policy.

Now, I asked you to pick a topic and write a short piece on how you think such a policy impacts people on a psychological level or in any way having to do with or having influence upon a person or a group of people's behavior or conduct. You can write on any policy or aspect of life as long as you tie it in to the things I have mentioned.

Now, do you think you can do that or are you just going to post another cop-out about how I didn't offer evidence to prove something that was merely an example and never intended as an argument.

You try to give the impression that you are an intelligent guy - give it a try. Impress us with your mental prowess and your ability to compose a few paragraphs of insight. And for crying out loud, learn some fucking reading comprehension.

 

[RickWhite]

And, there are a great many questions in life that that can not be answered with science. For instance, one probably can not prove that slavery is immoral, though this is an obvious truth.

Morality is subjective, so your question is invalid. I can't prove morality with science any more than you can prove what the color purple tastes like.

Exactly. Unreasonable requests for proof of everything are nothing more than an intellectual cop-out. Anyone can ask for more and more proof ad-infinitum. Look at the 911 thread.

Look up the term "axiom" as in axiom of logic.


But see, this is what I mean when I talk about having a basic understanding of what makes people tick and of understanding the psychological aspects of issues. Sure, I can provide studies that show that divorce hurts children, but why is this necessary when the answer ought to be as plain as the nose on your face.
Scientific studies provide us with a way to observe the facts without the bias, which is extremely necessary, especially today.
If you just want to observe the obvious in real life just go to a local mall and see how differently kids behave when dad is there. Honestly, have none of you ever heard the words "wait until your father gets home"? How is this not all the proof you need that moms and dads bring different things to the table? A child sees mom as a nurturer and the teacher of compassion and empathy because that is her nature - dad on the other hand is the disciplinarian and the teacher of what we need to take on the world because that is by his nature who he is.

Like I told you before, this is a delusion. This happy go lucky white pickett fence world you have in your mind is not reality.

Provide me with one example of something a mother could do that a father couldn't do equally as well, or vice versa.

If you really need one you are hopeless. You clearly can not see the matrix. A father can advise his son on how to pick up women - a mother, not so much. Fathers are much better disciplinarians and mothers much better at comforting. They are the yin to the Father's yang.

Ah, but I suppose you will just ask for proof. I suppose the fact that this is how it has been for 10,000 years proves nothing. The fact that the most feared sentence in 90% of children's lives has long been "wait until your father gets home" is of zero relevance to anything. Maybe if we hooked kids up to an MRI while each parent took turns scolding the child you would be more convinced.

What has happened to you guys is that you have been brain washed by a Feminist agenda that for years sought to remove any notion of difference between the genders. So, they made up a bunch of lies and taught them in our schools and they told everyone that if you don't buy their BS, you are closed minded and a bigot. The notion that men and women are fundamentally the same is such and it is so obviously wrong that proof is unnecessary. For years men have known that men perceive the world through logic and women through emotion. For years the Feminists insisted this was nothing more than an old sexist notion designed to oppress women. That is until we were able to prove it. Even now I am sure the Feminist view persists. Before Feminism, it was taken for granted that children did best in traditional, intact homes. And, it was taken for granted that the number one cause of delinquency was the absence of a father in the home. It was Feminist nonsense alone that changed people's thoughts on the issue. It was not science or studies, it was pure political correctness. I hate to break it to you, but that is the genesis of your opinions.

Men and women are equal Rick.

I didn't say not equal, I said "different." The fact that you confuse the two CLEARLY demonstrates your inability to grasp nuance.

Does that mean they're equally as strong as men, or equally as tough as men? Of course not, you retard. Do you think people just can't think for themselves or something? This "Feminist agenda" (is everything a fuckin' agenda with you creeps?!) influences nobody but you and your kind. Any reasonable person can look at a man and a woman and SEE the CLEAR DIFFERENCES between them. Your view of 1950's America is GONE BUDDY. Sorry women have the right to vote, sorry women get equal pay in the workplace, sorry women have the right to decide what they want to do with their body... but hey, that's America, love it or leave it, right?

Ah, see now we are getting to the point. not one of your examples touched upon the differences in the way men and women think. Not one mention of the differences in the fundamental nature of men vs women. Not one difference in the way men and women perceive the world or communicate. You went straight from the obvious physical differences into a political rant about equality.

You did so because the things I mentioned are not within the scope of your style of reasoning.

Thank you for demonstrating my point so well.



Here - I'll make it easy for you. Having a job Vs living off on welfare.

Having a job makes a person independent and self reliable. Teaches them the value of the dollar and it's importance. Living on welfare provides a person with limited comfort and resources at the expense of incentive for them to become independent and self reliable.

What's my grade?

I'm surprised, you actually answered that fairly well. A bit short but at least it's a start. Now see what you can do with the glaring oversight regarding the nature of men and women.

 

[PadawanBater]

Exactly. Unreasonable requests for proof of everything are nothing more than an intellectual cop-out. Anyone can ask for more and more proof ad-infinitum. Look at the 911 thread.

Look up the term "axiom" as in axiom of logic.

At a certain point, "more proof" is no longer required for acceptance. Take the theory of evolution for instance. The only reason there are people who don't believe it is because of their religious bias.

Asking for proof of your claim is not unreasonable in the least. What is unreasonable is that you expect it to simply be accepted as "obvious wisdom". - That's retarded.

If you really need one you are hopeless. You clearly can not see the matrix. A father can advise his son on how to pick up women - a mother, not so much. Fathers are much better disciplinarians and mothers much better at comforting. They are the yin to the Father's yang.

Why couldn't a mother teach her son how to pick up a woman? Some would argue a mother would do it better, as she herself is a female, she could provide insight the son otherwise would not have received.

And I believe my mother would have something to say about your claim that "fathers are much better disciplinarians"...

Do you at least see what I mean, both of the examples you just provided is your own subjective interpretation of the way you think life should be, not the way it is for everyone. You use the construct of mother-father-kids as a "traditional family" because that's the way it's been for thousands of years (disregarding the fact that it's been that way primarily because the majority of our species is in fact heterosexual, homosexual couples/relationships have been prohibited throughout the vast majority of human history, and adoption and modern medicine has JUST RECENTLY been able to provide homosexual or sterile couples with children) and we don't have a working model yet otherwise, and you and anyone who believes "traditional families" are the only way to have "healthy families" are actively fighting against one.

Ah, but I suppose you will just ask for proof. I suppose the fact that this is how it has been for 10,000 years proves nothing. The fact that the most feared sentence in 90% of children's lives has long been "wait until your father gets home" is of zero relevance to anything. Maybe if we hooked kids up to an MRI while each parent took turns scolding the child you would be more convinced.




I didn't say not equal, I said "different." The fact that you confuse the two CLEARLY demonstrates your inability to grasp nuance.

Can you find me one human being who would argue men and women are not different?

Ah, see now we are getting to the point. not one of your examples touched upon the differences in the way men and women think. Not one mention of the differences in the fundamental nature of men vs women. Not one difference in the way men and women perceive the world or communicate.

As I said, such differences are obvious, just like the physical ones. Women, in general, don't get as angry, or angry as often as men. Women are generally better at multitasking, while men are generally better at focusing on a single subject. Etc.

Why don't you just state your point already and quit skirting around it, it's glaringly obvious, you just don't want to seem like a bigot.

 

[RickWhite]

Padawa, I merely skimmed your post and I am done talking to you.

Your skull is harder than a diamond covered titanium ball and it is clear that there is nothing any person could possibly say that would convince you of anything. I have great sympathy for your parents as I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to raise a child with your attitude. You have failed to comprehend everything in this thread and you have consistently responded in a childish, overly argumentative manner. Nowhere in this thread did you make an attempt to understand the point I repeatedly made or respond in an intelligent manner because you were to busy trying to think up the your next "gotcha line." This is a childish way to discuss something and it only demonstrates your immaturity and your inability to look at things objectively and to learn.

You want an example of who thinks men and women are no different - this is one of the core concepts of radical Feminism. The fact that you would even question this clearly demonstrates that you posses little knowledge of anything and are not one people should take seriously.

I am done arguing with ignorant children - and that is what you are. It is clear that you simply have limited ability and that this is not going to change. Even a 5 year old can parrot "prove it" over and over again, that doesn't make a person smart and evidently this is all you are capable of.

Good day Padawa, I would appreciate you not posting in my threads anymore.

 

[hanimmal]

p.s. little thing maybe to think about.

Saying men and women are equal is not the same as men = women.

 

[PadawanBater]

Padawa, I merely skimmed your post and I am done talking to you.

Holy shit! Stop the presses! Did Rick just admit defeat?!

Your skull is harder than a diamond covered titanium ball and it is clear that there is nothing any person could possibly say that would convince you of anything.

Except there is at least one documented case on this forum that I can think of off the top of my head of a conservative viewpoint that I hadn't considered which changed my mind; namely the interaction Vi and I had in one of the hate crime threads.

I seriously doubt you can say the same thing.

You have failed to comprehend everything in this thread and you have consistently responded in a childish, overly argumentative manner.

Speak for yourself buddy. I'm always willing to talk in civil terms about anything to anyone, but don't expect not to get slapped back into reality when you say something stupid. Take one skim through your own posts and tell me they're not disrespectful.

I am done arguing with ignorant children - and that is what you are. It is clear that you simply have limited ability and that this is not going to change. Even a 5 year old can parrot "prove it" over and over again, that doesn't make a person smart and evidently this is all you are capable of.

Good day Padawa, I would appreciate you not posting in my threads anymore.

Well I hate to break it to ya Ricky, but the only way your getting me to stop posting in "your threads" is by not posting any threads.

Ignorance must be defeated.

Good day.