[basil-rash]

Throwing up your hands and saying “but I never even said that” 6 replies deep into debating a particular point is certainly… a socratic technique.

And you’re back to conflating illegal and legal immigration. I’ve never argued nobody is against illegal immigration, far from it.

To your point about media lies, the Left’s are less obvious yes, but that makes them much tricker to deal with. The Left will first convince you 3 and 4 are effectively the same, tell you 2+2 is pretty much 3, then have you laugh at the Right for being so far off base from reality when they say it’s 5. You can show someone on the Right a calculator and they’ll see they were mistaken, you show someone on the Left the calculator and they’ll tell you you’re in the wrong for thinking the difference between the answers matters. See: legal vs illegal immigration, “The Science” of COVID, approaches to crime, etc.

[FrustratedMonky]

Not sure this is throwing up hands. I'm saying we were talking in circles, because you were the one that brought up the legal arguments based on a different comment, and I was not really sure how there is any legal framework for how immigration happens through history.

There was no legal/illegal basis for settling the Americas. There was no world court where Columbus could be charged with illegal immigration.

I do strongly disagree with your take on left/right reactions to media.

Typically those on the right subscribe to a more 'religious fundamentalism', and thus notions of right/wrong, true/false, are not based on any scientific findings. It is based on faith, a moral right granted by God to his chosen. So there is no arguing. No room for truth.

Hence, the truth can be spelled out clearly, and they will still not accept it. They will argue the sky isn't blue, if their leaders tell them it isn't. Religion has morphed the brain to the extent that reason is not allowed.

See: legal vs illegal immigration, “The Science” of COVID, approaches to crime, etc. Vaccinations, life, etc...

[basil-rash]

Science is not a substitute for morality, the two go hand in hand. The Left however invokes a powerful ploy to attempt to redefine their various preexisting perspectives on morality as being “Science”: they take questions of morality, cast them into questions of science (injecting their own moral bias in the process), and select those studies which answer those questions in ways which affirm their existing moral biases. They therefore always end up feeling they are on the side of “The Science”, while ignoring (willfully or not) that they have selected from the beginning that very science which was on their side.

This isn’t the place to keep going on the topic, but feel free to reach out “my username at outlook dot com” if you’d like to discuss further.

[FrustratedMonky]

I agree. Science is not Morality. (see atom bomb).

But also, morality shouldn't over-rule science. If there is a hypothesis, and it can be tested, so you know what is true, then a religious belief shouldn't make you ignore it. The 'right' these days is anti-science to the extent that they are rejecting things that can be tested and shown to be true. Rejecting things that can be proven.

Agree, probably enough on this thread.

Later, bye, best of luck.

Probably wont e-mail, because I'm paranoid about anonymity.