There is another problem with this intellectual lockstep.
It means that in every argument you start with the conclusion, and then you find facts to support it. It is the opposite of the way things should be (where you start with facts and then reach a conclusion).
I consider myself a fact-based liberal.
2. I "flee" the discussion when you start getting silly. You often lapse into insisting that your opinions are facts
and ranting about how intelligent you are.
I have told you what you need to do for me to accept your "facts" (that is, you have to tell me how it is testable; what evidence would get you to change your mind).
Your bluster is boring, and since there is no way to change your mind, me sticking around is meaningless.
Either be amusing, or give me some testable facts so we can have an interesting discussion and I will generally stick around.
Everything you are saying is in lock-step agreement with someone solidly on the political left.
It would be interesting if you would take a position out of your ideological bubble.
If your opinions are a near carbon copy of every other "progressive" (...)
and every conservative has the same thoughts as every other conservative (...)
...it makes the world boring.
It means that in every argument you start with the conclusion, and then you find facts to support it.
Hightor's facts are ultimately sound.
During Trump's administration, they brought out the shrinks to try to declare Trump "unfit".
Joe Biden can't remember breakfast one hour ago.
You guys elected Joe Biden because you wanted a radical government under Kamala Harris.
It's a total puppet show, and everyone knows it.
But fine, let's say you do decide to carry out this precedent.
Mathematically, if I could provide a single person who supported BLM and didn't want to police officers to be shot... then this would disprove your ridiculous statement.
So that is why, if you want me to take your so-called "facts" seriously I want you to start defining how they can be tested (and disproven).
As I said... I consider this to be illogical
In order to prove that I want to shoot cops,
Your argument seems to be shooting cops is wrong, these people are wrong, therefore these people want to shoot cops.
This argument bores me, it isn't even worth disputing (I have given you this much time as a courtesy...).
Is this where you run away from the thread instead of addressing the facts?