On an unrelated topic, I am posting this on my iPhone using Safari. And the software offered me word options for everything but “suicidal”. Big tech censorship has gotten out of hand.

Hilarious how on the Kenneth Lib forum , they are so desperately fraid of how Biden will fare on debates.. They are already <miserable >, crying about debate rules etc. They KNOW deep inside , Biden is a weak opponent and also mentally unfit to handle a debate with Trump.

LoL

At some point, it's immoral to be deluded/brainwashed.>

it’s not suicidal to run Biden when your base is “low information” voters.>

I saw a sign from the CDC on using masks.
The first recommendation was:

1) Make sure you can breathe through it.

<And the software offered me word options for everything but “suicidal”.>

If being deluded or brainwashed is something that happens <to> you, then it can be neither moral or immoral on your behalf.

But if you really mean <wilful ignorance> and just use the words deluded and brainwashed to mean the same thing, then I think we should stop using those words and use the correct words.

Wilful ignorance is something we do ourselves.

The word delusion implies a sickness of the mind. Sickness is never immoral. That's why liberalism is not a mental disorder. Liberalism is immoral and there it is not a sickness. It is evil, not sickness. The person who supports homosexuality and abortion is guilty of immorality; they are evil, not "sick".

As you might expect the liberals on Rogoff show no interest. Some of them are making jokes about it. They think it's funny.

I remember after the Christian - Newsome murders a small group of whites organized a protest against the crime and the lack of media coverage. The liberals showed up for a counter-protest. They were laughing and singing. Some of them dressed up as clowns. They thought the rape, torture and murder of these two young whites was funny.

You see the same behavior among some of the liberals on Rogoff. They think violence against whites is funny. That's why they make jokes about it.

They really are heartless. These people really are evil.

That's not what it really is. The reality is that they have no good way to refute your posts, so they have no choice but resort to the last option available, and that is ridicule.

Notice that they don't first refute you and then ridicule you. No, they do not do that. They ridicule you <instead> of engaging with the <central points> of your arguments.

It is not comfortable for them to do so either. They don't prefer this last ditch effort at saving face for their side because they know it's weak. They know we all know it's weak. Yet, they do it anyways.

<Gezafan>, we all know the three pillars of liberalism:

Sodomy
Abortion
Divorce

But we must also understand The Liberal mind:

Wickedness
Gross ignorance
Arrogance

These three qualities characterize the liberal person, the liberal mind.

Finally, <gezafan>, your posts on that page only service to legitimize their childish behavior. You should feel more at home posting here on the <New Rogoff> page, where trolls aren't allowed. There are libs that post here once in a while and they do so in fine style, in contrast to the wet dog food eating bottom feeders on the <Rogoff> page.

What fun is that?

There used to be libs there that would engage the <central points> of the argument and always strive to <move the narrative forward>. This is the only way a debate can be interesting and it's not happening anymore on the other page.

The libs gave up.

They quit.

They know they're beat so they don't even try to engage the <central points> anymore. They stick out their tongues, give the finger, say, "your mother..." and things like that.

I ask you, what fun is it beating up on someone who has surrendered already?

Just admit it. The other page is no fun anymore because the libs don't fight back.

<March 2008

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

<DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

What follows now is where the Elite Posters usually find themselves on the hierarchy, and it's where we find ourselves in this forum, the <New Rogoff>.

<DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

<What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

I continue to try to figure out why a political movement that cannot offer anything other than ridicule and simple-minded slogans is ascendent in 2020. MSN, the vast majority of large corporations, the youth, the educational institutions, are 90% in lockstep for wokeness and Cultural Marxism.

Which is why some founding fathers wanted only white male property owners to have the privilege of voting.

They had more skin in the game and they, as a group and generally speaking, were probably a bit smarter and more well informed than the people who stay poor for their whole lives.

This post should be substantive. Therefore I offer the following links.

The Farmer Refuted
Alexander Hamilton
1775
The classic argument for limiting voting rights to adult males who own property: so that voters are excluded who are dependent on the wills of others for their livelihood.

https://vindicatingthefounders.com/...

John Adams to James Sullivan
May 26, 1776
Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote.

https://vindicatingthefounders.com/...

A collection of arguments by founding fathers both for and against:

Why did she walk away?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/OFF...

What percentage of "libs" are open-minded and willing to learn?

If the Rogoff forum is any guide, you might think zero.

But then, maybe we need to differentiate between quiet "libs" who are still immature and have been misled, and the hard-core contemptible "libs" such as those who post on Rogoff.

There was hope for Belle and she was saved from being enveloped in the demonic.

What hope is there for the "libs" who post on Rogoff?

It seems they are beyond help.

We already knew that, but we posted there anyway as a public service to highlight the evils of leftism, using the Rogoff "libs" as punching bags, or as the tools for our mission.

But since the admins have succumbed to the whinings of one particular cry baby "lib", we can no longer use Rogoff as a means to shed light on the truth.

Well said.

<Discerning readers will now need to find this forum for wisdom and truth, while the Rogoff forum is now left to deteriorate like a mental asylum being overrun by the inmates.>

And they will. We already have a good number of quality posters contributing to the discussion in this forum. The other page just isn't fun anymore because the libs don't fight back, and the <women admins> coddle the troll.

They are the <most> uninteresting bunch of posters over at the other page. The quality posts are to be found here.

Yes, they're so incredibly boring!

And many of them are barely coherent!

One of them goes on and on about anti-Christ, which shows how evil he is.

Another just repeats words and phrases over and over again like a parrot.

Another contributes nothing except vile disgusting filthy innuendo, mainly directed at you.

Another just mouths communist platitudes.