Recent content by KCfromNC

Trump's lawyers tried to argue this. Turns out they were wrong (the best people and all that) : DocumentCloud

It might be instructive to look back at the angry reaction in post 865 as a response to questioning whether we should acknowledge religious self-identity because it also wasn't based in scientific fact. There are some interesting parallels there, if one can get past the knee jerk but that's...

I tried a few pages back and was accused of showing contempt for the group whose self identity wasn't based on scientific empirical fact. There was even an accusation that doing so was against the rules here. Might want to be careful.

Which posts are being quoted here?

No, it was the factual examples in my post which did. I'll ask again : Can we substitute in other groups whose self-identity isn't based on empirical verifiable facts? Or does this only apply to ones targeted by GOP propaganda?

I'd really love to see the long tradition in whatever his religion in that prevents people working with him from following a directive from higher ups to raise a flag. I mean, surely there's lot of textual and serious religious scholarship with hundreds of years of tradition showing his...

Why are you asking me? They are your imaginary examples. I guess since they're not real we can make them be anything we dream. Maybe one of them will grow up to be an astronaut or something motivational like that. Or it could be a case where we ask chat GPT to come up with a story for them...

Ignoring the examples I posted don't make them go away. I'll ask again : Can we substitute in other groups whose self-identity isn't based on empirical verifiable facts? Or does this only apply to ones targeted by GOP propaganda?

Freezing the pay of government employees might be considered conservative since it "protects taxpayers"? Who knows, in this sort of thing the reasons are made up after the conclusion so it is hard to predict what the excuse might be.

Given this, I'd be curious if situations of legislating right wing dogma onto medical decisions would be considered liberal or conservative by the methodology.

I can't help if you consider those useful analogies to the religious beliefs that I mentioned earlier, but I didn't bring them up.

Can we substitute in other groups whose self-identity isn't based on empirical verifiable facts? Because the last time I tried, that was labeled as showing contempt for the group. But for some reason the post I'm responding to seems to say it is fine. Wonder when it will flip flop back yet...

Weird how me simply asking a much less accusatory question led to an accusation of showing contempt to the groups in question. Seems like this sort of judgement is very fluid. Such as?

It's always instructive when my simple questions about a previous talking point require the talking point to be abandoned in favor of jumping to a different one.

Really? Because that's what I got accused of when I asked if we needed to validate certain types of self identification that couldn't be backed up by objective facts.