What, Dan doesn’t deal with the topic of the post, but tries to change the subject, shocking. What? Multiples posts of multiple studies showing that leftists are more likely to support political violence, and Dan ignores them. I’m simply flabbergasted that Dan ignores studies that don’t fit his narrative and treats those studies that he believes do support his narrative as gospel.
Moreover, without taking the time to read what has a high probability of being a waste of time (any link Dan offers to promote his nonsense), "a growing threat" requires understanding the baseline. Is there much of a threat now? Is there little to no threat at all now? Any additional threat could be described as a "growing threat" without that "growing threat" being much of a threat at all over which one should fret. But boy...it sounds really dangerous to those who need to disparage Christians who love their country!!
I'm not sure how to help you understand this, Craig, I don't read your little links. Your opinions about your personal links to other humans and what they're citing are not trustworthy to me. If you quote in your post something from a legitimate source and you provide the link to that, then I might read it. From what I can see you are doing exactly what you're falsely accusing me of doing. You keep citing little bitty bits of things that you think support your political agenda. I'm not interested in this kind of siloed "blogging."
Those are all valid points. If the threat is growing from ..01% to .02% that’s not a huge increase in actual numbers. But we will never know that because there is no baseline, and none of these ever talk about actual numbers of actual human beings.
I have to laugh when I post research and data that draws a conclusion, and Dan’s responses to post other research and other data that may or may not show a different conclusion. It’s theoretically possible that both could be happening, but Dan will gladly ignore any data that doesn’t fit his narrative.
It’s usual to see someone so gleefully revel in choosing to ignorant and ignore data. While simultaneously expecting me to treat your little links to (often) biased interest group sources, as if they’re directly from Heaven.
However, given this admission, you no longer have grounds to claim that I dont peovide you with accces to drama. You can receive in choosing ignorance and choosing not to read and refute the data, but you can’t claim it’s not served up to you. You also can’t bitch when I treat your affinity group BS exactly like you treat the data I provide.
Primary sources, secondary sources with links to primary sources, real journalism outlets, government data, I serve it up and you choose ignorance.
And that’s your choice, you choose ignorance if you want. But it’s interesting that you seem to care so little about demonstrating that the data I provide is wrong, and so little about proving your claims to be correct.
At least this saves me from reading one more BS study from some group that uses the results to fundraise.
6 comments:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8724742/
https://www.interfaithalliance.org/post/new-report-sheds-light-on-the-the-growing-threat-of-christian-nationalism
What? There are documented links between "Christian nationalism " and support for violence in their "righteous cause..."
Raise your hands if you're surprised?
Or, more apt here: raise your hands if you're going to turn a blind eye to this kind of information...
Dan
What, Dan doesn’t deal with the topic of the post, but tries to change the subject, shocking. What? Multiples posts of multiple studies showing that leftists are more likely to support political violence, and Dan ignores them. I’m simply flabbergasted that Dan ignores studies that don’t fit his narrative and treats those studies that he believes do support his narrative as gospel.
Moreover, without taking the time to read what has a high probability of being a waste of time (any link Dan offers to promote his nonsense), "a growing threat" requires understanding the baseline. Is there much of a threat now? Is there little to no threat at all now? Any additional threat could be described as a "growing threat" without that "growing threat" being much of a threat at all over which one should fret. But boy...it sounds really dangerous to those who need to disparage Christians who love their country!!
I'm not sure how to help you understand this, Craig, I don't read your little links. Your opinions about your personal links to other humans and what they're citing are not trustworthy to me. If you quote in your post something from a legitimate source and you provide the link to that, then I might read it. From what I can see you are doing exactly what you're falsely accusing me of doing. You keep citing little bitty bits of things that you think support your political agenda. I'm not interested in this kind of siloed "blogging."
Dan
Those are all valid points. If the threat is growing from ..01% to .02% that’s not a huge increase in actual numbers. But we will never know that because there is no baseline, and none of these ever talk about actual numbers of actual human beings.
I have to laugh when I post research and data that draws a conclusion, and Dan’s responses to post other research and other data that may or may not show a different conclusion. It’s theoretically possible that both could be happening, but Dan will gladly ignore any data that doesn’t fit his narrative.
Heaven forbid that Christians are patriots.
C
It’s usual to see someone so gleefully revel in choosing to ignorant and ignore data. While simultaneously expecting me to treat your little links to (often) biased interest group sources, as if they’re directly from Heaven.
However, given this admission, you no longer have grounds to claim that I dont peovide you with accces to drama. You can receive in choosing ignorance and choosing not to read and refute the data, but you can’t claim it’s not served up to you. You also can’t bitch when I treat your affinity group BS exactly like you treat the data I provide.
Primary sources, secondary sources with links to primary sources, real journalism outlets, government data, I serve it up and you choose ignorance.
And that’s your choice, you choose ignorance if you want. But it’s interesting that you seem to care so little about demonstrating that the data I provide is wrong, and so little about proving your claims to be correct.
At least this saves me from reading one more BS study from some group that uses the results to fundraise.
C
Post a Comment