You post this site, and similar viewpoints exclusively.
I post from naturalnews.com, too. Are you saying Mike Adams is a leftist?
If you were interested in discussion and learning there would be some variety, and some actual discussion. Both of which are absent.
When I post an article, I will (90% of the time), put in the first comment for people to comment against. I can't FORCE people to discuss something. There are a lot of right-leaning posts on here already. I try to find something that interests ME, addresses a current situation in a light/POV that is not posted yet.
Specifically who are you quoting or referring to there?
It is common practice in writing dialogue that when you are writing someone saying something, you put quotes around their phrasing. Bob said, "Hey, what are you doing?" instead of Bob said hey what are you doing. Sorry if this confused you.
The idea that one must spread views they disagree with or else they are taking that stance is more than a little retarded.
Whoever said that? Maybe I wrote it poorly, or you read it too quickly. What I said was, I like to post alternative views, and I learn from rreading the responses that critique it - perhaps I can find a better way to argue against it rather than just assuming I know everything, and have thought of every possible scenario or argument, ever. The more data points I get, the better overall picture I get.
I post from naturalnews.com, too
Irrelevant. You more than anything post one of the most slanted sites.
When I post an article, I will (90% of the time), put in the first comment for people to comment against. I can't FORCE people to discuss something.
That is not a good way to start a discussion. Are you trying to say that you've tried it about 15 times with no success, but you still think the next one will work?
I don't think you're that dumb.
It is common practice in writing dialogue ..
You weren't writing dialogue, you were quoting.. Quotation marks are not used how you think. Sorry if that confuses you.
Whoever said that?
You did. "I generally learn a lot more by listening to, and attempting to find holes in other's arguments than by simply dismissing them as stupid or childish, and simply saying, 'i'm right, you're wrong, so you should just shut up and agree with me!'."
See, that's how quoting works.
The more data points I get, the better overall picture I get.
You think 0 data points is good? You usually don't get a response. Or this is actually the most effective thing you've been able to come up with?
I don't believe either.
Irrelevant.
Relevant. You said I ONLY post from one POV. I refuted that claim. You then claim it is irrelevant. I assume that the original claim is therefore also irrelevant?
You more than anything post one of the most slanted sites.
Yes, it has an opinion, and that opinion is usually, if not always, leftist. However left it is, that does not necessarily mean it is pro or anti- specific party. Those opinion pieces that are blindly partisan, I rarely, if ever post. I don't dismiss something simply due to its source. for example, Robert Fisk is leftist, but is also one of the most, if not the most, in tune western journalist in the Middle East. But, so what? What does it matter? Is the article interesting? Is it boring? Is it stupid? Is it ridiculous? Does it have a point? Does it have a conclusion? Does it use logic or emotion? These are the things that interest me. Sorry you don't like the source.
That is not a good way to start a discussion.
Yes it is, or at least, it used to be. Post an opinion piece. comment on opinion piece, one way or another. Let people agree/disagree with either the piece or my comment. Tell me a better way. I'll listen.
Are you trying to say that you've tried it about 15 times with no success, but you still think the next one will work? I don't think you're that dumb.
I've had some success. Not great, but some. I'm not going to cry over not getting responses, it happens. These pieces tend to be pretty long, and not everyone is going to spend the time reading it, digesting it, and then write out a detailed response. C'est la vie
See, that's how quoting works.
See, I wasn't quoting, I was using the word saying as if a person were talking, and when I do that, I use quotation marks as if they were in a dialogue. I truly don't care if you like that form of writing or not, I am not going to change it.
You think 0 data points is good? You usually don't get a response.
Fallacy of the All or Every. Usually don't is not the same as Zero. Some is better than zero. Your conclusion is based on a logical fallacy.
Or this is actually the most effective thing you've been able to come up with?
Meh, It's fine. Read it or don't. Comment or don't. If I gain anything or learn anything, good for me. if not, it cost me a whopping 15 seconds of my life. The trade off to me is worth it.
Thanks for the critiques!
That's not what you're doing.
You post this site, and similar viewpoints exclusively. If you were interested in discussion and learning there would be some variety, and some actual discussion. Both of which are absent.
Specifically who are you quoting or referring to there?
The idea that one must spread views they disagree with or else they are taking that stance is more than a little retarded.