Authoritarians and Politics

[Itsme]

I’m not even the one who railed on you for picking a Wikipedia and pop science mag link when I picked a Harvard one. You did this to yourself @Itsme .

Yes it is all about outer appearance, never about the content and what is said.
Sorry for making the article more readable for you instead of linking the sources hat has been quoted by the article. I mean clicking on a link or googling something would be close to forming independent thought and would have overchallanged you.
I listed so many sources in our prior discussions, it was an low effort to give you something i saw as self evident.
But yes, you are even right with this, linking you an Wikipedia article already DID over-challenge you since the first thing you did was assuming that the statement some payed shill had put into the first paragraph equated empirical truth

[sbbds]

Yes it is all about outer appearance, never about the content and what is said.
Sorry for making the article more readable for you instead of linking the study hat has been sourced by the article. I mean clicking the link would be close to forming independent thought and would have overchallanged you.
I listed so many sources in our prior discussions, it was an low effort to give you something i saw as self evident.
But yes, you are even right with this, linking you an Wikipedia article already DID over-challenge you since the first thing you did was assuming that the statement some payed shill had put into the first paragraph equated empirical truth

You didn’t make it more readable. You posted a massive textwall, where you couldn’t identify the places that supported your argument at all.

I’ve already bolded and made the areas supporting my points (well, with your help lmao since you idiotically refuted yourself over and over again) clear. I made them red so people can see.

I’ve listed tons of sources in our prior discussions too, which you asked for but never replied to. I’ll link the post here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1390823

When you use sources, you should specifically quote to show their relevance in what you’re trying to say. Otherwise you just look intellectually dishonest and trolly.

[Itsme]

You didn’t make it more readable. You posted a massive textwall, where you couldn’t identify the places that supported your argument at all.
[...]

When you use sources, you should specifically quote to show their relevance in what you’re trying to say. Otherwise you just look intellectually dishonest and trolly.

I thought about it as as self evident, just as much as the notion that only when something is the first paragraph or last line in a Wikipedia article, it does not make it correct.
I guess we will not come to an agreement, we will interpret the same data differently and where you see proof i see mental gymnastics and constructs and the other way around.
Should not really confuse that much, even the scientists are having a constant debate about it. Even though it is not a fair discourse and people are losing their noble prices over going against current ideology.
From my POV things are crystal clear but i accept that i will not be able to sway your opinion, the important thing is that other peple will follow the discussions and can profit from the arguments that have been made.

[sbbds]

I thought about it as as self evident, just as much as the notion that only when something is the first paragraph or last line in a Wikipedia article, it does not make it correct.
I guess we will not come to an agreement, we will interpret the same data differently and where you see proof i see mental gymnastics and constructs and the other way around.
Should not really confuse that much, even the scientists are having a constant debate about it. Even though it is not a fair discourse and people are losing their noble prices over going against current ideology.
From my POV things are crystal clear but i accept that i will not be able to sway your opinion, the important thing is that other peple will follow the discussions and can profit from the arguments that have been made.

Yeah you are not addressing the arguments anymore because you never could. Your backpedaling became obvious a couple posts ago.

The way that you speak won’t be convincing to even the dullest of minds on here if you don’t have any real content to back it up. Well, actually the way that you speak isn’t even that academic or compelling anyway although it’s vaguely manipulative since it’s riddled with typos, hypocrisy and obvious ironic contradictions.