LogFAQs > #945737519

colliding posted...

yeah this is basically what I was trying to say the whole time. I just was too lazy to craft the sentences in an easily understandable way.

I still honestly don't understand what NFUN means about an "implication." Like I don't know how else I can say "I don't think your knowledge is the same as their knowledge. But their belief is stronger than your knowledge. And your knowledge is stronger than their belief."

What you're saying here is that the two parties (as in groups, not political parties) have two different systems to view politics that are entirely incompatible. That they're *not* comparable. The rest of the topic you were implicitly saying that they *were* comparable, that it was merely a matter of perspective on facts everybody agrees upon. The response to "How can I stop my parents from watching Fox?" with your actual argument is "You can't, as the ideology Fox exposes is intractable from their beliefs". What you said was "How would your parents stop you from watching John Oliver?", which definitely implies that the scenarios are 1-to-1 comparable, having the same answer. The conclusion to be drawn from your point is that either that you have to prove that either network is garbage to convince the other side (which you've said is not your point) or that it's impossible to change anybody's minds due to obstinacy and brainwashing. Thus the implication that I'm as full as shit as like a Q Anoner. Remember, a key in you and Para's logic is that you *can't*, essentially no matter what, convince a Fox viewer to change their mind. That doesn't work in reverse

In conclusion, don't answer a question with a question

---

You shine, and make others shine just by being near them.