Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Thats why u don't argue with the trump haters or the trump lovers. neither of them can accept simple verifiable facts cuz of their emotions and confirmation bias style of absorbing news and truth.

jorj Level 8 Mar 11, 2018

I didn't think of it, but the article is correct when it said this:

"...The issue is not ideology. Rather, it is America’s vanishing ability — and willingness — to reason..."

It's shocking what Ussery said to the pastor! I'm sure he said it out of spite - rather than simply believing that the pastor's daughter's life was a conspiracy set up just to fool Ussery.


Yah. I learned this lesson on here. I thought all those who join a site for agnostics would all have open minds that allow them to accept new data, including the understanding of logical fallacies. But, unfortunately, no.

Some agnostics on here do not extend their critical thinking outside the topic of religion. Eg they may not believe in god but believe that single parent homes is a form of child abuse.

it is a verifiable form of abuse. that is why the stats show kids from single parent homes are much more likely to be criminals, drug addicts, pregnant as teens, depressed, etc. but like the post says, no need to argue about cuz some won't accept simple verifiable facts and only base their opinions on their own personal experiences.

@jorj I find the simplification of the claim that "single parent home is a form of child abuse" as problematic.

If your belief is correct, how did the U.S. maintain the heady lifestyles of 80s and 90s when only 50% of children of the 60s were living in the "traditional" (mother, father, 2.5 kids) family lifestyle?


If you consider the decline of the U.S. has already started and only recently, would you equate the reason for it with the decline of single parent homes? Because by the 80s, there was a decline of single parent homes from 50% in 1960 to only 26%.

This is the simplistic view of your claim. Of course, this can't be true, right? Which then kind-of proves that you can't/shouldn't maintain simplistic views.

@jorj Just let me add, if you don't find the U.S. is in decline, then you're all set. You shouldn't have anything to worry about. With the decline of single parent homes since the 80s, the U.S. must have a bright future ahead of itself.


this from 2014 from the source u quoted that says the exact opposite. any child that comes from single parent houses have been shown to be higher at risk for the negatives as shown here.


Fewer than half (46%) of U.S. kids younger than 18 years of age are living in a home with two married heterosexual parents in their first marriage. This is a marked change from 1960, when 73% of children fit this description, and 1980, when 61% did, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of recently released American Community Survey (ACS) and Decennial Census data.

first thing in the link i provide and it shatters your theory all over.

your wokrin dad with stay at home moms link is irrelevant to the total number of kids not in traditional family house holds with their biological mom and dad.

@jorj if your stats back up your claim, I stand corrected.

But, just to clarify, my assessments that the non-nuclear family structure of the 60s caused the high lifestyles of the 80s and 90s is NOT ACTUALLY TRUE. I was making an example of the logical fallacy of attributing one event to another.

Like I said at the end of my current reply, "this can't be true, right?". This suggests that I don't believe in the assessments I gave. I was making a point that attributing a data point to an event without a deeper understanding of the event leads to false conclusions.

Which again, you agreed with! Like when you agreed with me with the ridiculousness of "ban all cars because they are dangerous, too."

You just said that your data "shatters" my theory. Which it should, because my theory is crap. I pulled it out of thin air. How could I possibly attribute the high life of the 80s and 90s with the family structure of 60s without a deeper understanding of both.

You attributing child abuse with single parent homes as a cover-all blanket statement can't be anything but false. Because, you know, some kids go through single parent homes without abuse.

"some kids go through single parent homes without abuse."

u can find a needle in a hay stack but the hay stack doesnt cease to exist cuz u found the needle.

and i don't use it as a blanket statement, the facts prove that it cause many negative attributes to form in children from those homes. kids that don't exhibit those traits usually have a strong make role model such as an uncle or grandfather to guide them but when u get to a point that kids are isolated from actual male bonding and support it is detrimental to their development. same as when kids don't have females in their life to turn to when they need the female touch on things.

@jorj Yeah, but we're not talking about "needles" and "haystacks", right? We're talking about people. Regardless, only one data or event that proves a claim false, makes that claim false - unless you quantify that claim with "some" or "not all".

i would have to disagree cuz anyone who is honest about anything realizes and knows before hand that their are exceptions to everything and that nothing dealing with humans is absolute in any way and that is why we have stats. to have to qualify everything that should be common sense is just not worth the time or effort esp when the stats show percentages and never 100% on any issue.


It does boggle the mind. I quit Facebook over god/trump etc posts from my classmates and kin down in Louisiana (not that Nebraska is much better, but I didn’t grow up with these sorts of folks in Nebraska!). They are ever so certain in their ignorance and blind to anything else; and will believe the most wacko conspiracy theory as long as it bends to their warped view of reality. Ugh.

I think many of these folks equate critical thinking with simply being a critic and it drives me batty. For now I am taking a break with arguing with them.

Ohub Level 7 Mar 11, 2018

As depressing as this is, thank you for the posting.


True, and I already knew it, but find myself trying more often than I should.


I just read this story Leonard Pitts wrote today. Maybe these people should take a test before being allowed to vote. I strongly believe voters rights should not be unlimited.

BTW, you left of the people who thing the moon landing was staged.

The problem with voting limits is that it leaves a crack the snakes can use to cheat. I'd rather innocent idiots vote than crooks control.

why infringe voting rights when ignorant ppl are easy to win over with RESULTS. there wouldnt be anyone voting for republicans if democrats stood up for the workin ppl and pushed policy that would help the working class instead of playin with race baiting and identity politics all the time and passing republican economic policy.

@jorj I have some questions on that. How can Democrats support the working class (blue collar) when those jobs become a problem. We have coal miners, tobacco workers, workers for the gun industry and on and on. Many Democrats support job retraining programs but the workers don't want to be retrained. They just want things to stay where they are.

Last year we had a rally about a local refinery wanting to increase their production. They wanted to enlarge the local port and build a new rail line. This was extremely harmful to our natural environment and would create problems for the local communities. One guy got up and said he had 6 kids. His job was a good job and he wanted the proposals to go forward so that his kids would have a chance of a decent livelihood! Things are very complex and, unfortunately, too many Republicans offer easy answers.

@EdEarl Innocent idiots got in tRump. I worked the voting polls for 5 years. I saw so many problems that I sort of lost faith in the system as it now stands.

legalize hemp for one. we lose millions on it every year if not billions. legalize marijuana for another, we all see how wel it does in the states that allow it already. fight for a higher min wage cuz of the economy becoming mostly customer service types thing that pay min wage. fight for medicare for all to take health care cost off workers. impose a tax on corporations equivalent to pre reagan years and use the money to rebuild infrastructure as well as penalize corporations who move their factories over seas with tariffs as well. there are many thing that would help the working class that democrats pay lip service to only to sell us out once we elect them. they left the workers but expect us to keep on showing up for them.

since bill clinton came along and decided to destroy unions and go to wall st for politcal fund raising the workin class has been left behind at every turn. and the sad part is the dem voters that voted for Hillary knowing she is criminal when Bernie actually stood for progressive liberal policies and would have fought for them as proven by his many years as a senator, unlike Hillary and her record in the senate. but yea, sexism and racism is why Trump won, nothing else at all. i hate to be so rude but anyone that voted for hillary over bernie needs a real mental examination. im not 100% with bernie but i know he isnt a corporate shill like the rest. nina turner and tulsi gabbard are two more that i respect but the rest that have democrat as their party can go to hell for all i care. i won't vote for any of them ever again unless they are new faces with no ties to wall st. mid terms will tell alot about how its gonna go tho. the corproate dems will lose all over but the justice dms may actually move some seats back to the left. either way Trump will be re-elected if the dems don't wake up soon. russia is just BS distractions to keep ppl from emotional and not askin the right questions about things. its the dems benghazi in other words.


Look for the places you agree. Bind your relationship. Friendship wins it all.


True. the only options are either to (1) shout them down, or (2) declare that you refuse to aregue with a fool who is lying to himself and others.

or u could actually prove to them why they are wrong with reason and logic


The people, like the couple described in the article, who go with these non-sensical, non-factual conspiracy fabrications, are spawned and nurtured by the likes of Alex Jones (Infowars), and Rusted Limpballs (Rush Limbaugh), emotion-evoking, mumbo jumbo speaking, radical-right- espousing "entertainers" whom I suspect feel some sort of power by being able to greatly influence the weak minded, dimwitted rabble that haven't the capacity to think rationally and/or are desperately seeking someone on whom to toss the blame for their miserable, hapless, and meaningless existences. They turn to such foolishness to assuage their bitterness at being colossal failures in life, and to find some sort of community of support, no matter how ludicrous or disingenuous it may be.

Arguing with them is simply an exercise in futility, and frustration. Their lives are not ruled by reason. I don't know what the answer is in dealing with them (I know one quite well), and I, personally, don't wish to give them any of my precious little time left on this rock.

@atheist sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself, and I get the absurd notion that I have something worthwhile to say. I'm usually wrong on that.


There are some people who have their heads buried so deeply up their asses that no amount of pulling can extract them.

I like to say they buy a ticket to Egypt so they can bury their heads in de nial.


We are at least centuries away from separating ideology from reality.

If we are to survive those centuries we must separate, and end, the damages caused by ideologies. In some cases, this can only be done by the isolation (imprisonment, removal of religious materials, reeducation, etc) of any with these ideologies.

These people represent among the MOST harmful aspects of their ideologies: those which deny any damage is casued by them.


True, there is no way to reverse the sewage flow in their mind. It is truly amazing that they refuse to accept real numbers and facts. It is just an astounding event to even see such a thing. The illuminati conspiracy is once again surfacing and they all believe it remains the clintons that are taking over the nation

EMC2 Level 8 Mar 11, 2018

I fully agree. I wish there were some way to confront these people on national television and yet they would continue to be stupid as this is cool to act. Just look people in the eye and say you support alternative facts. How dumb is this


There comes a point when stupidity crosses into mental illness.
We have parameters for the criminally insane.
We should have parameters for the criminally stupid.


Imagine having family members who are exactly like those people. I have a few in mine. There is no way to reason with them. I refuse to discuss anything other than family issues with them. They refuse to think for themselves or lost the ability to do so somehow.


TRUE However they do not use the same logic or reason when they relate to religion! There you must have faith which cannot be proved! No free will.


Part of the problem is equivocation. For example 99% of scientists say the sky is blue and 1% say it is not. It gets reported as "Not all scientists aggree" and someone takes that as if it is still undecided and runs with it. Then again some people are just facts averse.

And the tumpies think that means the majority




You shouldn't waste time and energy arguing with morons.

Occasionally I will make one or two attempts at talking to ones that don't appear to be too far gone,... but usually it is a waste of time in the end anyway. So in principle - I agree with your point.


.... I honestly don't know how to respond to this. It's just too ludicrous.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:35446
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.