Contrary to that statement which was clearly logical and facts based without any virtue signaling or moralization.
[says something refractory and pretends it was an original thought based on logic]
That's your new thing, putting bullshit between brackets after giving a statement based on nothing like "Practically every leftist policy has some kind of moralizing, virtue signaling, or victim culture. They believe the ends justify the means, and the means usually means being full of shit." which is EXACTLY the same as if I would say "Practically every rightist policy has some kind of racist, sexist, or hate culture. They believe the ends justify the means, and the means usually means being full of shit."
Whaou. So much logic. Very intelligent. Much debate.
And I don't think this word means what you think it means dude...
Refractory: Stubborn or unmanageable.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/refractoryYep, you aren't worth any more energy than that. It is exactly how much thought you put into your reply. Do you have any ideas of your own or do you just wait for me to have one so you can repeat it back to me? Regarding the definition of the word...
REFRACTORY"2. Resistant to a process or stimulus."This is you resistant to the process of logic under the stimulus of factually observable empirical evidence.
BONUS WORDS:
REFRACT"1a : to subject (something, such as a ray of light) to refraction
b : to alter or distort as if by refraction "REFRACTION "
1: deflection from a straight path undergone by a light ray or energy wave in passing obliquely from one medium (such as air) into another (such as glass) in which its velocity is different2 : the change in the apparent position of a celestial body due to bending of the light rays emanating from it as they pass through the atmosphere also : the correction to be applied to the apparent position of a body because of this bending
3 : the action of distorting an image by viewing through a medium also : an instance of this"
Keep running fat man.
Hey look at that! It's you coming back without backing your shit with anything (cause we still have this beautiful statement that "Practically every leftist policy has some kind of moralizing, virtue signaling, or victim culture. They believe the ends justify the means, and the means usually means being full of shit." without anything factual) and with personnal attacks!
The explanation "This is you resistant to the process of logic under the stimulus of factually observable empirical evidence" is great but you show nothing close to "factually observable empirical evidence".
Unless you consider your statement as based on such evidence but somehow missed showing such evidence.
It's funny how when you take the time to look closely at what you say, there is never any source or figure and you still claim that you're the "logical guy". And yet when we take your EXACT WORDS and just change the adjective so they aim your side you consider this as abusive and stupid.
So your sentences are logical and factual when you write them, but stupid and inconsistent when we do?
Practical I guess.
