Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson

This post has 12 comments with rating of 2.3/512

• 
  Postlethwaite
  February 20th, 2023
  

  ‘Responding to the right’ = anything to the right of F Engles and K Marx.

  The book of ‘responding to the left’ is a book ten or twenty times bigger.

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  GordonCoon
  February 20th, 2023
  

  I see the reposting of every Leftist tract, after it has been criticized by other people, is still a thing on this site?

  Whenever a leftist “debunks” something, all they really mean is they have a bad argument, where they redefine the meaning of all the words in the English language until they serve their purpose rather than the purpose of the truth.

  As for his claim that he has tangled with the heavyweights of the Right? A quick Google reveals, for example, that Jordan Peterson would be happy to debate Nathan the liar but it hasn’t happened because Nathan has run away whenever such a debate has been offered. In fact, Nathan writes opinion pieces on other people and then refuses to defend those opinions. This is not a surprise. This is the standard tactic of every leftist. When your views ar indefensible? You can’t afford a public debate.

  This is the problem of the woke-left, their arguments make no logical or rational sense, so they must be aired in a vacuum to allow them to establish (only in their own minds) a sense of superiority over the sane folks.

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  Webby1948
  February 20th, 2023
  

  

  Quote: ‘This is the problem of the woke-left, their arguments make no logical or rational sense’,'opinion pieces ..[they] refuse to defend’.
  Isn’t your post just an opinion without substance?
  And are you using ‘woke’ as a synonym for left, or just referring to some subgroup, implying there’s a ‘woke-right’ as well? Please make it clear or otherwise it’s just a claim with no ‘logical or rational sense’.

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  GordonCoon
  February 20th, 2023
  

  I believe that I quite literally gave everyone enough information to demonstrate my assertions here. I know, you’re a leftist, you’re too thick to Google, but that’s really not my problem. Bless you, little boy, it was a try, just not a good one.

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  butthammer
  February 20th, 2023
  

  

  “Debunked the right”? you can’t even define what a woman is lmao

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  Malachie520
  February 21st, 2023
  

  Based on your comment, butthammer, you don’t seem to know the definition of woman either. Are you using the term to describe a person’s sex or a person’s gender? They’re different. It’s one of those inconvenient facts that tends to get missed in right-wing lunacy. Let me spread out and see if I can explain it to you, in easy language so even GordonCoon can follow along and not be linguistically confused. Think of biological sex as being a set of natural numbers: 1, 2, and 3. Biologically, we’re all either a 1, 2, or 3 as in we tend to either be XX or XY though some are XXY. You can be born male, female, or intersex. In our natural number example, a woman is biologically female. But gender isn’t the same as sex, it being a construct of our minds and is a psychologically-invented word. You can look at gender as being a set of real numbers 1 through 3. You can be a 1, 2, or 3…but you can also be 1.2 or 2.9999281 or 0.00000000000001. It is a impossibly large range and you can fall anywhere on this line as your brain believes. Nonbinary and trans are the two big categories appearing between the numbers but are by no means the only other genders one can be. In our real number example, a woman is anyone identifying as a woman. Yes, the biological constraints may be different (a woman can’t be defined as simply having female sex organs as many women have lost some of them and it makes them no less woman) but the term will hold up. Now you have the facts. You can still have your subjective opinion on the matter (including your incomplete definition of a woman you “feel” is correct) but you no longer can objectively be opposed. Facts are facts. You can argue but I suggest you do what this site promotes and read some books first. Even if you STILL don’t agree (subjective opinions are yours to coddle), you’ll at least be more educated.

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  Hogweed
  February 21st, 2023
  

  

  Yea, one thing I have seen over and over, leftists and libtards are totally incapable of having an intellectual conversation without falling into name calling and threats. daenigma100 only proves this point by constantly removing and re-uploading his books because he cant stand the truth. Sorry to break it to you enigma, the truth doesn’t care about your feelings.

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  butthammer
  February 21st, 2023
  

  

  @malachie520 The perfect libtard response, a wall of midwit text. Thank you for confirming that you are incapable of defining what a woman is.

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  tenbenson
  February 21st, 2023
  

  @butthammer

  It’s clear that reading is hard for you. I hope it’s not a condition. I imagine it’s simply that you have no use for education, your hatred of anyone that isn’t a straight white man is enough to fuel you.

  So I wonder why you hang out on a book site. Sure, they’re audiobooks so you don’t have to “read” them, but I still think you only come here to shovel your angry, deluded and deeply flawed opinions about. Is the rest of your life ok? When did things start to go so terribly wrong for you?

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  Webby1948
  February 21st, 2023
  

  

  @GordonCoon:
  No no no. Yer have not. You have gone from the unproven particular - Robinson’s apparent reluctance to debate Peterson - to the general- therefore all ‘leftists’ refuse to debate ‘rightists’- added a few opinions in with your assertions,and a hilarious insult which tends more to support the basic premise of the book than that the rightwing has a superior ideology.Well done!

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  ssafe05
  February 22nd, 2023
  

  @hogweed

  “Yea, one thing I have seen over and over, leftists and libtards are totally incapable of having an intellectual conversation without falling into name calling”

  So, is libtards your affectionate term of endearment and not namecalling?

  Pot, meet kettle…

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson
• 
  heyheyhey2
  July 7th, 2023
  

  

  Boring, pandering. Not really worth the listen.

  Responding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments - Nathan J. Robinson

Add a comment (please log in before commenting)