The Conservative mindset

[Abrupt]

Is that you peeping through my window again?

I'll take that as your tacit admission of the accuracy of the content of the reply posted to "BJ".

I didn't read your reply and I don't care to know what your thoughts are on a 'BJ'.

[falcon9]

Is that you peeping through my window again?

I'll take that as your tacit admission of the accuracy of the content of the reply posted to "BJ".

I didn't read your reply and I don't care to know what your thoughts are on a 'BJ'.

That's not surprising as your previous replies reflect little indication of reading comprehension either, (wrong kind of bj, which supports the contention regarding your minimal comprehension 'skills', let alone your schoolyard conception of "humor").

Cognitive dissonance (or reaction to it): When made aware that you're holding mutually exclusive ideas, don't seek to resolve the conflict, just pound the hell out of that square peg until it fits into that round hole.

[BJohnsonPP]

Ah.... I really want to... I just won't. Anyway... Typical conservative response.

How can you lead off with a fallacy of Ad Hominem and yet continue with your response?

I wanted to respond but I know where that leads (nowhere) so I didn't (I know where this will lead, so I don't even know why I'm doing it   ). So yes, I dismissed your response as a typical conservative one. Also, my "repsonse" wasn't one. It was a summary, hence:

Let me sum [up] the conservative mindset:

It didn't address you and therefore wasn't a response to you

You also know that I don't identify myself as a conservative, but because you are such a blind follower of your ideology you must see me that way in order for you to be able to focus your ire.

I don't care about your politics, I'm talking about your mindset and you exhibit everything I point out as being a part of the conservative mindset. I could call it the "scooby doo mindset" if I wanted to. You kept implying I was a liberal but I never corrected you because it didn't change my points.

You didn't even correctly define cognitive dissonance the other day so don't pretend to be an expert now.

So, because I use the term at all now that means I'm presenting myself as an expert? As I said my points still stood because I was talking about the reaction to it if not "it" itself, hence:

Cognitive dissonance (or reaction to it)

as well as this in response to that correction:

First, You are correct in the definition of cognative dissonance. So, my points are incorrectly labeled but still stand. My points are about the conservative reaction [to] that dissonance. When experiencing this dissonance conservatives do not seek to resolve the conflict. They deny it and find ways to live with it and make anyone who brings it up the bad guy. "They have a problem, not me." So, for example, the conflict of being anti-socialism while pro-medicare is a matter of ignorance/stupidity (HIV). When made aware of this conflict, they are now suffering from full blown cognitive dissonance (AIDS) but they deny it or make excuses for it. There's no attempt to reject one conflicting idea for the other. They suffer from a disease, deny they have it and refuse any treatment.

What you indicate as 'binary' is what is known as a false dichotomy.

  I know what a false dichotomy is. Your signature is where "binary" came from.

What you present in your application description is non sequitor and is actually what is known as a strawman fallacy.

As I did with cognitive dissonance, I point to what your binary mindset leads to. And   I know what a strawman is. I already addressed that in a response to you using one in a previous post:

You're errecting strawmen as conservatives typically tend to do. If you can't deal with what someone is actually saying, just assign them a position [because] it's easier to argue against that.

What you describe in your conclusions is exactly what you have done here, but you carried it to an extreme level and shut the door as quickly as the discussion began.  I was willing to carry the conversation to the end and it was you that took a threatening posture and balled up your fists and shut the door and you would now propose to tell me that I "refuse to understand anything that conflicts with your beliefs...".  

You're being a WWE ref right now:

drive someone bat $h!t crazy, ignore everything you said and did to drive them nuts even after it's pointed out to you, then declare that they're the one that needs help when you're the one that drove them to insanity.  

If I continue to present arguments that you mangle first as to make it easier for you to respond to (the cop/doctor argument for example), the whole conversation is pointless and doesn't need to continue. It's just me having to present what I said over and over after you dodge by responding to an argument you know I didn't make. I saw it as just ridiculous to continue with when I read through your responses and saw every single thing you mangled that I would have to reconstruct.