Why I don't like reading arguments by the Left

The post below begins with a quote by conned, but I assure everyone, veers into more interesting and sane subjects. Notably, why there is friction when people with different fundamental beliefs start arguing. Some insights given below. I'd like to say that what I say is more interesting than what conned is saying, but judge for yourself.

This is notably what I find wrong about the Left, specifically even the rational discourse shown in conned's recent link to KF monkey. It is not the facts that are different, although they are at times. It is not that the interpretation is different based upon the same facts, although some interpretations are different given the same facts. Rather, the primary thing I have find problematic is that their reasoning is completely flawed. Or if not completely, flawed in the basic superstructure and foundations. You could argue facts, interpretations, and whether something is consistent or inconsistent, but how do you argue whether someone's reasoning and logic is valid? Obviously they believe their thinking and capacity for reason would be valid, how else would they even validate or invalidate their beliefs if they had to stop using their thinking and reasoning abilities? The same reasoning they use to check their capacity for reason is the same use of reason that they are trying to verify as valid or invalid. This means it becomes a loop, a logic loop. How do you know whether your reasoning and logic is valid, if you can only check your reasoning and logic using your own reasoning and logic? Someone comes on the landscape, and tells you that your logic and reasoning is wrong, so what do you do? You use the same capacity for reason, that someone else accused of being flawed, to validate his or her arguments to the contrary. Catch 22, circular logic chain, and so forth.

For example, conned's logic that hits mean more people reading, is not statistically valid. But there is no point of agreement, no mutual interests. Conned is asked to disbelieve his own mind in relation to statistics.

KF for example, sets an amount of precepts that is logic and reasonable. I do not complain about that. I only note that his conclusions are not the conclusions I have derived. But his premises, that the civilians have a covenat with the military, is valid and one I also hold as part of my logical axioms, my a prioris. So why the different conclusions? Much as two people can derive two different interpretations of the same facts, two people with the same logical premises can derive wholly different logical conclusions depending upon the variations of the logic used.

I would have included in KF's list of covenat responsibilities,

The civilians must make sure not to demoralize the military and therefore make their mission harder, nor should the civilians betray the military by giving up while the military is fighting.

The civilians should not set the military on and a mission and then contribute to the propaganda of the enemy that they wanted the military to fight in the first place.

Supporting the troops does not mean fanatic obedience to the talking points of the administration, but it also does not mean people are free to sabotage the chain of command through leaks or the reputation and combat effectiveness of the military through unConstitutional sabotage.

KF supports his list of bad armor and bad support with the stories of "inadequate armor for troops" and "troops are not being fed". I guess you could argue the facts of the matter, but presumably someone who can write such a logical and reasonable post should have realized the possibility that his facts were wrong. But he hasn't so far, so what does that tell us? Is this just a simple case of ignorance, poisoning the logic and producing bad conclusions? Or is this a case of simple denial, of alternative theories and interpretations? Or is this even more complex, does he truly believe the troops have bad armor because he doesn't understand what appropriate armor is?

In the end, a true epistemological and metaphysical argument veers more and more towards the person's thinking and less and less towards the issue. I do not refer to ad hominem. I refer to understanding the opposition to an extent that you can thus communicate with them given a base set of values and variables. For Republicans, I can converse with them easily, without this stressful requirement to understand how they think simply because Republicans think alike given a set of shared values and logical axioms. Their reasoning and their logic proceedes on predictable and well worn paths, you might say, that I can easily follow. For the liberals, fake liberals, Democrats, and the Left I have to follow them through jungle terrain, harsh deserts, and marsh lands. This is more difficult than traveling on the road with fellow travelers. If my opponent becomes rude, obtuse, purposefully ambiguous, and vulgar then I see no need to committ extra resources to understanding him. Unless of course I sought to destroy him, then the extra effort would be justified regardless of my opponent's personality or politeness.

I asked Ryan this question before, but I will conclude with a question to the readers in the audience, so that they might ponder this for a certain length of time. Do you, the readers, believe there is honor amongst one's enemies?