They may have an answer, but the “logic” behind them is frequently circular/self-referential in nature, and therefore invalid. But it sounds good enough to them so they’ll refuse to even think about - let alone acknowledge - the large gaps/leaps in their so-called “reasoning” that so often completely destroy the foundations of their claims.
You’re right: they almost always have “an answer” & as long as they’re prepared with something to say, then they’ll never care about how valid it is. They’ve got an answer, and that makes 'em right(wingnuts), goddammit!!!
They may have an answer, but the “logic” behind them is frequently circular/self-referential in nature, and therefore invalid. But it sounds good enough to them so they’ll refuse to even think about - let alone acknowledge - the large gaps/leaps in their so-called “reasoning” that so often completely destroy the foundations of their claims.
You’re right: they almost always have “an answer” & as long as they’re prepared with something to say, then they’ll never care about how valid it is. They’ve got an answer, and that makes 'em right (wingnuts), goddammit!!!
Yep, this is what I meant without communicating it as well as you did.