Page 9 of 11 [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

21 Jun 2012, 5:34 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Where does it say that they were "framing law abiding Gun Dealerships?" The e-mails show that they were cooperating with the ATF.

And, where is anyone admitting to attempting to get more anti-gun laws pushed through?


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgkh_1sgFrs&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL8F51EF0357A96764[/youtube]

If you're going to claim something never happened, maybe you better make sure that I can't find something to completely destroy that claim in under 2 minutes.


I hate to break this to you, but President Obama didn't say that he was "framing law abiding Gun Dealerships", nor that he was attempting to push through any more anti-gun laws.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

21 Jun 2012, 5:38 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Excuse me but we have a dead US Border Patrol agent, and an Attorney General that lied to Congress while under oath, that's just for starters...

So, I'm not being partisan on this, I want some answers, don't bother trying the blame Bush B.S., I've already pointed out that Fast & Furious is entirely the doing of the Obama DoJ.


See, I might have believed you. But then you posted the last half of your run-on sentence.

You claim to be motivated by getting answers, but you can't help yourself, you have to throw in a partisan shot. If all you cared about was answers, you wouldn't have drawn a rhetorical fence between the Bush and Obama administrations.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Inuyasha.


:roll:

Seriously just drop the BS visagrunt, I made that comment because the blame Bush song and dance routine has already been tried on these forums in multiple conversations regarding F&F and you are one of the people that tried to use it.

Operation Wide Receiver operated from 2006 to 2007 and was ended when the Mexican Authorities botched a sting and some firearms went missing... Fast & Furious was started in 2009 after George W. Bush left office, furthermore it has been found Fast & Furious had none of the safety measures that Wide Receiver had (for instance quite a few firearms in Wide Receiver had tracking devices implanted in them to make it easier to track the guns for the actual bust).

I stated the facts visagrunt, which is that F&F was from the Obama DoJ, not the Bush DoJ, stating the blatently obvious truth is not being partisan.


Thank you for making Visagrunt's point for him.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLYyMJ6XY6U[/youtube]



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

21 Jun 2012, 5:40 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
I hate to break this to you, but President Obama didn't say that he was "framing law abiding Gun Dealerships", nor that he was attempting to push through any more anti-gun laws.


YEAH BUT HE WAS THINKING IT OKAY


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Jun 2012, 5:40 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Where does it say that they were "framing law abiding Gun Dealerships?" The e-mails show that they were cooperating with the ATF.

And, where is anyone admitting to attempting to get more anti-gun laws pushed through?


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgkh_1sgFrs&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL8F51EF0357A96764[/youtube]

If you're going to claim something never happened, maybe you better make sure that I can't find something to completely destroy that claim in under 2 minutes.


I hate to break this to you, but President Obama didn't say that he was "framing law abiding Gun Dealerships", nor that he was attempting to push through any more anti-gun laws.


Why do I need to keep pointing out the blatently obvious, this isn't rocket science people, I know you people have brains...

Of course the guns were coming from the US, the US DoJ was the one shipping the guns to the cartels...



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

21 Jun 2012, 5:54 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Where does it say that they were "framing law abiding Gun Dealerships?" The e-mails show that they were cooperating with the ATF.

And, where is anyone admitting to attempting to get more anti-gun laws pushed through?


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgkh_1sgFrs&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL8F51EF0357A96764[/youtube]

If you're going to claim something never happened, maybe you better make sure that I can't find something to completely destroy that claim in under 2 minutes.


I hate to break this to you, but President Obama didn't say that he was "framing law abiding Gun Dealerships", nor that he was attempting to push through any more anti-gun laws.


Why do I need to keep pointing out the blatently obvious, this isn't rocket science people, I know you people have brains...

Of course the guns were coming from the US, the US DoJ was the one shipping the guns to the cartels...


That wasn't what I had asked, and you still need to learn how to spell.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jun 2012, 6:12 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
:roll:

Seriously just drop the BS visagrunt, I made that comment because the blame Bush song and dance routine has already been tried on these forums in multiple conversations regarding F&F and you are one of the people that tried to use it.

Operation Wide Receiver operated from 2006 to 2007 and was ended when the Mexican Authorities botched a sting and some firearms went missing... Fast & Furious was started in 2009 after George W. Bush left office, furthermore it has been found Fast & Furious had none of the safety measures that Wide Receiver had (for instance quite a few firearms in Wide Receiver had tracking devices implanted in them to make it easier to track the guns for the actual bust).

I stated the facts visagrunt, which is that F&F was from the Obama DoJ, not the Bush DoJ, stating the blatently obvious truth is not being partisan.


Where? Cite one instance. Point me to one thread in which I have tried to blame the previous administration for this. Anywhere.


_________________
--James


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Jun 2012, 7:53 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Hmmm...........where to start?
...
The long and short of it is that some people continue to be deeply repulsed by homosexuality and they vote, period.
Something else for you to chew on is that there are a considerable number of Canadians a that share those same values....
Either here or there it will only change with time, maybe.....
...
Do you understand anything I write? Doesn't look like it sometimes.......... :roll:
...
As long as I vote my list isn't totally irrelevant. You can rest assured I vote the type of values I write about here.
...
All in all, government decisions are not "better" so all you do by expanding government is more unwise decisions....
...
Am I to assume that you think your government is perfect or what? Government perfection is an oxymoron if there ever was one.
...
That is a textbook scenario. Trust me when I say that it does not work that way in the real world. Human nature won't allow that kind of efficiency in an entity like a government agency.
I'm really starting to think you just don't get it.
...
For the most part we like our constitution quite well, thank you. There cannot be a perfect constitution that addresses every circumstance.
...
I don't even know where to start with this. I could easily write a page in response to each sentence but I don't have the inclination to explain to those who are obviously either too naive or just looking for an argument for the sake of arguing and provoking others into the same.
(pssssp............it's called trolling by some definitions)
...
It's taken as a complement whenever you or yours do.
...
Got that right. :D
...
You'd fail miserably. My mind is as open as my conscience will allow it.
...
What you're doing in effect is exposing more of your faulty ideology and arrogance to the right side of this forum and showing the left what they already know about me. In other words it's strictly self satisfying and accomplishes nothing.
...
Good luck! :lol: :lol: :lmao: :lmao:
...
Why not just roll the whole gay thing into one instead of at the beginning and end of your...........reply.
Well, read what I said at the very beginning of my reply because it applies here equally well.
...
To sum it up, the gist of your whole post that I'm replying to now is about your highhanded criticism of the United States and disdain (or hatred, disgust, pity, envy, or whatever) of me.
...
Next time spare yourself all the typing and just say "F*ck you, your politics, and your country!".

Better luck next time....

:D


Neither of us are doing ourselves any favours here--so let's cut the invective, and turn to the issues of substance. I think there are two (but feel free to add one if you feel that I have missed one): the issue of popular repulsion to homosexuality, and the relationship betwen the Constitution and government decision making.

Voters may well be replused by homosexuality, and they are perfectly free to be so. But they are not free to attempt to use their electoral weight to deny equal protection (equal benefit, in Canadian parlance) to their LGBT fellow citizens. Unless and until they amend the United States Constitution (or in our case, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) they are on the wrong side of the law. They are perfectly free to hold their opinion, but they are not free to give their opinion legal weight. I would believe that same thing, even if 99% of the electorate believed that homosexuality is repulsive. Until they use that electoral weight to amend the relevant constitutional provisions, their belief cannot be given the weight of law.

As for the second matter, I would never claim that my country's government or constitution is perfect. Far from it. Indeed, I think we have committed exactly the opposite constitutional offence in this country, having gone too far to other extreme and having taken far too much authority away from individual legislators. Since I am employed as a public servant I see the nature of decision making in my government every day, and I participate in it. I recognize its shortcomings and its strengths. But most importantly, I recognize that the work that I do, that my department does and my Minister's accountability for it to Parliament is important. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do--a government is, after all, a human thing. But to suggest that government is always wrong, or mostly bad is, I suggest, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.



Neither of us are doing ourselves any favours here--so let's cut the invective, and turn to the issues of substance.
Quote:
I've noticed at least lately that between you and me it's usually you that starts up with the insulting tone. If you can't take it don't dish it out.


Voters may well be replused by homosexuality, and they are perfectly free to be so. But they are not free to attempt to use their electoral weight to deny equal protection (equal benefit, in Canadian parlance) to their LGBT fellow citizens. Unless and until they amend the United States Constitution (or in our case, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) they are on the wrong side of the law. They are perfectly free to hold their opinion, but they are not free to give their opinion legal weight. I would believe that same thing, even if 99% of the electorate believed that homosexuality is repulsive. Until they use that electoral weight to amend the relevant constitutional provisions, their belief cannot be given the weight of law.
Quote:
The law does not and obviously can can not control what squares an individual fills in on their ballot or why. You're really punching yourself below the belt by even implying that it's illegal to vote based one's principals, be they right or wrong.
:roll:

As for the second matter, I would never claim that my country's government or constitution is perfect. Far from it. Indeed, I think we have committed exactly the opposite constitutional offence in this country, having gone too far to other extreme and having taken far too much authority away from individual legislators. Since I am employed as a public servant I see the nature of decision making in my government every day, and I participate in it. I recognize its shortcomings and its strengths. But most importantly, I recognize that the work that I do, that my department does and my Minister's accountability for it to Parliament is important. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do--a government is, after all, a human thing. But to suggest that government is always wrong, or mostly bad is, I suggest, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote:
My point is, once again, to limit, I'll spell it out for you L-I-M-I-T, government control. The less you do the less you chance screwing up and governments are notoriously clumsy. As stated before in this thread I get to experience federal government inefficiency every day from a government contractor standpoint.


:wall: :wall: :wall:



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Jun 2012, 8:22 pm

marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Next time spare yourself all the typing and just say "F*ck you, your politics, and your country!".

Sounds like a good idea, minus one thing. This isn't your country. It's everyone else's too, including us "sniveling liberals" who would rather not have your kind giving all Americans a bad name. According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population. You guys don't single handedly own the title of "patriot".


Quote:
This isn't your country. It's everyone else's too, including us "sniveling liberals.......
.
Pretty weak even for you. People do refer to their nation of citizenship as "my country". Same applies to my state, my city, my neighborhood, my street, etc. That evil Raptor did not invent that all by his horrible raptoresque self.
:roll:

Quote:
.......who would rather not have your kind giving all Americans a bad name.

It might come as a surprise to you but my kind sees your kind as what's giving Americans a bad name.

Quote:
According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population.

Thank you very much for the complement but I'm afraid I'm by no means an extreme right wing partisan. I personally know some that are and compared to them I'm the sniveling liberal. Given a choice, though, I'd much rather be an extreme right wing partisan any day than an extreme left wing partisan. That poll was probably done by leftist partisans, anyway.

Quote:
You guys don't single handedly own the title of "patriot".

Maybe not but I'd say as a whole the right wing has done more to deserve the title of patriot and are actively doing more to preserve that title than any of you......



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

21 Jun 2012, 8:57 pm

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
According to the polls, extreme right-wing partisans like yourself comprise less than 30% of the population.

Thank you very much for the complement


Hey! If you're going to steal someone's catch-phrase, at least spell all of the words correctly!

:shameonyou:



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

21 Jun 2012, 11:02 pm

marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... :lol:


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Jun 2012, 12:31 pm

Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... :lol:


You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Jun 2012, 12:40 pm

marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... :lol:


You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.


i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Jun 2012, 12:46 pm

Raptor wrote:
visigrunt wrote:
]As for the second matter, I would never claim that my country's government or constitution is perfect. Far from it. Indeed, I think we have committed exactly the opposite constitutional offence in this country, having gone too far to other extreme and having taken far too much authority away from individual legislators. Since I am employed as a public servant I see the nature of decision making in my government every day, and I participate in it. I recognize its shortcomings and its strengths. But most importantly, I recognize that the work that I do, that my department does and my Minister's accountability for it to Parliament is important. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do--a government is, after all, a human thing. But to suggest that government is always wrong, or mostly bad is, I suggest, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


My point is, once again, to limit, I'll spell it out for you L-I-M-I-T, government control. The less you do the less you chance screwing up and governments are notoriously clumsy. As stated before in this thread I get to experience federal government inefficiency every day from a government contractor standpoint.

:wall: :wall: :wall:


Here's a nice example of a right-winger being reasonable and not letting his emotions control him.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Jun 2012, 12:52 pm

Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... :lol:


You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.


i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......


I only assume mental incapacity when there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary. It's possible you could prove me wrong some day, but for now I assume you're sole purpose here is to clown around taking potshots at the hordes of "sniveling liberals".



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Jun 2012, 1:00 pm

marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
visigrunt wrote:
]As for the second matter, I would never claim that my country's government or constitution is perfect. Far from it. Indeed, I think we have committed exactly the opposite constitutional offence in this country, having gone too far to other extreme and having taken far too much authority away from individual legislators. Since I am employed as a public servant I see the nature of decision making in my government every day, and I participate in it. I recognize its shortcomings and its strengths. But most importantly, I recognize that the work that I do, that my department does and my Minister's accountability for it to Parliament is important. Do we make mistakes? Of course we do--a government is, after all, a human thing. But to suggest that government is always wrong, or mostly bad is, I suggest, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


My point is, once again, to limit, I'll spell it out for you L-I-M-I-T, government control. The less you do the less you chance screwing up and governments are notoriously clumsy. As stated before in this thread I get to experience federal government inefficiency every day from a government contractor standpoint.

:wall: :wall: :wall:


Here's a nice example of a right-winger being reasonable and not letting his emotions control him.


You call that emotional? Even if it is it's nothing compared to some of your rants...
:D



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Jun 2012, 1:10 pm

marshall wrote:
Raptor wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek.


I meant to reply to this earlier, as it echoes a longstanding argument I've had with Master_Pedant specifically and quite a number of people generally over effective vs ineffective arguing techniques. See, when I see an angry, hyperbolic, profanity and personal attack laden post, my automatic response is to write that person and their opinion off, as clearly they are not in control of their self and/or trying to emotionally manipulate the argument. Think of the difference between reading a professional news article and a tabloid piece; the tone is completely different, and one conveys trust and competence while the other inflames the emotions and feels tawdry and cheap.

I don't think eschewing emotional and overly aggressive argumentation is disarming yourself, rather I think it's more like not using hand grenades at close range. Rage, contempt, condescension, all these things have a way of harming the person using them as much if not more so than the target of them, so I think the person who makes the conscience decision to avoid those things as much as possible is not weaker for it, but stronger.

I try and hold myself to a code of arguing, with varying degrees of success, that avoids overly emotional, hyperbolic, contemptuous or generalizing statements, and I think I do pretty well here for it. It even works well in that when I do inject a bit of emotion into my posts it has much greater impact, as I haven't degraded my "brand" so to speak with frequent petulant outbursts and angry tirades. I'm also much harder to dismiss as a partisan as I don't engage in sweeping tirades and mass generalizations, things that have a tendency to erode both your credibility and impartiality. In my case, I don't aim to be taken as impartial, as I don't think that's possible, but less partial than the people I'm arguing with. Nifty trick, and experience has shown that it drives people much crazier than a brazen personal insult... :lol:


You don't seem to notice that I resort to contemptuous argument style when it's been made clear that the person I'm arguing with is mentally incapable of reasoned debate. Sorry there's no nicer way to put it but I'm not blessed with extreme patience.


i.e. when they have a differing opinion.......


I only assume mental incapacity when there has yet to be any evidence to the contrary. It's possible you could prove me wrong some day, but for now I assume you're sole purpose here is to clown around taking potshots at the hordes of "sniveling liberals".


Could it be that you take yourself too seriously sometimes?
Could it be that you measure mental capacity by someones politics?
Could it be that you sometimes purposely bait potshots?
Something to consider........