Stubby wrote:
I don't think we should refer to them as GOP anymore. The GOP died with Reagan. The FOP party (Fundamentalist Old Party) appropriated the corpse 3 days later and is now the far right wing party in US politics. This will allow the Dems to a be more centrist party thus more appealing to a majority.
I do not give a flying f**k what a Canadian (Especially a Quebecois) thinks regarding this nation, of which he is not a part. I would welcome the opportunity to get close enough to you to explain my position in a more appropriate manner.
You are ignorant, and determined to remain so, and you can best serve humankind by depriving it of what passes for your thinking.
What about an American who generally sees things as he does? (note I did not say EXACTLY)
And if you follow American politics the Right has big problems with the youth who even on the right are tending more to Stubby's direction than yours. They are less religious - even on the right and more socially liberal - especially on the right. Social Conservatism as a political movement is beginning to collapse. And if you follow the demise of religion in Europe - it should never have been political in the first place. It should have lead by example. The persuasion of Jesus vs the sword of Rome.
The less valuable your ideas the more you have to enforce them. The communists proved that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
wow Diogenes
should I take your veiled threat of bodily harm seriously?
if all you have are empty, irrelevant and egregious ad hominem attacks about my character, nationality or ethnicity what does that say about your arguments?
now waiting for the trifecta...
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Stubby wrote:
I don't think we should refer to them as GOP anymore. The GOP died with Reagan. The FOP party (Fundamentalist Old Party) appropriated the corpse 3 days later and is now the far right wing party in US politics. This will allow the Dems to a be more centrist party thus more appealing to a majority.
I do not give a flying f**k what a Canadian (Especially a Quebecois) thinks regarding this nation, of which he is not a part. I would welcome the opportunity to get close enough to you to explain my position in a more appropriate manner.
You are ignorant, and determined to remain so, and you can best serve humankind by depriving it of what passes for your thinking.
I think Diogenes is crossing the line. This is not even a veiled threat. He can only be talking about his desire to enact violence.
Same type of law has been proposed in North Carolina.
Again it presumes that a couple staying together is always the best thing for the children.
If none of the exception criteria is met, a couple is forced into counseling and take a course on the effects of divorce on the kids.
Where is the course for government on the effects of bad marriage on the kids?
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Stubby wrote:
I don't think we should refer to them as GOP anymore. The GOP died with Reagan. The FOP party (Fundamentalist Old Party) appropriated the corpse 3 days later and is now the far right wing party in US politics. This will allow the Dems to a be more centrist party thus more appealing to a majority.
I do not give a flying f**k what a Canadian (Especially a Quebecois) thinks regarding this nation, of which he is not a part. I would welcome the opportunity to get close enough to you to explain my position in a more appropriate manner.
You are ignorant, and determined to remain so, and you can best serve humankind by depriving it of what passes for your thinking.
I think Diogenes is crossing the line. This is not even a veiled threat. He can only be talking about his desire to enact violence.
Well he is losing the argument. What else does he have left? I suppose he could try to get laws enacted and have government thugs do his dirty work for him. In order to present a more "noble" appearing attitude.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." attributed to Geo. Washington
The Republicans like the Democrats propose to appoint Masters over all of us. D is just more out front in his attitude. He has taken off the velvet glove and now his Iron Fist is showing.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
simon, Dio's loss of temper with you and Stubby is well deserved. I mean seriously, you're both such liars. Take the simplest of examples and the most recent. Stubby was misapplying the formal term of ad hominem and when corrected, both you and he argued with the correction. I answered Stubby's whining and despite this, you and he merrily went on ignoring what was said to you. What you two do, does not qualify as adult conversation, and it is enough to make anyone angry. I'm sure we can all see Dio was not making a real threat. To date, the only person on these boards to make real threats were your threats, simon; against me.
Again to the point that pressed Dio to overstate his annoyance with you two:
"argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument."
I even italicized the most salient portion and yet we're having this moronic conversation, where both you and Stubby are urging the misuse of the formal term.
To state again--argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It applies only to those instances where one is presenting himself as making a logical argument, even if informal as with an elliptical construction. When I observed that Stubby is a liar and unworthy of anyone's time in discourse, I was not making an argument, but rather an observation. It is not a fallacy to present an argument against someone, unless you are doing this instead of against his position.
INSTEAD OF
Do you understand this freshman stuff now or do we need to get you into a 12 year-old's critical thinking class? Seriously, you're supposed to know this stuff before you get out of high school. How can both you and Stubby have no idea what a logical fallacy entails and yet be tossing around the terms in their latin forms?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIT, you are irrationally obsessed. Not only are you defending Diogenes threat of violence against Stubby, which personally I think should be good enough to have him banned from the forum. But, why do you care if stubby has characterized your attacks as ad hominum. Attacks, by the way, that you don't deny you have done, only that you don't call ad hominum because stubby "was not making an argument". It really makes little sense GIT.
kcdodd wrote:GIT, you are irrationally obsessed. Not only are you defending Diogenes threat of violence against Stubby, which personally I think should be good enough to have him banned from the forum. But, why do you care if stubby has characterized your attacks as ad hominum. Attacks, by the way, that you don't deny you have done, only that you don't call ad hominum because stubby "was not making an argument". It really makes little sense GIT.
How do you know Diogenes did not have a car load of posters, picture books and other instructional aids that he wished to share in person. You have only assumed violence based on his posting. Its all about POV
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.
MSimon wrote:
What about an American who generally sees things as he does? (note I did not say EXACTLY)
And if you follow American politics the Right has big problems with the youth who even on the right are tending more to Stubby's direction than yours. They are less religious - even on the right and more socially liberal - especially on the right. Social Conservatism as a political movement is beginning to collapse. And if you follow the demise of religion in Europe - it should never have been political in the first place. It should have lead by example. The persuasion of Jesus vs the sword of Rome.
The less valuable your ideas the more you have to enforce them. The communists proved that.
Simon, I have respect for you. But on those issues where you wander off into kook territory, I seldom pay attention anymore. I have gotten to the point where I simply skip most of what you write. (especially any long messages.)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Stubby wrote:wow Diogenes
should I take your veiled threat of bodily harm seriously?.
Only if you get within running distance.
Stubby wrote:
if all you have are empty, irrelevant and egregious ad hominem attacks about my character, nationality or ethnicity what does that say about your arguments?
now waiting for the trifecta...
I have been told by various Canadians that the French part of the country is particularly insane and obnoxious. Anecdotal evidence tends to confirm this hypothesis.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
I do not give a flying f**k what a Canadian (Especially a Quebecois) thinks regarding this nation, of which he is not a part. I would welcome the opportunity to get close enough to you to explain my position in a more appropriate manner.
I think Diogenes is crossing the line. This is not even a veiled threat. He can only be talking about his desire to enact violence.
I absolutely mean that I would very much like to enact violence upon him. Sometimes violence is the only appropriate response to a loudmouth. If you do not know this, you must have led a sheltered life up to now.
As for crossing a line? You have a low threshold. Suggesting that someone needs an @sswhipping is pretty pedestrian nowadays.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
kcdodd wrote:GIT, you are irrationally obsessed. Not only are you defending Diogenes threat of violence against Stubby, which personally I think should be good enough to have him banned from the forum. But, why do you care if stubby has characterized your attacks as ad hominum. Attacks, by the way, that you don't deny you have done, only that you don't call ad hominum because stubby "was not making an argument". It really makes little sense GIT.
I feel sorry for you. I suspect it will pass though.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
kcdodd wrote:GIT, you are irrationally obsessed. Not only are you defending Diogenes threat of violence against Stubby, which personally I think should be good enough to have him banned from the forum. But, why do you care if stubby has characterized your attacks as ad hominum. Attacks, by the way, that you don't deny you have done, only that you don't call ad hominum because stubby "was not making an argument". It really makes little sense GIT.
How do you know Diogenes did not have a car load of posters, picture books and other instructional aids that he wished to share in person. You have only assumed violence based on his posting. Its all about POV
I have to plead guilty to the accusation. I have, in the past, dealt with @ssholes, who's mouth writes checks that their @ss can't cash, and I find it is often the simplest solution.
In the case of Stubby, we have this 20 something French-Canadian Evangelical Atheist making disparaging remarks regarding myself, my allies, my nation, and my philosophy. To such as this, the most reasonable response is to simply punch him in the mouth. Those of you who are adult men understand the notion perfectly.
Unfortunately, (or perhaps fortunately) Stubby is too far away and too anonymous to make the effort plausible, and he probably wouldn't even say such things without his internet bravery anyway. I suspect he is much less obnoxious in the meat world, where such an attitude has actual consequences.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
I do not give a flying f**k what a Canadian (Especially a Quebecois) thinks regarding this nation, of which he is not a part. I would welcome the opportunity to get close enough to you to explain my position in a more appropriate manner.
I think Diogenes is crossing the line. This is not even a veiled threat. He can only be talking about his desire to enact violence.
I absolutely mean that I would very much like to enact violence upon him. Sometimes violence is the only appropriate response to a loudmouth. If you do not know this, you must have led a sheltered life up to now.
As for crossing a line? You have a low threshold. Suggesting that someone needs an @sswhipping is pretty pedestrian nowadays.
Can someone ban him now?
And I find it interesting that he places my request that he be banned at a higher level of action than assaulting someone. How irrational can one become?
