Log in

View Full Version : Obama plans instute forced servitude



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

bem401
11-13-2008, 11:17 AM
I'm sure you understand what Obama actually is proposing, right?

Yes, liberal indoctrination to an even greater extent than it happens in school already. I'm a teacher, so don't tell me it isn't already happening.

davka
11-13-2008, 11:47 AM
I see nothing wrong with earning an education through hard work if you aren't born with a trust fund. At least it is an opportunity to go to college when previously there existed none.

I know that some will say there is government grants, but those have been slowly disappearing and leaving students with loans instead. The service for tuition option could help students and their families come out of school with a reduced debt burden.

If college students want to pay their own tuition and skip the 2 hours a week of community service, that is their choice. But at least the option exists for those that have no other options.

I built my home on a sweat equity program. Sure, it was a lot of hard work. Sure, I was quite exhausted by the time we moved in. BUT...I got a home worth $210K for $147K plus labor. I'm more than happy to have that $63k in my pocket instead of wrapped up in a mortgage. Today, that same home is appraised at $320k. I looked at the labor I put in as an investment in my future. And it really paid off, big time!

I would have never purchased a home at the higher price. I didn't feel comfortable under all that debt. Today I'm looking at having my home paid in full by 2012.

So, yes, service toward the community in exchange for $$ will be a great motivator for those that otherwise would have had zero options. The wealthy will always be able to buy their way out of obligations that the poor cannot. Ask GWB how his service in Viet Nam went. Or Dick Cheney.

But wouldn't it be nice, if for once the middle class and poor could earn an education, putting them on equal footing with the wealthy educationally speaking? It isn't a free ride, no one is harmed and wealthy can still buy out if they so desire.

I still haven't seen any points on how this program will do harm. What would a negative outcome be? Spoiled brats won't be able to get away with throwing a temper tantrum? Too fucking bad. Those brats will have to roll up their sleeves and work just like everyone else. 1-2 hours a week isn't going to kill anyone.

Unless the nay-sayers are the epitome of the spoiled brats, I just don't get what the problem is here.

^^^ will you marry me? *mwah*

flickad
11-14-2008, 02:42 AM
My posts are partisan? Are you aware of what partisan means?

There is a big difference between leaning left or leaning right and being partisan. Partisan means following your party with blind devotion, which I don't do (or even can do as I dislike and disagree with both parties).



Yes, I'm aware of what it means, and I'm also aware that the term is used to refer to an adherence to particular political views rather than just parties. See:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partisan

abadvi
11-25-2008, 04:22 AM
blah, I can't even read past the first page (sorry!) but I will say that I didn't go to college until five years after high school and that experience in the real world was INCREDIBLY noticeable between me and my 19 yr old peers. I think frequent and well-managed community service would actually be a good part of education (literally) and everyone should have to do it, not just poor folks. Make it like scouting badges--pick what you want to do and earn your hours that way. I understand the concept of less government interference and I am usually the first to cry "slippery slope" but I just see this as a long-term benefit for us socially.

Edit: and now I see i just bumped a thread that had pretty much died, I don't even know how I found it and am very embarrassed to bring it back up. sorry y'all!!!

threlayer
11-27-2008, 10:19 PM
It was meant to be ... because this proposal is also a little extreme. If you apply Occam's Razor to the proposal, the bottom line establishes a precedent that anyone who accepts gov't assistance in the future would 'owe' the government some measure of their own labor in exchange for that assistance. The contrasting position of course is that those who can afford to pay their own way would be free of such obligation to the government ( in this case attending private schools versus public schools, and declining gov't grants / loans while attending college). This is a first step in instituting an official two class society, where the lower class is no longer free of gov't 'meddling' in their personal affairs....

Belated comment.

If you are so against people talking money from the government (grants or services) when they could work for it, then WHY does this seem so nefarious? It seems to be just services rendered for payments in advance. Would this not be better financially than taking out a student loan and repaying it over 10-20 years at slightly discounted rates? Being against both alternatives just seems superficial, unless you are making the loan interest.

And by the way, we already have a three-class system.

Melonie
11-28-2008, 07:35 AM
^^^ belated response ...

The point is about 'owing' future service to the gov't as a condition of accepting gov't money. In your example, there is a big difference between taking out a student loan and paying it back on your own terms, versus accepting an as yet unspecified duty to perform some service for the gov't in the future. The difference boils down to, say, putting money into a retirement annuity versus putting an equal amount of money into a 401k. In both cases, the first option has known terms at the beginning, middle, and end of the 'deal'. In both cases, the second option has known terms at the beginning, but the middle and the end are both subject to future whims of the gov't.


we already have a three-class system

... which is rapidly headed for a two class system ... the rich (and free) and the poor (and obligated) !!!

threlayer
11-29-2008, 01:26 PM
I'm thinking that labor (time) given is better and saving the loan interest money is much better than putting that same money (compounded equals MONEY in time) towards that interest. Of course I know that many people believe that freedom from giving up a couple hundred hours of time is a lot better than doing something for the common interest or for the future. It isnt exactly military service, jail or even community service; it could be more like a work/study thing. All in all it makes a lot more sense to me than giving away government grants for no return at all. I think I have a lot better mix of self-sufficiency and social responsibility than do most people. So that's what it looks like from my standpoint.

Lucy in the Sky
11-29-2008, 03:01 PM
... which is rapidly headed for a two class system ... the rich (and free) and the poor (and obligated) !!!

Ah, yeas finally something we can agree on!

But here is where I am sure we will disagree. I believe that is now and always has been one of the main goals of the Paleoconservative arm of the Republican Party.

Anyone not familiar with that term see either or both of the following links:

threlayer
11-29-2008, 09:38 PM
...The difference boils down to, say, putting money into a retirement annuity versus putting an equal amount of money into a 401k. In both cases, the first option has known terms at the beginning, middle, and end of the 'deal'....

A defined benefit (pension, annuity or SS) vs a defined contribution (401k) system. Actually we need BOTH.

If the government is smart (and when will that start?), that plan will be productive for both. But in 'almost' any case it is better than paying interest for 10-20 years.

I think the objectors to a system of social contributions will be primarily the 'rebels' who cannot stand any outside control of their lives for whatever reason, including the control their parents had over them years ago. I suppose we ought to take that into account, because it seems tobe an integral part of their personality. It's just that the people who want to control us (judges, police etc) dislike that very much.

Narcissus
11-30-2008, 02:51 AM
I think the objectors to a system of social contributions will be primarily the 'rebels' who cannot stand any outside control of their lives for whatever reason, including the control their parents had over them years ago. I suppose we ought to take that into account, because it seems tobe an integral part of their personality. It's just that the people who want to control us (judges, police etc) dislike that very much.

Ummm, what? I know quite a few people that are against such a system and since objections would come 'primarily' from those sad and misguided individuals (read: rebels), it stands to reason that a majority of them should earn your label. Hell, maybe even me ... ?

What you just attempted was a disgusting propaganda trick. It leaves you an 'easy way out (example: primarily), yet it allows you to throw a negative connotation on the statements made by those that hold a different view.

Sometimes you make intelligent, well thought out posts ... and then there are the 'other times' such as the quoted post above. Just because someone has a different viewpoint than you, the right to label them (or the majority of them: primarily) as defective is still not viable. Sure, there are always exceptions to that rule, but this is simple and false propaganda.

Those that disagree with this post are primarily 'cretins' who cannot stand any differing opinions be stated, including the opinions of those who are more intelligent than themselves. That should be taken into account as it seems to be an integral part of their personality.

:sarcastic

Narcissus

flickad
11-30-2008, 09:12 AM
Narcissus, not to be rude, but your own habit has been to belittle viewpoints differing from your own, so criticising others for the same thing seems rather hypocritical.

threlayer
11-30-2008, 10:42 AM
I was not stating the above to belittle any others. If you felt belittled by my opinion, I don't know why; thus I may do it again. Sorry I don't know why.

I believe all of us have some social responsibility as a norm for all humans. I know some people don't have that, and so they tend to exploit those of us who have it. There must be a reason they don't feel that. I call them rebels. If you've got a better term or explanation, let's hear it.

Narcissus
11-30-2008, 03:02 PM
Narcissus, not to be rude, but your own habit has been to belittle viewpoints differing from your own, so criticising others for the same thing seems rather hypocritical.

Actually flickad, it has not. I fell into that habit for numerous posts because I was so irritated, but after reading several posts accusing me of 'attacking' rather than debating ... I took some time away from the forum to cool off and calm down.

There have been several times since then that I started writing a post and decided not to submit it because it came across as condescending.

Regardless, there is a huge difference between being irritated and writing things in the 'heat of the moment' about a person and directly trying to use a cheap propaganda tactic to discredit those with a different opinion.


I was not stating the above to belittle any others. If you felt belittled by my opinion, I don't know why; thus I may do it again. Sorry I don't know why.

Sure you weren't. You grouped the 'vast majority' of those with a differing opinion into a group and then proceeded to attack that group. I don't see how anyone could see that as a tactic to belittle them or their opinions.

I ask you to read, again, what you wrote:


I think the objectors to a system of social contributions will be primarily the 'rebels' who cannot stand any outside control of their lives for whatever reason, including the control their parents had over them years ago. I suppose we ought to take that into account, because it seems tobe an integral part of their personality. It's just that the people who want to control us (judges, police etc) dislike that very much.

Anyways ...


I believe all of us have some social responsibility as a norm for all humans. I know some people don't have that, and so they tend to exploit those of us who have it. There must be a reason they don't feel that. I call them rebels. If you've got a better term or explanation, let's hear it.

I readily agree that the majority of people do (and should) have some social responsibility. It was never my intent to debate that. My disagreement involves the government deciding what should and should not be a social responsibility. That is not it's concern in any way.

Separation of church and state is more, in my view, than keeping religion and government separate. To me, it encompasses the whole ideology of keeping the government as far away from moral and social decisions that are a citizen's right to choose. If I wanted (which I don't ... just an example) to hate everyone and do nothing for the community or the betterment of man, then that is my choice to make.

Narcissus

Lucy in the Sky
11-30-2008, 05:45 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how an optional program somehow equals forced servitude.

flickad
11-30-2008, 11:57 PM
Actually flickad, it has not. I fell into that habit for numerous posts because I was so irritated, but after reading several posts accusing me of 'attacking' rather than debating ... I took some time away from the forum to cool off and calm down.

There have been several times since then that I started writing a post and decided not to submit it because it came across as condescending.

Regardless, there is a huge difference between being irritated and writing things in the 'heat of the moment' about a person and directly trying to use a cheap propaganda tactic to discredit those with a different opinion.

I have noticed some improvement from you in that regard, it's true, but there was a recent post of yours which belittled someone's opinion for being 'socialist', so there's certainly still some similarity in your own tactics at times.

Narcissus
12-01-2008, 01:15 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how an optional program somehow equals forced servitude.

Rather than ride that merry-go-round again, I'll leave that to someone with more patience. ;)


I have noticed some improvement from you in that regard, it's true, but there was a recent post of yours which belittled someone's opinion for being 'socialist', so there's certainly still some similarity in your own tactics at times.

If you are unable to understand the difference, then I'm almost at a loss for words.

Simply put: I label an opposing viewpoint as 'socialist' because that viewpoint adheres to a socialist ideology. I then 'belittled' socialism because it is almost the exact opposite of what this country was founded on and it is what I am debating against.

She labels an opposing viewpoint as originating from 'rebels' and then belittled those 'rebels' with an absurd and vacuous accusation that holds no bearing on the discussion. Whereas my attack on socialism was founded by the premise of the conversation/debate, her attack on 'rebels' was nothing more than a petty propaganda attack against those that held a different opinion and not their opinion itself.

If you can't understand the difference or see what makes them different, then I give up. I refuse to believe that you are unable to understand the difference, so that will mean that you are simply unwilling.

As a law student, I'm fairly certain you have studied propaganda and the tactics of it's use to persuade your listeners. I hardly doubt that higher education here in the US compared to Australia would differ that greatly.

Narcissus

flickad
12-01-2008, 06:22 AM
^

I've done a US law subject and they actually do differ. It's MUCH easier to get high marks in the US subjects, we'll put it that way. Propaganda is also not a legal subject. The core subjects include criminal law, torts, contracts, property, corporations, administrative law, equity and trusts, criminal evidence and procedure, civil procedure, legal practice and conduct, constitutional law. Electives include areas like intellectual property and tax. Propaganda is not law- it sounds more like something you might have the option to complete as part of a BA. (Also, I'm not a law student any more. I finished my degree a few weeks ago).

You said that socialism is the opposite of progress, which by implication belittles the person espousing that viewpoint.

You have also just directed an extremely patronising post at me.

Melonie
12-01-2008, 08:54 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how an optional program somehow equals forced servitude

It depends if you are 'rich' enough to consider attending a private college versus state college, whether you are 'rich' enough to pay for private college tuition out of pocket versus taking out a gov't backed student loan etc. If you must accept 'help' from the government in the form of attending a state college or a gov't backed student loan or gov't educational grant money, then this 'optional' program isn't 'optional' !

Narcissus
12-01-2008, 09:30 AM
Time to piss my wife off again, I suppose. I have read so many of your posts and I still can't understand why she thinks so highly of you and wants me to leave your posts alone. Anyways ...


You said that socialism is the opposite of progress, which by implication belittles the person espousing that viewpoint.

First of all, that statement is absurd. You are comparing the following two quoted comments and saying that my intent is the same as hers. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe the thought process that could bring you to that conclusion.


I think the objectors to a system of social contributions will be primarily the 'rebels' who cannot stand any outside control of their lives for whatever reason, including the control their parents had over them years ago. I suppose we ought to take that into account, because it seems tobe an integral part of their personality. It's just that the people who want to control us (judges, police etc) dislike that very much.

You do realize that your posts have a very socialistic tint to them, don't you? What exactly is your optimistic ideal of a perfect 'America'? I mean that question seriously, no sarcasm or such intended. I just don't understand that way of thinking as it is, to my mind, the antithesis of progress.

Please note that when you also consider the overall context that my post was made (I can't quote an entire thread), I was saying that, in my opposing viewpoint, socialism is the direct opposite of progress. My comments are regarding the ideal and not the person or the person's 'created out of thin air' personality disorders. Even without considering the entire context in which it was made, it is still clear that my post 'belittles' no one and was never intended to do so.

Again I say: If you can't see the difference, then I am virtually at a loss for words. However, that isn't exactly true. You have made several comments ... through-out many threads ... over quite some time ... which are attacking me and attempting to make me look bad by stating that I implied things which I did not.

Frankly, I'm sick of it. You have implied on numerous occasions that you are not slow and have stated your scholastic accomplishments as proof. Either you are lacking your touted intelligence or (much more likely) you refuse to hear anything that goes against your own personal views without holding so much bias that you are unable to comprehend it.


I've done a US law subject and they actually do differ. It's MUCH easier to get high marks in the US subjects, we'll put it that way. Propaganda is also not a legal subject. The core subjects include criminal law, torts, contracts, property, corporations, administrative law, equity and trusts, criminal evidence and procedure, civil procedure, legal practice and conduct, constitutional law. Electives include areas like intellectual property and tax. Propaganda is not law- it sounds more like something you might have the option to complete as part of a BA. (Also, I'm not a law student any more. I finished my degree a few weeks ago).

Yes, yes ... you have made your opinion of my country well known ... moving along.

I never meant to imply that propaganda was a course that law students take. Propaganda is covered lightly in entry level English classes ... I assumed that law students would have taken much more advanced classes and therefore would have studied propaganda at a much greater depth. I also assumed that while learning about trials, a person would study (in great detail) persuasion techniques (including propaganda). If I was mistaken ... :shrug:


You have also just directed an extremely patronising post at me.

If you want to see my previous post that way, then feel free. Personally, I like to think of it as 'simplified for easy understanding' since it was obviously either not understood the other way (or simply ignored). I made it as simple as I could, even using bold text to demonstrate the extreme differences between the two methods of posting. I'm not sure if I should assume that you understood it or not as you then chose not to directly comment on it ... instead attempting to confront me on a different post which I have shown to be completely incongruent with your accusation. :footinmou?

I'm sure you will be quite unhappy when reading this post, but know that isn't my intention. I just despise when people intentionally take things I say out of context to 'prove they are right'. I'm not perfect and I assure you that I have screwed up a number of times that no one called me out on. Please use those screw-ups rather than creating your own.

Narcissus

Lucy in the Sky
12-01-2008, 10:02 AM
It depends if you are 'rich' enough to consider attending a private college versus state college, whether you are 'rich' enough to pay for private college tuition out of pocket versus taking out a gov't backed student loan etc. If you must accept 'help' from the government in the form of attending a state college or a gov't backed student loan or gov't educational grant money, then this 'optional' program isn't 'optional' !


Just plain wrong.

If a non 'rich' person doesn't want to participate this program they don't have to do so. They can do what most of us out here did and work as many jobs as needed to pay for school. No one is forced into this program. It's simply a new option that wasn't there before. It's choice not a requirement.

glambman
12-01-2008, 11:23 AM
Just plain wrong.

It's choice not a requirement.


Today's choice is tomorrows requirement. I'm paraphrasing what the then IIRC VISA CEO said about biometrics, chip implanst and such.

threlayer
12-01-2008, 11:50 AM
I don't feel that I need to contribute to a debate over what my intentions were in that post, especially after I've already explained them. If you disagree with what I've said, that's fine. But what is not fine is to tell me that you know my intent better than I do. Why, that's just self-centered. IMHO.
....
BTW your entire diatribe is based on not understanding my definition and my use of the word 'rebel' as opposed to [yours], even though I invited you to come up with another word more acceptable to you. [Hence] your uproar over my choice of that word. Also I suggest you look up the words propaganda and socialism.

threlayer
12-01-2008, 11:54 AM
Today's choice is tomorrows requirement. I'm paraphrasing what the then IIRC VISA CEO said about biometrics, chip implanst and such.

But that's completely off-track. RFID driver's licenses are already here' if you want to pay thr extra cash, then that's your option.

Generally if society starts being more exploitative (which it has been doing consistently), more rules are required to protect us from each other. That's society's option.

glambman
12-01-2008, 12:09 PM
But that's completely off-track. RFID driver's licenses are already here' if you want to pay thr extra cash, then that's your option.

Generally if society starts being more exploitative (which it has been doing consistently), more rules are required to protect us from each other. That's society's option.


How many people give their SS# to any place they have an account at? You know it's illegal fo them to use it as an identifier? I have several friends who haven't given it, but the banks sure did try.

Also, a chip implant into your body is different then a RFID, and that's what hey want. They claim it is safer than other means.

threlayer
12-01-2008, 01:12 PM
How many people give their SS# to any place they have an account at? You know it's illegal fo them to use it as an identifier? I have several friends who haven't given it, but the banks sure did try.

Also, a chip implant into your body is different then a RFID, and that's what hey want. They claim it is safer than other means.

I'm confused by your reponse.

I have no idea how others use that info. I didn't discuss SS#. But it apparently is law that DMVs are entitled to your SS#, which I disagree with. SS# is required for access to one's credit info and to report interest etc to taxing authorities. Banks and other credit sources do need that info. I believe you are entitled to know what security measures that have placed on that info.

The 'enhanced' driver's license uses RFID. I did not discuss chip implants into the body (which could be RFID). Read any 1984 chapters lately?

glambman
12-01-2008, 02:41 PM
I'm confused by your reponse.

I have no idea how others use that info. I didn't discuss SS#. But it apparently is law that DMVs are entitled to your SS#, which I disagree with. SS# is required for access to one's credit info and to report interest etc to taxing authorities. Banks and other credit sources do need that info. I believe you are entitled to know what security measures that have placed on that info.

The 'enhanced' driver's license uses RFID. I did not discuss chip implants into the body (which could be RFID). Read any 1984 chapters lately?


The VISA CEO was talking about chip implants. He claimed it was the best way to cut fraud/ theft. When asked if it (chip implating) was going to be voluntary or not, he said, yes, at the beginning, but what is voluntary today will be mandatory tomorrow. (paraphrasing)

Narcissus
12-01-2008, 05:10 PM
I don't feel that I need to contribute to a debate over what my intentions were in that post, especially after I've already explained them. If you disagree with what I've said, that's fine. But what is not fine is to tell me that you know my intent better than I do. Why, that's just self-centered. IMHO.
....
BTW your entire diatribe is based on not understanding my definition and myuse of the word 'rebel' as opposed to even though I invited you to come up with another word more acceptable to you. Wy your uproar over my choice of that word. Also I suggest you look up the words propaganda and socialism.

If you don't feel like explaining your intent, for whatever reason, that is your choice. I, however, did not say that I knew your intent better than you did ... I just called you out on it. Rather than defending your viewpoint or trying to debunk opposing viewpoints, you directly attacked those holding a different viewpoint. Everyone does it at times, it happens and is somewhat understandable ... I simply felt the need to call you out on it. :shrug:

As far as my 'entire diatribe' being based on not understanding your definition and/or misuse of the word 'rebel' ... I ask you to read my posts again. The labeling was only a part of my issue with your post. The suggestion that those 'rebels' had serious personality disorders counted for a fair bit of my issue of it.

I readily admit that you offered the suggestion that I come up with a better 'label'. The reason why I didn't even attempt to do so is that I don't see value in supporting such a claim, regardless of what label is applied. Also note that I was not exactly 'in an uproar' ... I simply stated what I saw and then defended my statements when confronted.

And finally, I know full well what propaganda and socialism mean.


Propaganda: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause
Socialism: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work doneSo, I would love for you to show me where I used these words incorrectly. The fact is: you cannot. Why? Because I used them correctly. You, I assume in anger or irritation (?), made that statement for the sole reason of disqualifying my statements without any basis for doing so. Please read the definition of propaganda above.

Now if everyone wants to get back to the actual debate rather than trying to attack me with false and misleading accusations, I would be happy to do so.

Narcissus

threlayer
12-01-2008, 08:47 PM
Then the implanting was in the plastic card, not the human body. :)

threlayer
12-01-2008, 09:03 PM
If you don't feel like explaining your intent,... SIGH, No I am done. I have no desire to continue this stupid game to satisfy your goal to win at this little game...
The suggestion that those 'rebels' had serious personality disorders counted for a fair bit of my issue of it... The serious personality disorder' is entirely your concept.


Also note that I was not exactly 'in an uproar' ... I simply stated what I saw and then defended my statements when confronted...Now if everyone wants to get back to the actual debate rather than trying to attack me with false and misleading accusations... The actuality of it is that YOU attacked me, or my stated opinion regarding social responsibility. I was not attacking you or anyone else. I was minding my own little post when you decided to turn on your flame-thrower. You got overheated and had to take time away from your little battle, as you stated to flickad. Well, I can only make myself clear; I cannot change anyone's mind. I am not trying to control you or anyone else. However, you are. And they way you are going about it, you will NEVER make me change my mind. So why bother?

If you are going to be useful around here (to anyone other than yourself), you will learn better how to debate instead of attack.

flickad
12-01-2008, 11:26 PM
Time to piss my wife off again, I suppose. I have read so many of your posts and I still can't understand why she thinks so highly of you and wants me to leave your posts alone. Anyways ...



First of all, that statement is absurd. You are comparing the following two quoted comments and saying that my intent is the same as hers. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe the thought process that could bring you to that conclusion.

Narcissus


Calling the comparison ridiculous and absurd isn't the same as actually countering it. Therelayer never stated or implied that your views indicate a personality disorder. He opined that they were part of a personality type, which is not the same as a disorder. Calling his views the opposite of progress is pretty damned insulting, so I don't think you're coming to the table with clean hands when you call him out for denigrating your views.

Your posts to me continue to be rude and personal. I have not once patronised you, insulted your intelligence or questioned your reading abilities. You continue to do all three. Really, you deserve the odd taste of your own medicine.

Melonie's views are quite similar to your own, and yet she manages to debate those with opposing viewpoints without being the least bit insulting to anyone. She certainly doesn't engage in ridiculous personal fights the way you do. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of her book. Also, if it's true that I am out to get anyone who disagrees with me, why is it that you see no personal skirmishes between Melonie or Eric Stoner or Army SGT and myself?

Again, propaganda has nothing to do with law and everything to do with political science. I'm surprised you thought otherwise.

Narcissus
12-02-2008, 06:37 AM
SIGH, No I am done. I have no desire to continue this stupid game to satisfy your goal to win at this little game... The serious personality disorder' is entirely your concept.

I'm not playing a 'little game', much less trying to win it. This is simply a case of calling you out on something, and then having to defend myself from 100% empty accusations.


The actuality of it is that YOU attacked me, or my stated opinion regarding social responsibility. I was not attacking you or anyone else. I was minding my own little post when you decided to turn on your flame-thrower. You got overheated and had to take time away from your little battle, as you stated to flickad. Well, I can only make myself clear; I cannot change anyone's mind. I am not trying to control you or anyone else. However, you are. And they way you are going about it, you will NEVER make me change my mind. So why bother?

Attacking you and debating your opinion on social responsibility are two entirely different things, which funny enough, is exactly what I called you out on. My statements about getting 'overheated' referred to an earlier time ... the only reason I could even possibly be considered as 'turning on my flamethrower' is because after calling you out, I was accused of something I did not do instead of having anything I actually said refuted.


If you are going to be useful around here (to anyone other than yourself), you will learn better how to debate instead of attack.

So to be useful, in your eyes, I have to ignore pointed attempts at using disparaging comments to devalue those with differing opinions? I am trying to debate and I'm sorry that you are unable to see that. Do you think I enjoy coming into this forum to find myself falsely accused of things when someone doesn't like what I have to say?


Calling the comparison ridiculous and absurd isn't the same as actually countering it. Therelayer never stated or implied that your views indicate a personality disorder. He opined that they were part of a personality type, which is not the same as a disorder. Calling his views the opposite of progress is pretty damned insulting, so I don't think you're coming to the table with clean hands when you call him out for denigrating your views.

You are right, I didn't directly counter the comparison at all. I did not show the differences between the two by placing them together and highlighting each and every difference. I obviously didn't do that. I know I couldn't have done that because neither of you quoted that out of my posts. Instead, I was accused of something which was false. I guess I didn't show how that was false either (you know ... by quoting things and then showing, step by step, how those things were different)?

I admit that using the word 'disorder' was the wrong word to use. You caught me. I should have said: a personality type that holds strong negative value ... or maybe even: a personality type that negatively influences the opinions of those that hear it. Would that have been more appropriate?

I love how you completely ignore the parts of my post that you can't refute and then continue on as though I never stated them. When I commented on that view and said that, to me, it seemed the opposite of progress ... I made a point of showing that I was trying to avoid being offensive. I also, as pointed out above, made it obvious that given the context of that thread ... it was a valid question and, in no way, could be seen as insulting. You are using it out of context, as I have shown already.

I also find it hilarious that rather than directly defend the post that I called out, you have made it your job of showing how I was just as wrong (which I have refuted, but I digress). Even if I had been just as guilty elsewhere, would that change the fact that I was right here? No? Then why come into this thread and 'call me out' rather than the thread that I supposedly did such a horrendous thing?

Here is a perfectly answerable question, which I hope you don't choose to ignore: do your own personal views correlate with those of threlayer's view on social responsibility?


Your posts to me continue to be rude and personal. I have not once patronised you, insulted your intelligence or questioned your reading abilities. You continue to do all three. Really, you deserve the odd taste of your own medicine.

Would making rude and personal posts count as the same as false accusations? What about ignoring the parts of my posts where I demonstrate how I was right? Taking my words out of context?

If you don't think those things are patronizing and insulting, I'm not sure what to tell you.

I fully believe that if I started to skip those parts of your posts that refuted me and continued on as if I had proven my point, then I'm sure you would question my reading ability. Have you noticed how I don't do that (skipping incriminating sections of posts)? Have you noticed that I go to the trouble of going back several posts to show where I already contended with things?

If you take my posts as rude and personal, my only current reply is to simply read what has transpired back and forth without bias.


Melonie's views are quite similar to your own, and yet she manages to debate those with opposing viewpoints without being the least bit insulting to anyone. She certainly doesn't engage in ridiculous personal fights the way you do. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of her book. Also, if it's true that I am out to get anyone who disagrees with me, why is it that you see no personal skirmishes between Melonie or Eric Stoner or Army SGT and myself?

Melonie has shown a propensity for ignoring virtually everything that is said except what directly relates to the subject matter. While that is her inclination, I choose differently.

I don't recall ever saying that you were 'out to get anyone that disagrees with you'. Have I said that anywhere? Personally, I don't remember saying that. I even took time to go look for that statement, but was unable to find such a thing. I then went back and looked for any statement I might have made that could even imply such a thing and this is all I could come up with:


Either you are lacking your touted intelligence or (much more likely) you refuse to hear anything that goes against your own personal views without holding so much bias that you are unable to comprehend it.Is that your basis for making such a comment? Well, inherent in that statement is a plausible answer to your question. Another one might be that you have had a longer 'relationship' with the people you named and therefore don't use the same antics with them. There are numerous possible reasons for the difference, but of course ... I'm sure the fault is my own.


Again, propaganda has nothing to do with law and everything to do with political science. I'm surprised you thought otherwise.

I've never studied law, so I withdraw my assumption that trial lawyers study persuasion techniques.

Again, if we want to get back to the actual debate rather than trying to attack me with false and misleading accusations, I would be happy to do so.

Narcissus

threlayer
12-02-2008, 09:51 AM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to use the dreaded "ignore" button (only my 2nd time). This person is just entirely too annoying. Someone tell me if/when he becomes a lot better at diagreeing.

A club DJ -- now it's obvious. :)

Miss_Luscious
12-02-2008, 09:54 AM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to use the dreaded "ignore" button. This person is just entirely too annoying. Someone tell me if/when he becomes a lot better at diagreeing.

I had to do the same thing. He really has nothing worthwhile to post and a real debate is not possible with him. You won't be missing anything, trust me.

threlayer
12-02-2008, 10:03 AM
Yeah, his arguments weren't very illuminating and were almost completely 'him-oriented'.

Narcissus
12-02-2008, 08:07 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to use the dreaded "ignore" button (only my 2nd time). This person is just entirely too annoying. Someone tell me if/when he becomes a lot better at diagreeing.

A club DJ -- now it's obvious. :)

That makes sense. You attack those with differing opinions. I call you out on it. You post fluff, which I point out is fluff. You then attack me directly and I show exactly where you are wrong. You then come back and state you will 'ignore' me, call me annoying, and then insult me again.

You have a brilliant strategy: don't defend yourself by using facts, don't attempt to refute anything I say, and attack with absolutely nothing to substantiate that attack.

Just a little bit of insight for you: look at my posts and note that after first calling you on your blatantly ignorant post, I have been able to do nothing in this thread besides defend myself. I'm not propagating this shit ... I dread opening this thread because I already know what I'm going to find.


Yeah, his arguments weren't very illuminating and were almost completely 'him-oriented'.

:D Other than laugh, there isn't much more to say about that comment. Amazing logic.

Narcissus

flickad
12-02-2008, 10:59 PM
Yeah, his arguments weren't very illuminating and were almost completely 'him-oriented'.

Agreed.

Narcissus, I'm not going to bother forumlating a response to your latest post. It's a waste of my time. So, go ahead and think what you like. Just know that my refusal to waste my time wading though your muck doesn't mean I concede it.

Narcissus
12-03-2008, 01:25 AM
Agreed.

Narcissus, I'm not going to bother forumlating a response to your latest post. It's a waste of my time. So, go ahead and think what you like. Just know that my refusal to waste my time wading though your muck doesn't mean I concede it.

I expected nothing less. ::)

Regardless, that works well for me as maybe now discussion on actual issues will continue.

Narcissus

threlayer
12-03-2008, 07:20 AM
a true last word man, it would seem