Ramallah withdrawal

[Guest]

I RULE!!!

Very mature.

 

I don't call you names because I'm upset. I call you names because it's the only way to derive any amusement at all out of this silly activity. I've said so many times before.

 

Because, as usual, the group YOU support would NEVER do that.

Nope. Because I, unlike you, have actually read what I'm talking about.

 

I didn't say they WERE inaccurate.

Good. Now, let's deal with this bit:

Of course, you have also expressed hatred for the woman, so your opinion, no offense (heck, take offense. I can't stop you) is hardly impartial.

You've expressed hatred for Arafat. Does that mean your opinion of him isn't impartial either and therefore irrelevant? I put it to you that strong emotion does not necessarily distort judgement. Only actual injury does, and Schlessinger hasn't injured me. I'm perfectly capable of judging her and criticisms of her fairly. My hatred and disgust for her is besides the point.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote  

I RULE!!!

Very mature.>>>

 

 

Fortunately for me, maturity was not the goal here.

 

 

<<<I don't call you names because I'm upset. I call you names because it's the only way to derive any amusement at all out of this silly activity. I've said so many times before.>>>

 

 

Of course.

 

And you don't believe in God, either.

 

Got it.

 

You know, as I also said, you could NOT do this? If I didn't enjoy getting your panties in a bunch so, I'd not reply to you.

 

 

<<<Quote  

Because, as usual, the group YOU support would NEVER do that.

 

Nope. Because I, unlike you, have actually read what I'm talking about.>>>

 

 

And, of course, you're an impartial source here.

 

Suuure.

 

 

<<<Quote  

I didn't say they WERE inaccurate.

 

Good. Now, let's deal with this bit:Quote  

Of course, you have also expressed hatred for the woman, so your opinion, no

offense (heck, take offense. I can't stop you) is hardly impartial.

 

You've expressed hatred for Arafat. Does that mean your opinion of him isn't impartial either and therefore irrelevant?>>>

 

 

If you supportArafat, you can easily say that my opinion isn't impartial and my opinion should be weighed against what you feel to be the facts.

 

FORTUNATELY for me, the facts don't really paint Yassir in a positive light, either.

 

 

<<<I put it to you that strong emotion does not necessarily distort judgement.>>>

 

 

It absolutely does.

 

 

<<<Only actual injury does, and Schlessinger hasn't injured me. I'm perfectly capable of judging her and criticisms of her fairly. My hatred and disgust for her is besides the point. >>>

 

 

No, it IS the point.

 

Let's say I HATE Jesse Jackson (I don't HATE the man---I just find him to be beneath contempt). Let's say that there is this one site I like that DOES hate the guy outright.

 

Let's say I say that you should read the quotes they have of his.

 

You'd be beyond foolish to not expect the quotes to be taken out-of-context.

                         -=Mike

[Guest]

<<<I put it to you that strong emotion does not necessarily distort judgement.>>>

It absolutely does.

Your position is indefensible and stupid. How do you think the justice system works? If a judge and a jury listen to five weeks of testimony about a grisly murder, with relatives breaking down in tears at the stand, with lawyers making speeches portraying the defendant in turn as a murderous subhuman villain and a misunderstood saint, do you seriously expect them not to feel strong emotion at the end of the trial?

How does any jury render an impartial verdict? Easy: they put aside their hatred, assess the evidence, and acquit or convict and sentence the accused according to the law.

You aren't saying that you don't think I can have a sound opinion. You're saying I don't. That isn't an argument, that's a personal attack: you're just claiming that I'm a liar. That's fine. But at least have the guts to be straightforward about it, rather than disguising it as "debate."

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote  

<<<I put it to you that strong emotion does not necessarily distort judgement.>>>

It absolutely does.

 

Your position is indefensible and stupid.>>>

 

 

That crushing grip of reason unleashed upon me again?

 

*sigh*

 

People with a vested interest are far less likely to consider a viewpoint that is opposed to their own.

 

You are unwilling to even attempt to understand when somebody explains what Dr. Laura said she meant by a statement.

 

So, are you a credible source to say that GLAAD is "fair" with their quotes?

 

Good God no.

 

 

<<<How do you think the justice system works? If a judge and a jury listen to five weeks of testimony about a grisly murder, with relatives breaking down in tears at the stand, with lawyers making speeches portraying the defendant in turn as a murderous subhuman villain and a misunderstood saint, do you seriously expect them not to feel strong emotion at the end of the trial?>>>

 

 

Funny you should mention that.

 

You are aware that justice is SUPPOSED to be impartial. Emotions AREN'T supposed to have any impact.

 

If they do, it's a flaw in the system---which isn't the same thing as a good thing.

 

 

<<<How does any jury render an impartial verdict? Easy: they put aside their hatred, assess the evidence, and acquit or convict and sentence the accused according to the law.>>>

 

 

Hmm, interesting theory.

 

Of course, using MY logic, since none of them have a personal vested interest in the trial, they are ABLE to do so.

 

Do you think a jury composed of the victim's family would be able to issue a fair and just verdict?

 

 

<<<You aren't saying that you don't think I can have a sound opinion. You're saying I don't.>>>

 

 

I didn't say you didn't have a sound opinion. I said I wouldn't take your word on their "fairness" since you have expressed hatred for the target.

 

I'd have to be amazingly stupid to believe that somebody who "hates" somebody else can legitimately claim that quotes attributed to her are completely fair and not taken out of context---especially when I also realize that EVERY political group in the world does this.

 

Of course, GLAAD could be the ONE who doesn't---but that's something of a longshot, wouldn't you concur?

 

No, I guess you wouldn't.

 

 

<<<That isn't an argument, that's a personal attack>>>

 

 

*sniff*

*sob*

*whimper*

 

A personal attack?

 

Against YOU?

 

Geez, do you EVER stop whining? :-)

 

It wasn't a personal attack on you. It was an attack on your credibility on an issue involving somebody YOU FERVENTLY dislike.

 

If you can't recognize that there is a legitimate reason to question your credibility here, then you have no clue how the political system and are more naive than our friend Chris.

 

 

<<<: you're just claiming that I'm a liar. That's fine. But at least have the guts to be straightforward about it, rather than disguising it as "debate." >>>

 

 

I'm not calling you liar.

 

I'm saying you're not impartial in this one area.

 

Amazing that somebody who lives to insult and flame others can get SO upset because somebody raises the spectre that she might not be impartial about Dr. Laura, considering her expressed hatred of the woman.

                       -=Mike

 

...Are you going to go back to the "You should go to Saudi Arabia" line again, or will you at least come up with new, pointless, ad hominem attacks?

[Guest]

Do you think a jury composed of the victim's family would be able to issue a fair and just verdict?

Of course not. That was exactly my point: that Schlessinger has never, as I've already said, injured me to any degree. I'm not an injured party, and therefore my dislike of her positions does not necessarily conflict with my judgement of her. What's my vested interest? I don't sponsor a radio show in the opposite time slot. Can only white people judge a KKK member who lynched a black man?

Do you think a jury wouldn't, or shouldn't, feel revulsion at murder? It isn't a flaw in the system. It is an inevitable characteristic of any system that includes humans.

 

Funny you should mention that.

You are aware that justice is SUPPOSED to be impartial. Emotions AREN'T supposed to have any impact.

Yes, thanks Mike; since that was MY point, I AM aware of it. All I ever said was that having emotions is inevitable. Allowing them to affect your judgement is not.

 

You are unwilling to even attempt to understand when somebody explains what Dr. Laura said she meant by a statement.

So, are you a credible source to say that GLAAD is "fair" with their quotes?

Good God no.

Sorry, but this just makes me laugh. You haven't even read GLAAD's transcripts (not quotes).

Am I a completely impartial source? Maybe not. Am I more credible than you? Yes. At least I know what I'm talking about.

 

I'm not calling you liar.

I'm saying you're not impartial in this one area.

And I'm saying I am. If you contradict me, you call me a liar. Groundlessly, as it happens, because again, you haven't even read the things we're supposedly discussing. It would be ironic if it weren't so absurd.

[Guest Risk]

Off-topic: Why do all these groups feel the need to have groups?  ESPECALLY groups based on sexual orientation, it seems trivial.  Does it really matter what someone you don't know does?  As long as no one's freedom is taken away, everything is cool.  Point is, no one is going to stop Dr. Laura from saying what she wants, freedom works both ways.

 

The GLAAD is not going to stop her, IMO.  I read the GLAAD transcripts and didn't see what was so wrong, if she believe homosexuals are dangerous to society, in any way, she can say it.  Hell, she could be right.  I think too many people generalize certain groups, which is never good.  She says she used to support homosexuality, so cleary she doesn't have an undying hatred of it.

 

I wonder if the GLAAD will still hate her if homosexuality does turn out to be a genetic disorder.

[Guest]

People usually gather into groups when they feel threatened in some way.

 

ESPECALLY groups based on sexual orientation, it seems trivial.

Tell that to Matthew Shepard... no offense, but it's far from trivial. Homophobia isn't uncommon at all, and violent homophobia isn't unheard of either. People who discourage these things (GLAAD, police officers, some people in Congress) have my admiration and gratitude.

 

I think too many people generalize certain groups, which is never good.

You were referring to Schlessinger's blanket condemnations of homosexuals there, I trust?

 

I wonder if the GLAAD will still hate her if homosexuality does turn out to be a genetic disorder.

Apart from the fact that that's pretty far-fetched and completely speculative, I don't see how or why anyone could reasonably hate anyone else because of an unrelated fact. Such hatred would underline the hater's fears rather than reflect her values.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Tell me something.  What about those who have a problem with gay people because of legitimate gripes?  I'm not a homophobe, and although I don't agree with the entire thing, I don't want to persecute anyone about it.

 

My girlfriend's father is a trucker (or was until he sustained an injury and now two bastard compaines won't pay up the insurance for the surgery and work lost because of this squabbling bullshit and... whoa, off-topic) and he had a load to haul to San Francisco.  Let's cut to the chase and say that four gay guys would have forced themselves upon the two of them had they not kept pistols in their trucks.  What about situations like that?  If they had acted in self defense and shot those two, they'd be in prison for a FUCKING HATE CRIME!  Isn't that nice and fair?

[Guest]

If that's true, it's just dumb. But it doesn't have anything to do with gays. You don't have a legitimate grip against gays; you have a legitimate gripe with the whole silly idea of having a "hate crime" category in the first place.

Rape is already illegal. It's aggravated assault and battery. Defending yourself against a would-be rapist shouldn't be illegal regardless of your sex, orientation, or race - or your assailant's sex, orientation, or race. Rape is rape. Self-defence is self-defence. Hopefully, one day, our legal system will recognise that and throw "hate crimes" out the window.

 

Apart from that... well, I don't mean to be insensitive or anything, but I just find the idea of gay men attacking truckers very amusing. <g> I see a stereotypical flaming queen taking a swing and bruising his knuckles on some huge hairy muscular guy, looking down at his hand, and lisping, "Oh my gosh... would you kiss it and make it better?"

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Well, the whole fiasco went down and they were told that something similar had happened and when the same guys had shown back up in the other scenario, one had gotten shot and it being San Fran (even a few years ago) where the guy telling my gf's dad and his friend this story said that so many concessions had been made, that in that aforementioned case, he had been convicted of a hate crime.  Appeals to the California supreme court overturned, but DAMN.  For the record, these gay guys were the big bodybuilders that enjoy the time at the gym a bit too much if you listen to description.

 

To get something straight: people are different.  They argue differently, they live differently.  We don't enjoy that.  We like people like us (ie: friends, colleges, significant others) and so on and so forth.  For crying out loud, leave this lie.  It's apparent people don't get along for a number of reasons.  If need be, go elsewhere to flame.  Sheesh.

[Guest]

If need be, go elsewhere to flame.  Sheesh.

I wasn't flaming you, and I can't imagine why you might think I was. If you were referring to Mike, it was hardly one-sided, and until recently it seemed he was enjoying it as well. If he now wants to stop, he can, anytime. I'm not forcing him to keep replying to me, and I have no personal problems with him or you.

I just have a problem with Chris.

[Guest Risk]

But you WERE insulting a lot of people in the Religion thread, Marney.  Why would you say Mike isn't mature for saying "I RULE!" when you are insulting people to make entertain yourself?  Seems hypocritical.

[Guest]

Eh. The hypocrisy you're seeing ain't on my side... I only remarked on that because he's so terribly smug about how "civil" and "intelligent" he supposedly is. Honestly, it doesn't bother me if he acts childishly; I only have a problem with it when he simultaneously claims he's mature. See also the countless claims about "reasoned argument" and "using intelligence," followed up by the scintillating logic of bald assertions like "It absolutely is." In a real, moderated debate, he'd be kicked out in seconds for nonsense like that. Of course, in a real debate I wouldn't provoke him constantly either, so the point might be moot.

[Guest Risk]

In a real, moderated debate, he'd be kicked out in seconds for nonsense like that. Of course, in a real debate I wouldn't provoke him constantly either, so the point might be moot.

Isn't it speculative to say he would be kicked out?  That seems more opinion than fact.  It is moot because we're on a message board.

[Guest Risk]

Besides, most people have a problem admitting they are wrong.

[Guest]

It is moot because we're on a message board

But more to the point, it's possible it might not occur if I didn't deliberately provoke it. Oh well, doesn't matter now.

 

most people have a problem admitting they are wrong.

True.

[Guest Risk]

So, what is the point of you and Mike in this "feud" if neither, wrong or right, will concede OR even compromise?  Humans are VERY stubborn creatures.

[Guest]

Well, it ended several days ago now. Let's just let it die.