Subject:
|
Re: Democracy.... Dubya Style
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:09:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1061 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Yes Scott has this thing about Israel and the US. Does that negate his
points that there’s a little hypocrisy goin’ on right now?
|
FINE!!! I admit it (again)-- the US and Israel aren’t perfect!!! I am so
tired of the comparisons to perfection! It’s stupid to discuss!
| |
| |
| |
If the counter arguement to this debate is ‘ride ride ride’, I fail to see
how that refutes Scotts points on this particular issue.
|
It’s not a refutation, but a mock! I’m tired of his stupid ideas on
these topics and I will resort to mocking him when he brings them up rather
than bang my head on the wall arguing with him about them. If he wants to
troll them out, fine. I will unleash sarcasm mode.
|
You may be tired of his “stupid ideas” but you want the conversation ‘cause
you’re still here.
|
My presence in this NG hangs by a thread as The Fates saw away. If not for the
participation of a select few I’d be long gone.
| |
Resort to mocking or call it what you will, you want the
conversation, yet you don’t want to show how his points are wrong.
|
To what end? Convincing him otherwise? Please. I’ve been down that road
before and it is a fate of frustration. No thanks. Further, it is never my
intention to argue with the intent to change opinion, but to clarify
positions. I have heard all of his reasons for believing as he does; I
understand them and I reject them. Done. Nothing I say or do here will ever
change his position, and it is folly to believe that it is even possible.
| |
I love
sarcasm, and have appreciated that from you as well as most others in this
group, and it has its place in the discussion. However, with sarcasm must
come, at some point, a point (hopefully with cites) that is intended to
refute. Sarcasm on its own does not refute ideas, nor advance the actual
discussion.
|
Look. SA’s “US and Israel are human-rights-abusing-corrupt-states” argument is
a beaten, dead horse. It’s passed on! This argument is no more! It has ceased
to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life,
it rests in peace! It’s pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now
‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off its
mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-ARGUMENT!!
He is entitled to his stupid, ignorant opinion. It just gets old when he feels
the need to interject it every chance he gets. We got it, Scott. I will not
debate it. Not because I concede that it is true, but that it is so painfully
obviously not true that anyone who can’t see it won’t be swayed by such
trivialities as logic and reason. We can simply agree to disagree here, so
there appears no reason to bring it up any more (except in the case to troll, in
which case I’ll react accordingly)
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Democracy.... Dubya Style
|
| (...) Cites validate an idea inasmuch as the idea has some substance supporting it. Whether or not the idea is valid is up to the contrary side to prove. As I hear in other avenues, "saying something is wrong doesn't make it wrong." I once read a (...) (21 years ago, 19-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
