Subject:
|
Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:16:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3248 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Boy I hate when that happens--get a perfectly good tirade going and something
happens with IE! Grr!!! Anywho, this time without the frothing (well,
probably not...)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Here’s an analogy--there are those who notice that the emperor has no
clothes and think to themselves, “Well, that emperor is pretty dense to be
walking around without any clothes--look at how much better I am realizing
that I have clothes and this ‘more powerful person than me’ has none!” and
there are those that, in a private aside, whisper to the guy, “Psst, hey
buddy, you may not have noticed, but you have no clothes on--perhaps you
should think about doing something about that.”
On the one hand, the first is arrogance, ‘holier than thou’, and just all
around pompous. The second one is a friend telling another friend, “Hey,
your fly’s down.”
|
The problem is not the analogy, but your misconception that you are the
second guy in that example.
|
I am the second guy. Because you chose to misinterpret my intentions, doesn’t
make my intentions any less sincere. Am I not having a discourse with some
people who have political sway over their elected representatives? Am I not
opening dialogue with folks who say “because we’ve got it right” and pointing
out, “Well, maybe that’s not so much the case...”
|
I am not questioning your intentions at all - I am trying to bring to your
attention the consistently strident, holier-than-thou attitude that undermines
the often quite valid points you have to make.
Moving back up here after reading through the entire message: ” Just as I’d
expect someone to tell me if I’m being an idiot.”
Thar ya go!
| |
Or are you of the mindset that ‘no one gets to hit my kid brother but me’. I
mean, if you are--if you believe that only Americans can critique America,
then we’re back to the arrogance inherent in the system.
|
It’s the manner and perpetual axe-grinding, not the substance.
| |
Either way, I’m the second guy. I’m not ensconsed somewhere ‘laughing at the
‘superior intellect’’ If you don’t appreciate that, then I’ll just have to
work harder to find a way to convince you that my intentions are sincere. I’m
swayed by good arguements. I don’t have a closed mind (at least, I don’t
believe I do) but the mentality “That’s the way we’ve always done it” or
“status quo” you will find gets no mileage with me whatsoever. Give me a
reason, a legitimate reason why your way of doing things is better than anyone
elses. “Because we’ve got it right” when it’s quite obvious to most people
that, well, the US doesn’t have it right, just isn’t a good ‘nuff reason (for
me).
|
Sigh. You aren’t paying attention - all of the above doesn’t defend you, it
instead illustrates why you are the first guy.
| |
| |
No, I’m just teasing you...well, and illustrating your constant
fault-finding.
|
Is this o-t.d? Did I miss a memo? Did this turn into o-t.hug-fest? Well, if
it is--two words--Aaron Sorkin. Two more words--Gene Roddenberry. Few
others--Hollywood (for the most part). First Ammendment. Grand Canyon. USS
Intrepid. Apollo, Gemini, Mercury.
|
I take it that this argument is intended to undermine my position on legalizing
drugs....(or: Say what?)
| |
Then people say “Because we’ve got it right” Doesn’t that just scream just
the opposite?
|
No - look at they way you write things and apply that comment to yourself.
You’ve either just proved that you got nothing right or you just proved the
speciousness of the arguement you just made.
(cutting long story about Gretzky that allegedly makes some kind of point, but
doesn’t seem to apply in the slightest)
| |
Papa used to say when I did somehting well--“That’s good son, but don’t let it
go to your head”. Ahh, there’s a good quotation.
|
So, why the gloating about nudity and the idiot who was fully clothed to show
how Canada allows the opposite and your gloating about it? Holier-than-thou
example of you being “the first guy”, not the second.
| |
Paint away. Basing the entire analogy on something John said. Hmm. Was this
the first time I’ve ever heard this kind of attitude from an American?
Hmmm... What is the single most obvious point that many folks around the world
think of when they meet Americans? Sure it’s a genrealization and I know may
Aericans who aren’t--nevertheless, it’s not me saying that Americans are
arrogant, it’s many many people.
|
And you will say it as loudly, arrogantly, stridently, repetitively, and
obnoxiously as you can. Grind that axe.
And when John, and by what I’ve seen in addresses, your very
| |
own president (the leader of your country, btw--what he says and does,
unfortunately reflects on the country as a whole--sorry about that, but put up
with JC for 12 years, then come talking to me about faulty leaders) has the
attitude “because we’ve got it right”. Well, you don’t.
|
Here’s another example of the problem. I didn’t say that, and yet here you go
lecturing me about it. I’ll point these things out, and yet you’ll do it again
and again.
I’m not saying that
| |
anyone does. A point that I’ve made numerous times. I didn’t stand there and
lecture saying “Hey, look to me and mine for a better way because we’ve got it
right” when it’s obvious we haven’t.
|
Yes you do. You are constantly boasting about how Canada has it right. I’m not
arguing whether Canada does or doesn’t, I’m talking about what you say and do.
| |
| |
Didn’t miss it - it was just plain wrong and I already addressed that
inaccuracy.
|
Ah, no you didn’t. You came up with a cute little tangent about SoCal which,
as you’ve stated below, really is parenthetical so I’ll drop the Toronto if
you drop the SoCal/LA. The point is still hanging out there in the breeze,
waiting to be addressed--
|
No, you made a claim about America, and I cited an example of how you are
incorrect. You then cited an example about Canada that in no way counters or
addresses what I said.
Address my example.
| |
Other places--Multiculturalism
|
Canada? You just couldn’t squash the French without too big of a fight. :-)
| |
Which of those two scenarios is more apt to allow ethnic diversity to
flourish?
|
You can’t draw a valid conclusion from a specious example.
| |
Which idea eventually leads to monotony--assimilation and which leads to
acceptance of a variety of differing voices-a.k.a harmony?
|
You act is if monotony is a crime, rather than merely boring.
| |
The very name give it away--melting pot in which everything gets merged
together into one--“we shall add you to our collective.” The Borg analogy is
so apt it’s not funny.
|
I’m sure that there are some Indians left in Canada who agree with you.
Yup, I countered your claims of melting pot, you refuse to address it, and
instead run on about how superior Canada is. I agree, ‘nuff said.
| |
| |
| |
further--
t...w....o....o....f....f....i....c...i....a...l...
..l...a...n..g...u...a...g...e...s...
--....o...n...e.....c...o...u....n..t....r....y....
|
No.....official.....languages....
|
I don’t think that’s quite the case, but I’ll let it go.
|
You’ll have to because you are incorrect. Admittedly, there are those that
would like to declare an “official” language (and which substantiates that there
isn’t one by the existence of the very movement), and I think we would all be
better off communicating under one language, but only because it is convenient,
not because any one language or culture is superior. But I’d be happy with
mandating teaching three languages.
| |
| |
Can you call up your gov’t agency and demand to
| |
speak with them in anything other than english? It’s the law here in
Canada.
|
Most government agencies have provisions for a number of languages - it
depends on the area. I know I can get services provided in Mandarin,
Cantonese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean - I’m sure there are others.
|
|
See, now here is an example and you just pass over it because it is inconvnient.
| |
| |
| |
Not that this is a pissing contest or a denegerating thread into “Us (insert
country here) and Them (insert other country here)” ;)
|
Ummmm, you turned it into that before I bothered to reply. That’s what I’m
trying to get you to realize - but even when I use plain language you
persist. Oh well....
|
I don’t think I did. I think I pointed out, quite rightly, that it’s the
height of arrogance to say “we’ve got it right”. What’s more, you know that,
Bruce. I can’t beleive that this whole tangent has gone on as long as it has
(though it had many humerous bits, but in the end, were missing Marvin).
Either you ere trying to get me to lose my cool and say somethig as equally
arrogant and pompous like John did with that statement,
|
You did without any prompting by me - that’s the whole reason for this tangent.
Further, you have done so numerous times again during the course of this.
at which point you would have said,
I despise that phrase.
If this is the case, eh, whatever. If you were just
| |
trying to tweak my nose as a ‘wake up call’ with regard to my debating style
(a.k.a. ‘frothing’) well, I get a little passionate when people are dieing
needlessly. Sue me. I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. If someone says or does
something moronic, I’ll let him know. Just as I’d expect someone to tell me
if I’m being an idiot.
|
Well, I suppose this is mean, but why in the world do you think I would give you
a hard time when I’m a big critic of Bush and his idiotic policies unless you
were behaving like an...? (Skip back to the top where I just addressed this if
you are going via order of my typed responses)
As stated, I like to think that I have the ability to be
| |
swayed by a good arguement. Give me one ;)
|
Like I said, you aren’t paying attention.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) I didn't think I was, but if your interpretations of my writing style is 'holier than thou', I shall endeavour to rephrase. As it stands, my interpretations of your debating technique in this thread are--you're firmly ensconsed in what you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| Boy I hate when that happens--get a perfectly good tirade going and something happens with IE! Grr!!! Anywho, this time without the frothing (well, probably not...) (...) I am the second guy. Because you chose to misinterpret my intentions, doesn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
