|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 1, 2007, 7:48 am
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>>>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>>>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>>>>> What's so extreme about:
>>>>>
>>>>> carrying personal nukes,
>>>>>
>>>>> abolishing all cities,
>>>>>
>>>>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>>>>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to tweak
>>>>> the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher education
>>>>> because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at 12, and no
>>>>> one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds there own
>>>>> business until he thinks they aren't living up to their patriotic
>>>>> duty.
>>>> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things when
>>>> he's frustrated.
>>> I suspect that too:
>>> Instead of some saying, "Hey! I resent that! And this is why:...", and
>>> owning up to their own inner emotions, they'll append them onto the
>>> subjects like a sticky note and say stuff like, "oxymoron!".
>>
>> Be that as it may, in the context of a discussion, saying what you mean,
>> meaning what you say, conceding when you're mistaken, and generally
>> recognizing the difference between fact and opinion, are essential
>> prerequisites of credibility. IMHO 'discussions' with persons without
>> credibility is useful only as a kind of sparring- a contest of rhetorical
>> skills- but not really otherwise. Discussions with such persons who do
>> not even possess significant rhetorical skills will often just degenerate
>> quickly into something like, "All blue should be abolished, and anyone
>> who doesn't realize that is a plain poo poo head!"
>
> In some discussions with Don with some things, I simply feel like I'm
> debating Christianity with a Christian missionary, hence my previous new
> thread.
>
> BTW, I think I came across another code-bubble, but I forget where. But
> maybe it was just from a dream...
> (Michael, were you online here when I posted that? It was an architectural
> element, of a hotel in Vancouver, gone funky.)
>
>> Saying something stupid (whether frustrated or not), and then defending
>> that position just because it's yours (for whatever emotional reasons),
>> is not a discussion IMHO. It's stupidity followed by rationalization.
>> Threatening people who disagree with you is bullying, and I can't stand
>> it. Never could.
>
> Ah yes, the contortions of face-saving...
> One would think that someone in his fifties would more or less be beyond
> that-- assuming you're insinuating Don.
> Maybe it's face-saving and maybe he really believes it. Either way...
>
>> As a kid, if I saw some bully picking on someone else, often before I
>> could stop myself, I'd end up 'having words' with the bully. As an adult,
>> I've taken down a couple of big ones over the years, usually on election
>> for that purpose by groups to which I belonged.
>
> Bully for you.
>
>> Anyone with youngish kids is familiar with the recent efforts to reduce
>> bullying, which identify permissive 'bystanders' as an essential part of
>> the bullying cycle. In a community (something I believe in) we're better
>> off if a bully is marked as such, and if persons who promote violence
>> against others know that they do not have the support of the group, which
>> is what these types really need. Silence can be seen by them, and later
>> by history, as consent for their cruelty.
>
> Points well taken, and of course then there're the bullying-environments
> those who bully often live in... Can a community bully?
>
> I wonder how to deal with a bullying government.
It's a personal choice of course, but helping them or "minding your own
business" is probably how they'd prefer you do it.
|