Oslo bombings and massacre
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm perfectly capable of arguing the facts
Then why don't you try it?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
...and you may be left with the incorrect impression that I have respect remaining for you...
I don't require your respect. I'm just a bit amazed that an obviously intelligent young man like you can be so utterly closed-minded when it comes to important issues. Broaden your horizons, Ravel. Moving too far from either side of the ideological fence robs you of the larger view. Yes, I'm right of the fence, but not so far from it that I cannot see across it to the other side.
XAlan Burkhart
You dismissed what I had to say because I was qualitatively 'too young' to dare disagree with you, and now you're calling me closed-minded?
-
You dismissed what I had to say because I was qualitatively 'too young' to dare disagree with you, and now you're calling me closed-minded?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
and now you're calling me closed-minded?
Yes. As you grow older you'll realize how right I am now, and you'll also be frustrated with youths who presume to know as much about the world as their elders. :)
XAlan Burkhart
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
and now you're calling me closed-minded?
Yes. As you grow older you'll realize how right I am now, and you'll also be frustrated with youths who presume to know as much about the world as their elders. :)
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
As you grow older you'll realize how right I am now
Ah yes, the old 'my opinions are too sophisticated for you to understand, which is why they're right' mode of argumentation. You should've used it on me a few years ago, when it might've worked.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
and you'll also be frustrated with youths who presume to know as much about the world as their elders.
And what important knowledge, pray tell, do you have about the world that I don't, apart from your unjustified and laughable assertions that American Republicans keep good company?
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
As you grow older you'll realize how right I am now
Ah yes, the old 'my opinions are too sophisticated for you to understand, which is why they're right' mode of argumentation. You should've used it on me a few years ago, when it might've worked.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
and you'll also be frustrated with youths who presume to know as much about the world as their elders.
And what important knowledge, pray tell, do you have about the world that I don't, apart from your unjustified and laughable assertions that American Republicans keep good company?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And what important knowledge, pray tell, do you have about the world that I don't, apart from your unjustified and laughable assertions that American Republicans keep good company?
Don't recall specifically mentioning "American Republicans." What I mentioned was left and right. The Republican party here has morphed into a sick hybrid that's little better than our Democrat party. Both have convulsed leftward over the years, and their spend-happy ways are the principal reason our economy is in the toilet. Hard-care conservative economic policy is the only policy that works in the long term.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You should've used it on me a few years ago, when it might've worked.
I didn't expect it to "work" - if by that you mean you'd have had some magical revelation and realized how skewed your politics are. I simply made a statement of fact. Most adults (admittedly, many liberals fail at this) realize sooner or later that their mindlessly idealistic worldview has no basis in reality. You're a smart guy. I figure you'll wake up sooner or later. I'm outta here. Lots to do.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And what important knowledge, pray tell, do you have about the world that I don't, apart from your unjustified and laughable assertions that American Republicans keep good company?
Don't recall specifically mentioning "American Republicans." What I mentioned was left and right. The Republican party here has morphed into a sick hybrid that's little better than our Democrat party. Both have convulsed leftward over the years, and their spend-happy ways are the principal reason our economy is in the toilet. Hard-care conservative economic policy is the only policy that works in the long term.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You should've used it on me a few years ago, when it might've worked.
I didn't expect it to "work" - if by that you mean you'd have had some magical revelation and realized how skewed your politics are. I simply made a statement of fact. Most adults (admittedly, many liberals fail at this) realize sooner or later that their mindlessly idealistic worldview has no basis in reality. You're a smart guy. I figure you'll wake up sooner or later. I'm outta here. Lots to do.
XAlan Burkhart
You know, when I first read this a few days ago it seemed much more reasonable than it does now. I was going to respond to that effect, but now I'll just say that you're a loony and I'm a long way from forgiving you for siding with Oakman that night and being a smug, condescending dick about it.
-
You know, when I first read this a few days ago it seemed much more reasonable than it does now. I was going to respond to that effect, but now I'll just say that you're a loony and I'm a long way from forgiving you for siding with Oakman that night and being a smug, condescending dick about it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'll just say that you're a loony and I'm a long way from forgiving you for siding with Oakman that night and being a smug, condescending dick about it.
I don't require forgiveness. However, I didn't "side" with Oak. Think back... you and I were still talking when you got bumped. We weren't exactly being chummy, but we were talking. To put it mildly, you and I got off to a bad start. It's not mandatory that we like each other to coexist peacefully at CP. Perhaps both of us should be a bit more tolerant of opinions contrary to our own. I started the fracas in this particular thread so I'll apologize for my part. We'll chit-chat again sometime once the dust has settled.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'll just say that you're a loony and I'm a long way from forgiving you for siding with Oakman that night and being a smug, condescending dick about it.
I don't require forgiveness. However, I didn't "side" with Oak. Think back... you and I were still talking when you got bumped. We weren't exactly being chummy, but we were talking. To put it mildly, you and I got off to a bad start. It's not mandatory that we like each other to coexist peacefully at CP. Perhaps both of us should be a bit more tolerant of opinions contrary to our own. I started the fracas in this particular thread so I'll apologize for my part. We'll chit-chat again sometime once the dust has settled.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
However, I didn't "side" with Oak.
He demanded I apologise. You said I should apologise. Sounds like siding to me.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Think back...
Let me just revisit the thr... Oh, right...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
We'll chit-chat again sometime once the dust has settled.
Well, OK, I'll try to dilute my still-fierce bitterness about that night.
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
However, I didn't "side" with Oak.
He demanded I apologise. You said I should apologise. Sounds like siding to me.
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Think back...
Let me just revisit the thr... Oh, right...
Alan Burkhart wrote:
We'll chit-chat again sometime once the dust has settled.
Well, OK, I'll try to dilute my still-fierce bitterness about that night.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He demanded I apologise.
You said I should apologise.
Sounds like siding to me.No. Agreeing isn't necessarily taking sides. I might agree with you next time, but that's not taking sides, either. My opinion is my own regardless of who gets po'd about it. Taking sides is a mindless thing and usually prolongs an argument rather than resolving it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, OK, I'll try to dilute my still-fierce bitterness about that night.
A chip on the shoulder, even a small one, becomes burdensome after a time. And let's be honest... that chip is a burden only to the one who bears it. It's your burden to lose.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He demanded I apologise.
You said I should apologise.
Sounds like siding to me.No. Agreeing isn't necessarily taking sides. I might agree with you next time, but that's not taking sides, either. My opinion is my own regardless of who gets po'd about it. Taking sides is a mindless thing and usually prolongs an argument rather than resolving it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, OK, I'll try to dilute my still-fierce bitterness about that night.
A chip on the shoulder, even a small one, becomes burdensome after a time. And let's be honest... that chip is a burden only to the one who bears it. It's your burden to lose.
XAlan Burkhart
What are your views on homosexuality?
-
What are your views on homosexuality?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What are your views on homosexuality?
Indifferent for the most part. I see no practical reasons for a ban on gay marriage. If Jack wants to marry Phil instead of Jill, it's their business. You caught me just before shutting down the computer. I've got to get some sleep and hit the road in a few hours. We can discuss it more if you wish when I'm not pushed for time. I'm generally online for awhile every evening.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What are your views on homosexuality?
Indifferent for the most part. I see no practical reasons for a ban on gay marriage. If Jack wants to marry Phil instead of Jill, it's their business. You caught me just before shutting down the computer. I've got to get some sleep and hit the road in a few hours. We can discuss it more if you wish when I'm not pushed for time. I'm generally online for awhile every evening.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Indifferent for the most part. I see no practical reasons for a ban on gay marriage. If Jack wants to marry Phil instead of Jill, it's their business.
That's a pleasingly un-Rethuglican-like opinion. :thumbsup:
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Indifferent for the most part. I see no practical reasons for a ban on gay marriage. If Jack wants to marry Phil instead of Jill, it's their business.
That's a pleasingly un-Rethuglican-like opinion. :thumbsup:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's a pleasingly un-Rethuglican-like opinion.
First, I'm an Independent, not a Republican. Although I do generally vote Republican (lesser of two evils, imo). Second, most rank and file conservatives and center-rights (like me) are in fact indifferent to homosexuality as far as day to day BS goes. The harsh and often senseless anti-gay rhetoric you hear in the media usually comes from Christian fundies and hard-righters who feel that homosexuality is somehow damaging to society. Hard-line Muslims are also strongly against homosexuality. I see it this way: I personally find the thought of engaging in sex with another man to be rather revolting. However, I do not believe that my personal feelings on the matter should lead to the loss of freedom for others. To look at it from another angle, I am a meat eater. I love beef, poultry, pork, fish, venison, rabbit, etc etc. But the folks at PETA think me a monster for that very reason, and often launch propaganda campaigns to ban the consumption of meat. One who objects to eating meat is free to not eat meat. But don't try to stop me from having my deer steak or grilled chicken.
XAlan Burkhart