posted
Suggestion: if the events in your summary make no sense to you, perhaps you are not correctly summarizing events.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see. You asked people to follow the rules (and then broke the very guidelines you were insisting others follow with respect to incontinent infants a day or two later). You gave what you claimed were good reasons for it, but when challenged about it proved reluctant to discuss it. Answers in anything other than generalities had to literally be dragged out of you. More than once you reverted to one-liners. You objected to supposedly having your views dismissed, and yet did so bluntly with respect to kmbboots.
Eh. I forgot, you had good intentions and so cannot really be wrong about any of that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But hey, what the hell, let's talk about this idea that all human beings are on the level of squalling babies with doody in their diapers.
This is another claim of yours that starts to wobble in a mild breeze. We could for example look to a man like Elon Musk, or a woman like Indra Nooryi and see that if they *do* share many characteristics with infants, there aren't many of them. Possibly the similarity is genetic. Then if we look at the bottom of the scale, we can easily find examples of people who can fairly be said to fail to have mastered or even amateured the practice of being a functional being. So...humanity in general as babies in need of help. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Now what I think you *meant*, correct me if I'm wrong, is that all human beings are in some measure broken and in need of help-and not necessarily from you, the help I mean. And not necessarily in sufficient need of help that the help should be thrust upon them, even by words. Maybe you meant something like that, and *that* is an idea I suspect Tom and kmbboots and just about anyone would agree with. But that's not what you said. You made a blanket generalization of all humans, and when called on it, you rejected the rebuttals more than once.
This doesn't even touch on what is, to me, the more problematic aspect of your 'humans as babies' philosophy. That problem is that by offering 'good reasons' to take your advice on niceness, it's implicit that you're setting yourself apart from the soiled infants of humanity in general. It's false humility, even if you don't intend it to be false humility.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW, who asked you to enforce the rules? Everyone may, at some point, need help but that doesn't mean they need your help or that you are qualified to give it.
posted
Heya Rakeesh...out of respect for your time...you should kno I've started to merely skim your posts...and don't plan on answering (unless super brief) any more.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just fyi...I think...you guy's have convinced no one of anything.
I kno neither have I.
But at least I recognize that there were no victories here.
Maybe...one day someone will read our discussion & then this won't have been simply entertaining for me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, that you're skimming is hardly news, Stone_Wolf. And as for not being convinced of anything, well jeepers. Not long ago you appeared convinced that it was probably unhelpful to likening calling a bigot a bigot to engaging in the same impulse as lynchers.
Change your mind back to thinking that's kosher, or is this just 'well time to pretend I'm above it all again' territory?
Anyway, see you later. Unfortunately probably not much later. Probably pretty soon, in fact, where you decide to take a little potshot here and there and have now preexcused yourself from even the appearance of actual discussion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incorrect...until I said so...so your second to last post I skimmed. Until then I read ever word you wrote. At least four times. Likely more since you tend to talk the most of, what I must admit, I have begun to think of you four to six guys as; the Hatrack Misenthropic Right. (Not calling y'all names (where are DB & Orin?)
I'll work on that. Clearly I'm no longer objective.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Suggestion: if the events in your summary make no sense to you, perhaps you are not correctly summarizing events.
I appreciate how you phrased this Tom. Thank you. Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dean: You seem to believe that protecting the feelings of a bigot is more important than protecting the feelings of either the people who are being discriminated against or the feelings of people who are offended by bigotry. Why are the feelings of bigots so important to you?
You kno...I missed this part...
" or the feelings of people who are offended by bigotry."
Now to the "more important" part...I've said nothing to support that.
As to why are the feelings of bigots important? Bc I think we are a bigoted species. & therefore if I didn't care I'd be a sociopath (or is it psychopath, potayto potahto)
People should be offended by bigotry!
It should be socially ostracized.
A point I learned here.
But, where I differ from the status quo is, there should be a separation from condemnation of ideas & actions and condemning people, by calling them bigots, especially to their face.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But hey, what the hell, let's talk about this idea that all human beings are on the level of squalling babies with doody in their diapers.
This is another claim of yours that starts to wobble in a mild breeze. We could for example look to a man like Elon Musk, or a woman like Indra Nooryi and see that if they *do* share many characteristics with infants, there aren't many of them. Possibly the similarity is genetic. Then if we look at the bottom of the scale, we can easily find examples of people who can fairly be said to fail to have mastered or even amateured the practice of being a functional being. So...humanity in general as babies in need of help. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Now what I think you *meant*, correct me if I'm wrong, is that all human beings are in some measure broken and in need of help-and not necessarily from you, the help I mean. And not necessarily in sufficient need of help that the help should be thrust upon them, even by words. Maybe you meant something like that, and *that* is an idea I suspect Tom and kmbboots and just about anyone would agree with. But that's not what you said. You made a blanket generalization of all humans, and when called on it, you rejected the rebuttals more than once.
This doesn't even touch on what is, to me, the more problematic aspect of your 'humans as babies' philosophy. That problem is that by offering 'good reasons' to take your advice on niceness, it's implicit that you're setting yourself apart from the soiled infants of humanity in general. It's false humility, even if you don't intend it to be false humility.
Man...I read the one above this one carefully & barely skimmed this one. Should have switched. Oh well.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, look how right I was! It took you less than a quarter of a day to validate my 'skimming except to take shots and then duck out again' prediction. Not that I'm surprised, but my compliments on validating my 'he's gonna be a chickenshit' prediction so quickly.
Oh, and hey, 'you guys are misanthropes'-spelled correctly-not an example of name-calling at all. Where are you from, anyway, does this tissue-thin stuff actually *work* there?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
