Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Anti-Iraq War Vets Pulled From Parade

Iraq Anti-War Vets Parade

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#21 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 07:01 PM

OK, for all the dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times you liberals have claimed that you're constantly being accused of being anti-American, how many times can you honestly say it's actually happened? (Especially here at Ex Isle, the people you're accusing of it; can you even name ONE instance?)

As sick as you claim to be of this harassment that's not even happening to you, imagine what it would be like if some large group of people actually WERE levelling such dire accusations against you all the time... and apparently felt such a compulsion to that they couldn't even help but do it in threads that aren't even on that kind of subject (since patriotism wasn't an issue until you people started accusing all your oppositon of making that accusation of all of theirs).

This nonsense makes you people look like you all SERIOUSLY need to just plain get a grip. :tired:

Edited by Delvo, 16 November 2003 - 10:08 PM.


#22 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 07:10 PM

I can name SEVERAL time it's happened here at ExIsle.  I had to get on G's case about fifteen times before he stopped doing it.  So why don't you cool your jets with the generalizations Delvo.  

Lil
Posted Image

#23 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 07:15 PM

Kevin Street, on Nov 16 2003, 02:25 PM, said:

But there's a problem with that argument in this case, Delvo. This was a Veteran's Day parade, not a pro-Iraq war parade. It was organized to honour veterans and remind people of the sacrifices others make to keep them free, not promote a specific political agenda. Anybody honouring veterans could take part.
...unless they want to stain the event by making inflammatory, baiting statements  out of it whose real purpose obviously was to start arguments and conflicts rather than to honor anybody, and making that particular sentiment (especially since its opposite was absent) appear to be what the parade was about. The parade organizers have the right not to let their event be used that way. It isn't about stifling anyone's views, it's about not giving them a special endorsement. Keeping political views of any kind out of a parade that's not about them isn't about cracking down on opposition, it's about preserving the integrity and neutrality of an event that isn't supposed to take either side at all on a subject the parade isn't about.

Quote

The anti-war veterans had every right to take part in the parade, just as a group of hypothetical pro-war veterans would.
Their rights are determined by the decisions of the parade's organizers, frankly. But even outside of that, NEITHER side has the "right" in this looser sense I think you're talking about to try to pollute a feelgood event like that with in-your-face politics. There's plenty of that to go around everywhere else, and some things should be left alone as an escape from it.

Quote

The only way to shut them up fairly would be to ban all groups with a specific agenda from the parade
No, you just have to ban displays/floats IN the parade that are designed for argumentativeness and annoyingness.

#24 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 07:23 PM

^ I would suggest to you that argumentiveness and annoyingness are highly subjective qualities. By banning this group (while they were in the process of actually marching) the parade organizer is the one who made an offensive statement. An extremely offensive one, at that. He's saying in effect that some veterans can be heard, but those who disagree with the government aren't worth listening to. Fight for your country, but shuddap.

I agree with you though that it isn't illegal, since this was a private parade. I was using the term "rights" in a fairly loose way.

Edited by Kevin Street, 16 November 2003 - 07:27 PM.


#25 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 07:25 PM

HubcapDave, on Nov 16 2003, 05:13 PM, said:

It looks to me like the free speech aspect of this issue hinges directly on whether or not the parade wasa organized by the city, or privately.
How? Keep in mind that by doing this, the parade organizers didn't take a stand about the war one way or the other; they prevented a stand on one side from being made for them. Why don't local governments have just as much of a right as businesses and other private oganizations to prevent their own public events from being made into a forum for one political side? Why don't you see something wrong with any one particular political group having the access and influence to flagrantly get away with using a government institution or event for its own purposes?

#26 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 07:39 PM

Delvo, on Nov 16 2003, 05:25 PM, said:

HubcapDave, on Nov 16 2003, 05:13 PM, said:

It looks to me like the free speech aspect of this issue hinges directly on whether or not the parade wasa organized by the city, or privately.
How? Keep in mind that by doing this, the parade organizers didn't take a stand about the war one way or the other; they prevented a stand on one side from being made for them. Why don't local governments have just as much of a right as businesses and other private oganizations to prevent their own public events from being made into a forum for one political side? Why don't you see something wrong with any one particular political group having the access and influence to flagrantly get away with using a government institution or event for its own purposes?
Well, local government, being public entities do have to abide by the constitution. That's true whether I like it or not.

The best way to have handled this would have been to put out advance warning to all parties engaging in the parade  that no political agenda were going to be allowed.

#27 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 07:40 PM

Kevin Street, on Nov 16 2003, 06:23 PM, said:

^ I would suggest to you that argumentiveness and annoyingness are highly subjective qualities.
True, but it's obvious enough when that's the intent even if you personally don't feel it yourself. What purpose other than furthering their side in the political argument and stirring up conflict could telling peple what to think with a big sign going by in front of them possibly serve? None. They just wanted to spout off their agenda and viewpoints in public without fear of rebuttal, and they didn't care that in this case it meant trampling on and violating the spirit of someone else's event.

Quote

By banning this group (while they were in the process of actually marching) the parade organizer is the one who made an offensive statement. An extremly offensive one, at that. He's saying in effect that some veterans can be heard, but those who disagree with the government aren't worth listening to.
Not even close. The statement is that a parade is not the place to take such an argument. You're acting like they allowed pro-war statements to be made, but that's not the same thing as what happened here. Your argument is the same as saying that if we took God off of our money and out of the Pledge and such then the government would be turning atheist (which means following a belief that there is no God/gods), not merely neutral. But the truth is that if you're not saying anything about one side or the other, then you're not taking a position, and sometimes, if one side is trying to use you for their own purposes, making them stop isn't joining the other, it's just preserving your decision NOT to take a side.

#28 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 07:54 PM

Delvo, on Nov 16 2003, 06:40 PM, said:

None. They just wanted to spout off their agenda and viewpoints in public without fear of rebuttal, and they didn't care that in this case it meant trampling on and violating the spirit of someone else's event.
^ How does expressing anti-Iraq war sentiment trample on the spirit of a veteran's parade? If anything, it helps people think about what their soldiers are actually doing and risking when they go off to fight in foreign lands. Criticism of the war is not criticism of the soldiers fighting it, imo.

Quote

The statement is that a parade is not the place to take such an argument. You're acting like they allowed pro-war statements to be made, but that's not the same thing as what happened here.

I'm saying that pro-war sentiments should be allowed to be expressed at the parade as well, if anyone wished to do so. Good parades are all about message and points of view, and bad parades are about nothing at all.

Quote

Your argument is the same as saying that if we took God off of our money and out of the Pledge and such then the government would be turning atheist (which means following a belief that there is no God/gods), not merely neutral. But the truth is that if you're not saying anything about one side or the other, then you're not taking a position, and sometimes, if one side is trying to use you for their own purposes, making them stop isn't joining the other, it's just preserving your decision NOT to take a side.

I don't think it's quite the same thing, since currency and the plege of allegiance aren't forums for public display. The references to God there are historical remnants, and don't really have any bearing on modern society, so leaving them in doesn't mean todays government is sending a message - they're just preserving the past. By taking the anti-war veterans out of the parade the organizers are sending a message. If they had left them alone we wouldn't even be debating this.

EDIT: Oh, and Delvo - please don't make any generalizations like you did in your first post on this thread. Liberals are a diverse group of people with many different opinions, both here on the Isle and out in the real world, and they don't need to "get a grip" any more than anyone else does. Remember Ash's Punch In The Nose" rule - would you really talk to someone like that face to face?

Edited by Kevin Street, 16 November 2003 - 08:26 PM.


#29 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 10:04 PM

Kevin Street, on Nov 16 2003, 06:54 PM, said:

Criticism of the war is not criticism of the soldiers fighting it, imo.
That's beside the point, Norv-Lil. :D Like I said above, you people need to quit inserting that notion ex nihilo that any time someone doesn't agree with you they're accusing you of being against the soldiers or the USA. Your imagination obliterates your reading-comprehension ability when you do that. That doesn't even come anywhere near even vaguely resembling what I'm talking about.

Rather than claiming that the point of the parade was to praise the war and thus this one entry "trampled" it by conflicting with such a goal, I simply said that it wasn't about taking EITHER side on a political issue. The parade could have been for the the Hogsnot County, Tennesse Onion Harvest Festival, and injecting politics of any kind would have been equally trampling. It's like that old rule that in certain kinds of company you're not supposed to talk about politics or religion, because bringing up the issue at all would be trampling on the get-together, no matter which side you're on.

Quote

Oh, and Delvo - please don't make any generalizations like you did in your first post on this thread. Liberals are a diverse group of people with many different opinions
Gotta love the way it works here sometimes: Some certain liberals make insulting false generalization, non-liberal dares to call it like it is and maybe defend himself, liberals get on non-liberal's case for the horrible crime of calling it like it is when it comes to another liberal's own words... even if those in the final step aren't the same ones the non-liberal was dealing with from the first step and thus haven't had a single thing directed at them yet.

Quote

Remember Ash's "Punch In The Nose" rule - would you really talk to someone like that face to face?
I don't know that rule. But yes, if people in the real world spouted off ludicrous, possibly delusionally false, unprovoked-by-anything-that-really-happened accusations at me like certain people do here over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, yes, I would be un-scared to admit to their faces that that's what they did. I just haven't had to because people I meet in real life don't behave that way in the first place.

#30 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 10:18 PM

All right, I have had enough of this b*llsh*t.

Delvo I am sick and tired of your REPEATED generalized insults hurled at all liberals as if we were some kind of hive mind borg in EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION WHERE ISSUES OF A POLITICAL NATURE COME UP.

I have lodged official complaints with both moderators of this board and with an administrator.

Why you continue to be allowed to get away with this is beyond me but it's going to stop.  You are in no position to judge all liberals as if you'd met every single person in the world who's politics are anything left of yours.  So knock it the hell off.

Oh ALSO please dispense with your CONSTANT putting of words in peoples' mouths.

Quote

Like I said above, you people need to quit inserting that notion ex nihilo that any time someone doesn't agree with you they're accusing you of being against the soldiers or the USA. Your imagination obliterates your reading-comprehension ability when you do that. That doesn't even come anywhere near even vaguely resembling what I'm talking about.

This is absolute horse sh*t.  Neither I, nor Norville nor ANYONE ELSE IN THIS THREAD ever said that they feel that any time anyone disagrees with them they are being accused of being against the soldiers or the USA.

Your REPEATED pattern of setting up these straw men arguments, arguments that depend on someone saying something you simply SAY they said, with NO regard to whether they actually said them is tantamount to LYING.

And speaking of patterns of behavior, it is YOU who have a tried and predictable pattern:  attack all liberals.  Put words they didn't say into their mouths in order to give yourself something to successfully argue against.  LIBERALLY pepper these attacks with invective.

It is childish.  It is insulting.  And MOST of all, it's BENEATH you.  You can do better.  You're a smart man, why don't you  try acting in accordance with your intelligence instead of your shoe size.

Lil
Posted Image

#31 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 10:48 PM

Okay, at this point I think we need to step back for a moment.

First of all, I've recieved a complaint about some of the posts in this thread which needs to be addressed.  That probably comes as no surprise to any of you.     :rolleyes:

First of all, I will go on record as saying that generalizations... err... in general, are not in any way prohibited in a post.  However, they are open to justifiable criticism as a mode of presenting arguments if that method is employed constantly and consistently.  Many people believe that it's poor style and argumentative to boot.  Nevertheless, there are many argumentative styles that appear on the board.  This is not a court of law and I can't cut down statements simply because they are argumentative.  If you think long and hard about it, you'll probably understand why this is not a good idea.

What is, prohibited, however, is making a barbed generalization straight at posters here.  The line is thin perhaps, but it is real.  Referring to posters as "you liberals" and then presenting the generalizations I'm going to rule as being in need of altering as that brings into the statement a group of posters here and that is prohibited.  The line is thin, but quite sharp.  If you are going to risk your argument on generalizations, you must keep it... general.  It would be greatly appreciated if that statement and any like it be reworded.  

I'd like to thank everyone in advance for their cooperation.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#32 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 10:59 PM

So if in my review of tonight's Drom fiasco I say "any fan who likes this crap is clueless" it's okay, so long as I don't name names or say "you fans who like this crap are clueless"???

K, Uncle Sid I'll keep that in mind and refer all complaints to you.

:rolleyes:
Posted Image

#33 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 11:34 PM

Quote

So if in my review of tonight's Drom fiasco I say "any fan who likes this crap is clueless" it's okay, so long as I don't name names or say "you fans who like this crap are clueless"???

Is it okay?  No.  Is it actionable?  Now that's the question.  I'd like to think that if we're on a board where we're free to call stuff "b*llsh*t" that what is actionable tends to come down to preventing attacks from becoming personal.  There's nothing particlarly personal about being a "liberal", there's millions of them just like there are millions of "conservatives".  

When I hear people taking about "conservatives" like Delvo speaks about "liberals", I simply find myself free to not consider myself what they would label a "conservative".  Indeed, I'm actually what you'd call a "classical liberal".  

Also, your example is not completely valid.  Andromeda fandom is not a huge group, and it's probably a shrinking one, I'm sorry to say.  If you were to make a statement like that on a SF board with a known large base of Drom fans, there might be more justification for taking some action.  I'm not saying I would sanction that, but I could see the argument.  For one thing, it's somewhat easier to determine a fan of a particular show than to nail down a "liberal" or a "conservative".  Further, people come here mainly because they love SF, they don't come here primarily to discuss politics.  It becomes harder to make impersonal generalizations on this board if you were to say "any Drom fans" or even "any SF fans" coupled with a derogatory.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#34 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 11:36 PM

Quote

So if in my review of tonight's Drom fiasco I say "any fan who likes this crap is clueless" it's okay, so long as I don't name names or say "you fans who like this crap are clueless"???

Is it okay?  No.  Is it actionable?  Now that's the question.  I'd like to think that if we're on a board where we're free to call stuff "b*llsh*t" that what is actionable tends to come down to preventing attacks from becoming personal.  There's nothing particlarly personal about being a "liberal", there's millions of them just like there are millions of "conservatives".  

When I hear people taking about "conservatives" like Delvo speaks about "liberals", I simply find myself free to not consider myself what they would label a "conservative".  Indeed, I'm actually what you'd call a "classical liberal".  

Also, your example is not completely valid.  Andromeda fandom is not a huge group, and it's probably a shrinking one, I'm sorry to say.  If you were to make a statement like that on a SF board with a known large base of Drom fans, there might be more justification for taking some action.  I'm not saying I would sanction that, but I could see the argument.  For one thing, it's somewhat easier to determine a fan of a particular show than to nail down a "liberal" or a "conservative".  Further, people come here mainly because they love SF, they don't come here primarily to discuss politics.  It becomes harder to make impersonal generalizations on this board if you were to say "any Drom fans" or even "any SF fans" coupled with a derogatory.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#35 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,502 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 11:53 PM

Cheers, Lil! What you said.

Quote

Why you continue to be allowed to get away with this is beyond me but it's going to stop.

No, it won't. He's been reported before, and I see no change. *shrug* Just ignore him.

That said, though, I have things to say re: Delvo, since I've apparently become one of his favorite targets. I'd like this to be the last time I have any comment on him at all.

Quote

Oh ALSO please dispense with your CONSTANT putting of words in peoples' mouths.

Yes, and stop attempting to read people's minds, Delvo, because you're not doing it very well.


Quote

Like I said above, you people need to quit inserting that notion ex nihilo that any time someone doesn't agree with you they're accusing you of being against the soldiers or the USA.

Hey, I've seen that sentiment often enough that I felt like sarcastically pretending that I agree. I wasn't actually speaking to you at all, Delvo, just reflecting that I'm acquainted with a former military pilot who's against the Iraq war, and then gave a troublemaking comment to Lil about being a traitor. Where did you come into it at all, Delvo? You're pretty much irrelevant to me at this point, because anything you say to me is an attack about what a lying liberal I am because I'm not the right-wing genius that you are. Attempting to talk to you would be exactly like attempting to talk to Michael Savage, who says plenty of smart things that make sense, then goes on paranoid rants and decides that pretty inoffensive comments from callers are meant as insults (like the time when he mistook someone's "news" as "Jews", and therefore the caller was anti-semite, or when someone said that he probably liked a certain area because people left him alone, and he was immediately reacting like "What kind of obscure putdown is that?!"). (I listen to the guy, anyway, because he's oddly satisfying in his constant aggression when I have a lot of work/society-related frustration to deal with...)

When someone (Savage) can see racist propaganda in the fact that the New York Times ran a photo after the snowstorm in Southern California, with a black guy shoveling snow, indicating that Watts had been hit hard by the storm (and it was hardly the only paper that did; I saw two others that ran that Watts thing on the front page), I'd say that he's an *expert* at twisting everything to look evil. And Delvo does that all the time.

Quote

Your imagination obliterates your reading-comprehension ability when you do that. That doesn't even come anywhere near even vaguely resembling what I'm talking about.

Delvo, I was ignoring you. What *were* you talking about in this thread? And speaking of reading comprehension, you're so into finding everyone's eeevil ulterior motives, everyone's eeevil liberal leftist bias, you read it into absolutely everything. I really have no interest in attempting to engage someone who takes what is said, twists it to suit his/her own political needs until it's well and truly sprained beyond recognition, and then attacks the invention. Leave me *alone*.


Quote

This is absolute horse sh*t. Neither I, nor Norville nor ANYONE ELSE IN THIS THREAD ever said that they feel that any time anyone disagrees with them they are being accused of being against the soldiers or the USA.

No, I didn't say I felt that way, but I note that it happens; I've read and heard plenty of comments to that effect. I do casually wonder if that aged former pilot with whom I'm acquainted ever feels as if he's attacked for his anti-Iraq-war stance, which happens *even* in my eeevil liberal, leftist part of California.

I've seen plenty of useless "arguments" from some who proclaim that anti-war means Saddam-loving anti-American. It's bad to sarcastically point that out?

Now, Delvo, attempt to understand me here: I constantly search for truth and *always* question authority. That's what my beliefs in life teach me to do. You've attacked me before about not being interested in truth. That makes *you* a liar. Is my sarcastic sense of humor offensive to you? Live with it; it's not about to change. I did once delete a comment I made because you rudely pointed out how inaccurate it was and what a liar I was for saying it, but if that's the only way we can communicate, I choose not to communicate with you at all.

Quote

Your REPEATED pattern of setting up these straw men arguments, arguments that depend on someone saying something you simply SAY they said, with NO regard to whether they actually said them is tantamount to LYING.

Invent something bad from the other person, and attack the invention. I once got into a feud with a female freak who did this on Usenet, constantly, and hoped not to get involved with this sort of thing again... *yawn*

Quote

And speaking of patterns of behavior, it is YOU who have a tried and predictable pattern: attack all liberals. Put words they didn't say into their mouths in order to give yourself something to successfully argue against. LIBERALLY pepper these attacks with invective.

Oh, yes, and to prove that Delvo may not pay attention... am I always predictably attacking conservatives? I'm conservative enough in some respects that I'm no fun at all (in fact, when a young slacker moron who didn't last long at the job started flirting with me at work, including revealing to me how much he hated working and causing me to remark "Well, that's your problem. You could become homeless and rely on the government to support you," I interacted with him by being the least fun I could possibly manage). I hate Hollywood; I'm sick of Democrats. However, I question everything. I want the freedom to do that. Yes, that's so EVIL.

Goodbye to this thread, already. Sheesh. :sarcasm:
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#36 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 16 November 2003 - 11:54 PM

Uncle Sid, on Nov 16 2003, 08:36 PM, said:

Is it okay?  No.  Is it actionable?  Now that's the question.  I'd like to think that if we're on a board where we're free to call stuff "b*llsh*t" that what is actionable tends to come down to preventing attacks from becoming personal.
I invite you to look at my thread from last week and the "official" chastising I received.

Quote

There's nothing particlarly personal about being a "liberal", there's millions of them just like there are millions of "conservatives".

When I hear people taking about "conservatives" like Delvo speaks about "liberals", I simply find myself free to not consider myself what they would label a "conservative". Indeed, I'm actually what you'd call a "classical liberal".

I disagree with you.  How can you say that someone's political views are any less personal than say, their views on religion?  Moreover *in this context* it damned well is personal.  Delvo KNOWS that there are liberals who post in the OT forum.  He nevertheless continuously hurls these generalized insults at them (usually in the context of responding to someone who he KNOWS is liberal).  Surely you're not going to seriously contend that this isn't personal??

Quote

Also, your example is not completely valid. Andromeda fandom is not a huge group, and it's probably a shrinking one, I'm sorry to say.

This is completely irrelevant in this case.  Delvo KNOWS that there are liberals *at Exisle*, just as I know that there are people who still enjoy Andromeda here.  His attack on all liberals, attacks he KNOWS and INTENDS to include all liberals, including those on this board are the same exact thing as saying something you KNOW will offend those people who still enjoy the show.

  

Quote

Further, people come here mainly because they love SF, they don't come here primarily to discuss politics.

I disagree.  People who regularly post *in OT* ARE here to discuss politics.

Quote

It becomes harder to make impersonal generalizations on this board if you were to say "any Drom fans" or even "any SF fans" coupled with a derogatory.

That is simply not the case when there IS a forum on this board which, whether initially intended as such, has indeed become a political discussion sub forum.  To contend otherwise is imo to really really REALLY stretch things in an apparent effort to look for ways to excuse what is and has been for a very long time, patently inappropriate behavior.

Please think about this.  I'm not going to put up with any more of Delvo's anti liberal diatribes.  Each and every time he does it he's going to get more of what he got tonight.  I shouldn't have to put up with that and if the mods refuse to do anything about it I guess I'll just have to defend myself.  Which I'm fully prepared to do.  That's not a threat, it's simply what will happen.

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 16 November 2003 - 11:57 PM.

Posted Image

#37 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 12:02 AM

All right, the generalization issue is clearly one that belongs in AQG.

I'm going to start a thread, and we'll see if we can hash something out. I'd ask for that dialogue to be taken there.

*goes off to AQG*
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#38 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 12:07 AM

So, Sid... generalizations are bad, but distinctly separating the few people you're talking to from others with "you" (like I did) is also bad?

edit: fixed missing word

Edited by Delvo, 17 November 2003 - 12:39 AM.


#39 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 12:10 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 16 2003, 10:54 PM, said:

I'm not going to put up with any more of Delvo's anti liberal diatribes.  Each and every time he does it he's going to get more of what he got tonight.
Cease yours against me, and I won't have anything to respond to and defend myself against anymore. A very simple solution.

#40 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 17 November 2003 - 12:13 AM

I'm not Sid, but here goes anyway. (And it's the last I'm going to mention it in this thread. We should save any arguments for Rov's AQG thread.)

Using broad generalizations like "you people" is never a good debating tactic, because it takes the debate away from the issue at hand and refocuses it on the people involved, which proves nothing. Then people get offended and things just disintegrate from there.

I wish we could rewind this thread and keep it from getting personal.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, Anti-War, Vets, Parade

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users