|
U-Know! Forum » Stupid old fart |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Feb 11, 2008, 17:41
Feb 11, 2008, 17:24
|
||
|
**This lecture will not attempt a detailed discussion of the nature of sharia, which would be far beyond my competence** Said the Bish, in the lecture, quite early on. Nothing like a disclamier to excuse ignorance, eh? I said you were 'rude' for suggesting I had not read the transcript when you had no idea if I had or not. Then you decided to use the ole editing facility to 'prove' I hadn't, ommitting some serious evidence that would have changed the whole nature of what I did say. And I won't say if I have read the damn thing or not now. If you were to pick apart every single contribution here in such a manner, I don't think people would bother with it for too long. Discuss, argue a bit, yes, but to hope to publically trounce the words of others through some studious backtracking is just unfortunate to say the least. That's me now, off to feed the child (bakc from school). EDIT: The fact it's the first time I've ever encountered such selective quoting here to such a degree I find a bit odd too. Never mind I suppose. x
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Edited Feb 11, 2008, 18:29
Feb 11, 2008, 17:27
|
||
|
I understand that when people's views are challenged, they feel threatened. When they cant back up their views, they'd rather go on the attack than change their point of view. You know it's like a male thing? I see it when I'm driving all the time. When a mistake has been made, my female pupils generally blame themselves, even when it isn't their fault. Males, on the other hand, can't do that. It has to be someone else. Because otherwise their fragile egos might be punctured. Pricks. All of us. Me included. Jim included. He certainly can't see past your jibes. So battle was joined. Now he's withdrawn. I don't blame him. There's no pleasure to be had having a shouting match. So please, this board is not about name-calling. It's about activists and alternative thinkers. Such people will do everything in their vocabulary to help you see what they can see. Generally for no thanks at all. So the viewpoints expressed here must seem very alien to you. It's sad to see you responding so personally. It's sad that rather than find arguments to support your beliefs or to refute Jim's you get all defensive and act like he's been attacking you. I suggest that if you don't wish to be angered by the likes of Jim (there are lots of people like him here, you see, and you're going to spend a lot of your time being angry unless things change) you may be better off filling your time somewhere else.
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Feb 12, 2008, 09:45
Feb 12, 2008, 09:35
|
||
|
PMM wrote: this board is not about name-calling. It's about activists and alternative thinkers. Such people will do everything in their vocabulary to help you see what they can see. Generally for no thanks at all. We are probably all a times guilty of only seeing irrationality in the position of ones opposite number in a debate. As that career non-conformist and sworn enemy of the poltical right, William Hazlitt, will tell you "reason, with most people, means their own opinion". No truer words .... The problem when rows blow up is I think generally one of vocabulary rather than of attitude. How much of communication is thought to be body language and eye-contact and how much verbal? I forget but a quick on the draw text-only debate is going to often lead into choppy waters when people are assuming a community of terms that mean the same thing to all users. Take the word libertarian for example. There's a term not to be flung around without further explanation. But because this is such a fast medium we tend to write a lot and write often without much by way of explanation as to our use of terms or references. I know I've got trapped into some bloody message board feedback loops as a result of not taking the time to give ideas space to breathe or having the manners to give the other side a chance to do the same. It's absolutely fine to be passionate to the point of irrationality as long as we stick to the no-harm-no-foul rule. Once it gets personal (easily done when so many write under a cloak of total anonimity) then it has gone too far. If this board had a motto it would be "dare to know". Tha requires two-way thinking on everyone's part.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Feb 12, 2008, 10:47
|
||
|
IanB wrote: As that career non-conformist and sworn enemy of the poltical right, William Hazlitt, will tell you "reason, with most people, means their own opinion". No truer words .... Yeah, but that's just his opinion, innit...;-) Sorry Ian, couldn't resist. But attiude can come into this, in part that's why people end up preferring to chat with this one and not that, doesn't always disclose iteslef specifically in name calling, but anyone who does do that (ourtrightly insult someone) shouldn't be contributing here IMO. Perhaps I shouldn't have called Williams an 'old fart', most unedifying of me, even though I think he is (one). Sometimes I don't blame anyone for ignoring this bit of the site altogether, but I do enjoy a bit of reasoned debate. It doesn't always go that way though! Ah well we've all seen those images of politicians bashing each other round the conference table! Usually hillarious to watch! Still, at least it all drops off the screen soon enough. Cheers. x
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Feb 12, 2008, 11:32
|
||
|
shanshee_allures wrote: IanB wrote: As that career non-conformist and sworn enemy of the poltical right, William Hazlitt, will tell you "reason, with most people, means their own opinion". No truer words .... Still, at least it all drops off the screen soon enough. Cheers. Ah but does it though? ;-)
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Feb 12, 2008, 11:35
|
||
|
Ha maybe not! If we keep posting we could have it here for ever! Bad move IMO..;-) x
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
