A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought you were focused on a very specific point, and that he was speaking more broadly.

More broadly - what does that mean? That statement has no meaning. We are lawyers who supposedly know how to divide our arguments into issues. When you are saying he was speaking more broadly, what you are saying is he was just spouting off and not addressing even the post he was responding to. You just want to call it broadly because you don't have the cajones to say he was being irrational.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
By the time I posted, this had been going on for so long that I saw no upside in trying to explain you to him, or him to you.

You certainly both were rational, but you weren't responding to a lot of things he was saying,

Again, can you cite me an example of this? I made a point of responding to everythig he was saying. As I said, I broke down every one of his posts by issues and responded to each isssue and quote directly. How can you say I was not responding to what he was saying? I would respond to every point then point out he was moving a way from the issue he had chosen for the debate.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
and he was disinclined to focus on the specific point you kept returning to.

That specific point was the very first post that he responded to and critisized. He framed the argument by critising a post that contained a very simple argument. He started the debate and chose the topic ( a very specific topic) How can you say his arguments were rational when he left the very issue he chose to discuss?

Just say it Ty. TM. was. being. irrational.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Se my prior explanation. I wasn't.

I suppose I rose to Hank's bait. It's like a painful scab, you see, I can only ignore it for so long . .

S_A_M

What does Ty think you should post tomorrow?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
See my reply to Tys post. It now applies directly to you also (since you agreed with him).

Dammit Spanky! How could the use of one simple word ("Exactly") lead to so much pain and suffering?!?! Oh, the humanity!

Honestly, I don't recall what Ty posted, but I was willing to take his word for it. The main point of my message was that, as I said at the time, I thought you were talking about different things. I've already explained why I think that.

I read your post once, and By GOD I will NOT read it again! Enough, sir! Enough!

S_A_M

P.S. I think it is "cojones."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Must resist snide urge to ask him to find someone who cares. Must resist urge to point out loss of patience for this one. Must resist urge to bait him. No, GGG, don't do it.

:dance: :dance2:

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What does Ty think you should post tomorrow?

The face doesn't apear on a stool yet, but we can still hope . . .

In the meantime, I'll ask you all to visualize it.

S_A_M

P.S. Seriously though, I don't know. The e-mail is running slow today.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Just about all the Democrats here buy into the sanctity of conceptions like "economic equality" and that the Govt is a more benevolent than harmful entity. If you think we should fiddle with markets and engage in social engineering or that we can never have enough regulations, you're tilting in the direction of Berkeley.

A nice litmus test for whether you lean toward Berkely is if you think we ought to hit Big Oil with a windfall tax. If you think that's valid, moral, or at all the product of a coherent understanding of Big Oil's business cycles, you're not just in Berkeley... you're in the DisneyLand version of it.*

But you're right, "Berkeley-think" was hyperbole. Most of the people here aren't in that realm (though some I suspect are secretly so, but don't want to embarrass themselves... so they cite to Berkeley-think blogs as soft proxies).


*Which does not exist, but you get the point.

By "economic equality" do you mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? The two are dramatically different. I would say that your "Berkeley-think" caricature would tilt toward equality of outcome, which I think is impossible to achieve and foolish to aim for. On the other hand, I think that it's perfectly reasonable that people should have equality of opportunity, in that schools ought to offer the same (high) quality of education and that people should be able to compete on the same level for jobs, based upon their ability and training.

I happen to believe that government is neither a good nor an evil institution. It can be either or both. The Army that protects and defends us is good; the Commander-in-Chief who rushed too rapidly into a situation that further reflection would have shown to be intractable is bad. To suggest that any governmental influence is wrong is just as silly as to suggest that we shoudl live in a centrally-planned economy.

I also think that is is an abomination that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, people are going to hungry in the streets while the Dept. of Agriculture subsidizes tobacco farmers. I think that everyone, even those who simply refuse to work, has a right to a sheltered place to sleep and two meals a day. Because is life is sacred, even the wasted lives are worth keeping alive in some human fashion.

Is your worldview as nuanced? Do you have room for both absolutes and relative standards? Can you see shades of gray?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
More broadly - what does that mean? That statement has no meaning. We are lawyers who supposedly know how to divide our arguments into issues. When you are saying he was speaking more broadly, what you are saying is he was just spouting off and not addressing even the post he was responding to. You just want to call it broadly because you don't have the cajones to say he was being irrational.

Spanky, none of them read much of what either of you posted. Instead they took the chance to appear cool by insulting you to Thurgreed. to discuss the substance of the exchange with one of these people is absurd. For them to reply is revisionist in the extreme.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


I read your post once, and By GOD I will NOT read it again! Enough, sir! Enough!

I can't leave it alone because it is just too ripe. The first three posts are just too obvious on their face. What happened there is clear as day. That is why no one will quote those posts. Those posts are treated like they are toxic because they make the truth so painfully obvious. If you quote them you have to admit that I made a simple statement that almost no rational human being could disagree with, and TM made an irrational attack on the post and me. There is just no way to dispute that in the face of the evidence.

Yet everyone is making all sorts of tortured excuses for their positions on the debate and doing all sorts of contortioned rationalizations so they don't have to quote the evidence and admit the obvious. They do this because they all know they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar on full technicolor videotape with surround sound and yet they still do not want to face the horror of having to admit TM was being irrational.

As long as you guys keep responding to me, I will keep rubbing it in. The only way it will stop is if you guys don't refer to it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You just want to call it broadly because you don't have the cajones to say he was being irrational.

To be candid, I don't recall the exchange as well as you do, and I don't feel like going to look for it. But if you link to your first post there and really want me to explain what I meant, I will. For you. Because I want you to be happy.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Spanky, none of them read much of what either of you posted. Instead they took the chance to appear cool by insulting you to Thurgreed. to discuss the substance of the exchange with one of these people is absurd. For them to reply is revisionist in the extreme.

The face doesn't appear on a stool yet, but we can still hope.

S_A_M

P.S. I read every fucking word of it. Splendid theater!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Spanky, none of them read much of what either of you posted. Instead they took the chance to appear cool by insulting you to Thurgreed.

Exactly. You summed that up very well.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
to discuss the substance of the exchange with one of these people is absurd. For them to reply is revisionist in the extreme.

But it is so much fun, because they consistenly refuse to quote the posts in question. They can't face the music. They just have to pretend that something else was said.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The face doesn't appear on a stool yet, but we can still hope.

S_A_M

Dude. My sock was one who built this board even back at Infirm. I've fought with the giants. Where do you think you'll get with this schtick?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To be candid, I don't recall the exchange as well as you do, and I don't feel like going to look for it. But if you link to your first post there and really want to explain what I meant, I will. For you. Because I want you to be happy.

SAM forgive me, here are the first two posts by me and him:

(Please note that my comment was not directed at anything he said, but he quoted what I said and responded to it directly. In addition, my quote is my first comment on the subject. If you could, please focus on the type in bold and explain to me how they were a rational response to my statement). After that, if you want, we can deal with subsequent posts.

Spanky:

I believe in individual responsiblity, not familial or racial responisibilty. Am I responsible for my father's sins? - no. Am I responsible for the sins other people of my race have committed? - no.

Racism cannot be justified because you have been a victim of racism (or that other people of your race have been victims). Racism or racial slurs are either wrong or they are not.

TM:

I'm not going to spend too much time on this because I think it's pointless, but historical racism is responsible for the current state of affairs in this country. The stigma attached to being black permeates every aspect of life, from what socio-economic class you're born into, to your job prospects, to your everyday social interactions (especially with the police). Likewise, the position you're in if you're white, relative to black people, is a result of the same, whether your family came here yesterday or 200 years ago.

So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved. No one is accusing you of intentionally trying to benefit from it and no one is making you personally responsible for it. But the imprint of the impact of slavery, jim crow and everyday racism from the beginning of the slave trade until now is felt every single day. You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect.

_____________________________________________________
Please focus on these statements and explain who they were a rational response to what I said:

So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved.

You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
What happened there is clear as day. That is why no one will quote those posts. Those posts are treated like they are toxic because they make the truth so painfully obvious. If you quote them you have to admit that I made a simple statement that almost no rational human being could disagree with, and TM made an irrational attack on the post and me. There is just no way to dispute that in the face of the evidence.

Spanky --

I think TM is a paragon of moderation and rationality. He is also a model of civility at all times. I will not have you insulting my good friend and FB running buddy!!

So there.

S_A_M

P.S. Am I cool yet? Am I, Hank?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dude. My sock was one who built this board even back at Infirm. I've fought with the giants. Where do you think you'll get with this schtick?

Nowhere. I know it.

You've just crossed the line for me. I am ready for your most vicious Gilligan references. ::Shudder::

S_A_M

P.S. So you really won't do it? I thought you might see the humor in it.