Slide Rule said:
You're not physically sticking me anywhere, luckily. Metaphorically, you aren't, either, because the only time you've corrected me is about the Labour Party's name. You have stated there is a reason for their name yet you did not give that reason - fine, I'll believe you (and I'll freely admit part of the reason I called you a moron was because I thought you were trying to enforce American spelling over Australian, and for that part of the reason I apologise). Other than that the only places you've been "sticking me" are places you've shoddily constructed in an attempt to get the better of me, such as claiming I follow a certain political affiliation, claiming I have no knowledge of political history, et cetera. None of this is founded upon anything solid and hence I see it of little relevance to "get out of" such places.
Yes you were wrong. Wasn't hard to admit.
And here is where it all breaks down. You seem to believe in an eye for an eye, and that two wrongs make a right. I find that thoroughly hypocritical because it is seemingly exactly what you imply hatred of - war, violence, ignorance. If you had perhaps lost your temper once it would be different, but you act with intention.
If you didn't notice you can't get anywhere in this forum by reasoning. Simply might as well take up the method used by some of the members here. You ony have to have a quick look at the some of the threads to see that reason on both sides is ignored.
Name calling works in this forum. A number of us who do have political science backgrounds in this forum gave up. We write nicely structures respponces wasting our time actually explaining basic stuff to some of the school kids here (its not really their fault. They dont have the benefit of uni pols sci yet). It doesn't work.
They just throw insults at you. So What do we do? Give up and throw em back.
Trust me I and many others have tried to be civil and to reason. But it's just not worth it.
If you want to prove somebody wrong or if you want to convince somebody of something, intimidation and attack are probably the two worst ways to do so.
Again. Most of us have tried to reason. It simply doesn't work. You yourself managed to call me a moron for doing the right thing...ie knowing an iota about Australian politics.
Reason is very dated in this forum. Just look at Poor old moonlights god thread. He almost has a totally tight philosophical argument against God, like all fellow lawyers should, and nobody reads it. No body bothers.
There are only about 5 or 6 members here that know what they are talking about. This forum is sooper' when they are all here and all getting in and debating politics properly without the need for insults. That has happened before but it aint gonna happen much more.
With the advent of Thornydevil and to a lesser extent Katie Tully who most of the time just use insults (cant blame them again) and daily telegraph snippets the old days are gone.
So why bother. Just go for a good old slander and insult. Some of spend most of the time filling the others in about basic history so they understand what they are arguing against.
As above. Why you see the need to resort to what is essentially childish behaviour is beyond me. I respect people's political affiliations. I do not, however, respect people who resort to brutishness and childishness.
Again aim low. We gave up ages ago in this forum. Most who have any forum political education have left.
You're not a 'bleeding heart', because that would indicate you are compassionate, however you given your previous comments about intimidative retaliation being necessary to defend your views, I don't believe you are compassionate.
Eye for an eye. Thats the way katie and others such as thorny devil like it. Two perfect examples of members who never responded to reason and simply threw insults. Well they got the most attention. It also gets really tiring to have to spell stuff out for them all the time.
So you know you just give up like the rest of us and do what they do. Abuse the shit out of them. No matter what. No matter how structured your responces are or how civil they will retort with an insult and then claim a victory.
Its just funny sometimes. But I just come in sometimes to have a random abusing session against some very ignorant people (again not their fault) who think they know politics inside out after doing legal studies or economics at school and getting 90 in it.
They make assertions about international law without even going near any conventions or even knowing about them. They make assertions about stuff they know absolutly nothing about other than from what they know from their parents, what they see on TV and read in the tele.
How can that kind of person make serious assertions about the validity of the war in iraq? they havnt even looked or even know the ground rules or have even looked at the relevant convention nor understand or have studied or looked at the history of the area. Ie they know FA. There is no point debating with them. Give up. Keep it short. Throw insults.
Its like debating with a a lawyer over some contentious area of photovoltaics. You know much more than the lawyer but in order to debate with them you are gonna have to keep filling them in on the basics.
You have said things that are extremist. But you now seem to claim that your words fall under defence of what you stand for, instead of extremism. If you truly believe that, then you see the futility in trying to show you how your words were extreme, as your rebuttal would simply be that "that isn't extremism, I was simply defending my beliefs". And if you don't believe your words were in defence, then you would be lying and hence would disagree with me regardless.
No. Seriously. Quote some stuff that was extreme? Just because i was abusive doesnt mean i was being extreme. People who get angry are not extreme.
Saying that God rules the earth and only white people are allowed in Australia is extreme.
Abusing the otherside for the sake of it isnt extreme. If thats extreme then so are all the people in this thread - including you.
