Sorry, ujuphleg, but I thought that it would be best to respond to this, even though you managed to get the thread back on track.
Ah, that's the point; you haven't explained your stance as yet and all that we have to go by is a few posts noting how you'd like a 'hot' Liberal candidate, how you'd love an SRC led by the Liberals and that most students who happen to follow left to slightly left of centre political groupings do so in order to appear cool. Now tell me, what are we meant to think when you make sweeping generalistions and continually fail to elaborate upon your stance? Edit: That you support VSU was noted, but that's not really a hard Liberal policy as such (well, it is, but not all support it to the extent of Nelson).
For the record, political debates only fail when people such as yourself choose to remain mute rather than be involved and debate the issues at hand. It shouldn't matter whether the arguments are circular or whether your opponents disagree, because an open exchange of ideas is something that should be welcomed, not derided. I for one would much rather know what it is that you think and reach an argumentative stalemate rather than act on what little information is available and be a presumptuous fool. You may not mind ignorance on the part of all involved, but it's something that I would love to avoid (if possible).
grk_styl said:
Ah, that's the point; you haven't explained your stance as yet and all that we have to go by is a few posts noting how you'd like a 'hot' Liberal candidate, how you'd love an SRC led by the Liberals and that most students who happen to follow left to slightly left of centre political groupings do so in order to appear cool. Now tell me, what are we meant to think when you make sweeping generalistions and continually fail to elaborate upon your stance? Edit: That you support VSU was noted, but that's not really a hard Liberal policy as such (well, it is, but not all support it to the extent of Nelson).
For the record, political debates only fail when people such as yourself choose to remain mute rather than be involved and debate the issues at hand. It shouldn't matter whether the arguments are circular or whether your opponents disagree, because an open exchange of ideas is something that should be welcomed, not derided. I for one would much rather know what it is that you think and reach an argumentative stalemate rather than act on what little information is available and be a presumptuous fool. You may not mind ignorance on the part of all involved, but it's something that I would love to avoid (if possible).
Last edited:
