Yes, if they have been elected because of their expertise.baldy01 said:
No that's the difference between electing representatives and delegates.
THUGS beat up the police
- Thread starter Slogger
- Start date
Sponsored Links
ban-all-sheds said:Yes, if they have been elected because of their expertise.
Yeah, but taking the rose tinted specs of for a sec....
It is sometimes based on fact and logic, but those who are immoral will often say "yes that may be the fact but I don't care".baldy01 said:
But in general to answer your question, how could it ever have been otherwise? If, for example, somebody believes it is right to torture another person, and their position is not based on fact, but just a belief that it is right, how can you argue against them?
How can you tell them anything except that they are immoral?
That assumes that they agree with your interpretation of the facts and your application of logic. Logic can be used to prove whatever you like by inputting the facts you chose - Gigo's law.
If you are accurate in your assesment of the facts and if have properly applied logic and if you explain said argument with evidence regarding your facts and said person continues to do what they do then you are entitled to say that they are immoral _in your opinion_. There's a lot of ifs there which should temper you're attitude of absolute certainty a little.
However all you have really done is called them a name. You haven't advanced your argument at all and you may be overlooking the fact that they have facts that you don't or that they interpret those facts differently.
Ultimately if morals are mostly a matter of personal opinion, as you have admitted, then the only way you will swing people to your point of view is through debate. Do you really think name-calling is going to help?
Note that during this discussion I have made assertions about things that you DO, I have made no asssertions about what you ARE.
This is an important distinction to make when trying to explain your views to people without alienating them right off the bat.
If you are accurate in your assesment of the facts and if have properly applied logic and if you explain said argument with evidence regarding your facts and said person continues to do what they do then you are entitled to say that they are immoral _in your opinion_. There's a lot of ifs there which should temper you're attitude of absolute certainty a little.
However all you have really done is called them a name. You haven't advanced your argument at all and you may be overlooking the fact that they have facts that you don't or that they interpret those facts differently.
Ultimately if morals are mostly a matter of personal opinion, as you have admitted, then the only way you will swing people to your point of view is through debate. Do you really think name-calling is going to help?
Note that during this discussion I have made assertions about things that you DO, I have made no asssertions about what you ARE.
This is an important distinction to make when trying to explain your views to people without alienating them right off the bat.
Sponsored Links
I believe strongly that you are what you are
MOD 2
the rest of your abuse has been edited
i have try'd to cut you some slack BAS
now i am TELLING YOU PACK IT IN
MOD 2
the rest of your abuse has been edited
i have try'd to cut you some slack BAS
now i am TELLING YOU PACK IT IN
I didn't abuse anybody.MOD 2 said:
MOD 2
you did and you will not again as long as i have got my beady eye on this forum
have opinions to your hearts content
And I would always defend your right to hold that belief. In fact I agree with it, though maybe from a less absolutist standpoint than you.
I read the second response before it got modded, and I'm not sure how to interpret it. I'm afraid it looked to me like you were saying that anyone who doesn't accept your arguments is ultimately worthless and not worthy of your further consideration.
I think this is a shame as it, along with the (fat chance) comment in another thread, leads me to beleive that you truly are not capable of changing your point of view on anything. Its a waste of a clearly intelligent mind.
Is it possible that I got close to actually threating the absolute beleif you have in your own rightness and you panicked at the last moment and resorted to vulgarity to get the thread deleted?
M
Moz
baldy01
I have just wasted my time reading ALL this thread to see you openly goading a guy here an failed horribly an sent packing with a smacked arse .......1/10 for effort ..lol
I have just wasted my time reading ALL this thread to see you openly goading a guy here an failed horribly an sent packing with a smacked arse .......1/10 for effort ..lol
IRL it is easy to detect subtle nuances in people. Here it's not, and if someone repeatedly says they want to pluck the eyes out of muggers, and respond to every challenge to that opinion with affirmation, and clearly not a devil's advocate approach, there is nothing left but to classify them as an irredeemably violent monster.baldy01 said:
No, not anyone, but there are people here who have shown themselves to hold such disgusting views, and have repeatedly shown that they are not open to discussion that there is no point trying to argue with them. Maybe I should have said (and as an aside to the mods - this is not a label I am applying to anybody in an abusive style) "you don't debate the age of consent with a paedophile".
That comment alluded to one particular individual, with whom a number of others here have the same problem I do, or at least did until I decided to ignore him completely.
No - that's not what happened.
ban-all-sheds said:
MOD 2 said:
Would you please tell me who I abused?
Sponsored Links
