Leader

"At this point I stop wasting my time. Your undestanding of government and my ideas is very simplistic and frustrating. You label everything as tyrannical or discriminatory. You are content to answer all of my points with stupid one-liners or trite quotes. I am very exasperated at this.

Conversation over."

"This has angered me."

__________________

Confed999

Why do something that bothers you? Or am I not allowed to have my own opinion as well? I have forced nothing.
LOL I didn't know how old you were until I just looked. Funny though, how you got defencive when you believed you were being discriminated against.
ROTFL Fella, I'm only here to have fun. I love to put in my 2 cents, and hear the other 2 cents. If you want to write something in reply, I'll likely read it, it's what I'm here for.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Parihaka

The government should not assume accountability for their obesity in the first place, it's none of their business.

Bulgaroctonus

Your statement about 'teenager world' bothered me. You are allowed to have your own opinion. I shall explain what I meant by "You have forced my hand."

Prior to aforementioned comment, I had planned to abandon our conversation. This is because I feel progress is unlikely and my time is best spent elsewhere. However, you pointed out that such an abandonment can be viewed as capitulation on my part. This I cannot allow. Therefore, by appealing to my sense of honor, you have 'forced my hand' into further debate. That is, your statement was crucial in persuading me to continue the argument.

I know that you did not strictly force me into this. View it as 'strong persuasion.'

I have endured many derisive remarks about my age from other World Affairs Board members. Although this is in the past, I do not want it repeated. That is why I am defensive.

I do not enjoy being discriminated against in that situation. That is true. However, do not interpret that as a concession to your general discrimination argument, which I plan to defeat tommorrow.

$.04 buys nothing.

Parihaka

As an exercise to understand Confed & my views on this and why our answers are so brief, spend the next two weeks constantly repeating to yourself "A pox on all those who say 'there should be a law against it'"

Confed999

Whatever you say, but I just thought it sounded like something a 13 year old would say. I figured I would reply in kind. Sorry if it hit your buttons, but had I wanted to do that, I would have used it after your "smack" reply to me...
Unless it proves that everyone will be treated the same, you cannot defeat the argument.
It's buys me hours of enjoyment, everytime I have the chance to spend it.

If having people disagree with you is this disheartening to you, maybe you should find another hobby. You deserve to be happy too...

Bulgaroctonus

My reply was rude. I was rude because I was frustrated. Now I am not frustrated, so I will not be rude. I require no apology. I am rarely offended, something that would require an apology. I become only angry or frustrated, emotions that require action and solutions, not apologies.

I do not think this is true. However, we shall have to wait.

I admire your financial wizardry.

What can I say? I am an autocrat at heart. I get my joy out of defeating opposition and winning arguments. Having people disagree with me is not disheartening. Prolonged disagreement is only a delay to two good things if I persevere:

1) I eventually win the argument and derive pleasure from that.
2) I recognize an error in my thinking.

If an error has been recognized, I usually try and correct it because errors are not good. I return stronger for the next debate.

Confed999

Add these for maximum enjoyment :
3) I can be both wrong and right when talking about politics. It all depends on my point of view.
4) Just because someone disagrees with me 100% on political opinions and options, it does not mean they don't like me.
5) You cannot win them all.

Bulgaroctonus

I may be in error now. However, I do not want to accept error. I want to be correct. Of course Nietzsche said,
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
In any case, resignation to an ambiguous state of error is not something I want.

I am confused. Are you adding these as ideas that guide you, or ideas that should guide me?

For me, someone else's attitude towards me is not of inherent value. In debate, how much someone 'likes' me is only important as far as it determines their decisions in argument. If someone liking me makes that person more amenable to my goals, I'm all for it.
I disagree. One need only apply the proper pressure. However, I have not that pressure at my disposal, nor do I seek to exercise it.

Confed999

Unless you have the ability to change your point of view, without the experiences required to do so, much of politics will be this way. It's next to impossible to see from both sides of the fence at the same time. It's a side effect of our humanity.
Both, if having a good time is the objective.
Sure it is. It is for nearly everyone. If it were not, we would never become angry at each other.
You'll understand 3 & 5 better after you're married.

Bulgaroctonus

If I perceive an error in my point of view, I will attempt to change it. It is very simple. In certain times, I can see both sides of the fence, but that is reserved for my most Taoistic and meditative moments. However, Taoism is not conducive to argument!


My anger was a not a product of your anger. That is, it was irrelevant to me if you were angry, or if your were at all emotionally concerned with the argument. My anger arose because I viewed your ideas as in error. More importantly, I was unable to convince you that they were in error.

The falsehood or truth of your ideas has yet to be firmly established. What frustrated me was that I was unable to properly communicate. So many WAB conversations could be solved in person!

I don't know how this semi-psychoanalysis started, but we should stop it. It is not germane to the topic.

Confed999

The perception is what I speak of.
Well the definition of discrimination is pretty convincing for "my" side, and difficult, if not impossible, to circumvent with out changing the definition itself. But when you get a chance, go ahead and try if you feel like it.

Bulgaroctonus

I can only say I will strive for a correct perception. No seeker of truth can offer much more.

I have my strategies building up. However, that is for tommorrow.

Confed999

Then I hope I'm around tomorrow.

Confed999

LOL Too cute! There should be a law against 'dem "law against" people...