Obdurate

Given the feminine nature of your posts I assumed that you're a woman. If your not, well...................................

And every other rational human being, madame.

^^^

Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that making feminine posts when you're a guy is actually insulting, then there's an insult right there (referring to the first one).
Regarding the second quote, it was also implied that Minor isn't a rational human being -- along with, again -- being called a woman.

I didn't have to jump to his defense, he didn't need me. But Mulder, you think that calling the concepts someone expresses ignorant isn't an insult, when we are the concepts we express, as I said before.

__________________
Give me the dust of my fathers
Stand on the face of the ancients
Bare the secret flesh of time itself

Fox Mulder

You are wrong because:

A. That comment came AFTER Minor accused Strauss of name calling so its irrelevant.

B. Stauss' comment may or may not be an insult, but he never called Minor a name.

Absolutely not--most of the posts I see in this debate section are irrational--comming to an irrational conclusion does not make one an irrational human being--every rational human being will at some time or another make an irrational comment.

Simply pointing out error in logic or rationality is not an insult. The person who has had it pointed out may not like it, but you can't expect to debate complex topics (like politics or economics) and not expect to have someone take you to task.

You are wrong again because Strauss explained he thought Minor was a woman. I've made the same mistake myself (usually the other way around) but that happens on the Internet. And even assuming he was not mistaken, calling someone a "woman" is not name calling unless you are implying that somehow being a woman is less than being a man. Some people may consider it a complment.

Well again you have failed to point out where Strauss called Minor a name or even insulted him (remember the feminine posts comment came after Minor accused Struass of name calling). Certainly even if we accept that Strauss' comment was insulting, it was not name calling.

Ignorance is a common problem, especially in politics, economics, and law and there is no shortage of it here. Calling a person out on ignorance of a subject is NOT an insult regardless of whether you believe it is.

But in any event, this is all ridiculous hair splitting. Just about half the posts here are laced with sarcams or innuendo--I can imply you are stupid subtly just as easy as I can call you stupid. Point is you can't possibly debate poltiics and religion without the debate becoming very heated. I can understand not allowing name calling, but if you make a rule you can't "insult" anyone, well that's just plain unenforceable because that is so broad that just about any comment can be construed as insulting. Not to mention you strip the essence of debate when you strip the ability to call into question through vigorous opposition another person's purported position.

BTW--if Minor calls me a conservative or I call him a liberal, is that "name calling" in your opinion?

Strauss

And where did the discuss become heated? As you know I have been nice.

I am reminded of the little boy who runs to Mommy.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge in a subject area, it does not imply stupidity. Why am I thinking the high scores are 700 on the SATs around here.

__________________
Color is the deed and sufferings of light.......Goethe

Where there is one religion, there is despotism; where there are two, civil war. Let there be thirty religions and they will live together in peace........Voltaire

BadBoy@TheWheel

Are you all going to get back on the subject or not?

Not aware this thread was about SAT scores or gender

Kthanks

__________________

Obdurate

It's relevant because Minor said that name calling isn't the way to go. And that's why we're talking about this, isn't it?

What's your point, seriously? If you call someone anything with the intention of insulting them, it's name calling. He said madame, which was clearly a dig. I don't think that being a woman is less, but some do and it was clearly used in a "mean" way. He called Minor an irrational human being. Name calling.



That would work if he didn't say:
And every other rational human being, madame. Implying that it wasn't just an irrational comment, it was an actual insult thrown at hime. Or name calling, whatever you want to call it.



And that's how it came off.




Name-calling is the use of any negative label to describe another person.
Can we agree that this is a fitting definition of name calling? Because if so, calling someone irrational (not just his one comment) is name calling. And if it isn't name calling, which it is, then it's just immature to resort to directing insults at someone and either way that would make the person doing the insult the knob, not the person getting insulted.

And yes I did point it out. See above.


I don't think debating with someone is an insult. Calling someone ignorant is both useless and an insult. But I haven't seen you debate in a mature way since I got here (and now look at me, I'm doing what you do). Spouting off "facts" about economics and politics does not make you a mature debater if you constantly try to bring people down.

Debating isn't an insult. If people get insulted by that, they need to calm down. What I'm getting after you or Strauss or whoever for is actually going out of your way to insult/name call. I've seen you do it countless times. The point is, calling someone ignorant, implying their stupid or whatever is unnecessary and ridiculous. And it's not debate, it's argument, and there's a difference there.
Maybe people should stop getting so heated that they need to insult people to make their points.

You're quick to defend it because you do insult people. You always do. Not to say Minor or anybody is perfect when it comes to this, but this is a case by case basis.

All your -- or anybody who uses your tactics -- points are nulled because of pointless, childish name calling and insulting.

But that's actually a political term for people, Mulder. It has no relation to calling someone ignorant or irrational. Or it shouldn't, but you and Minor seem to use it that way.

But you two use it as insults all the time. Quite frankly, you both need to fuck off with that.


And why do I keep hearing a beeping sound in my place? Mulder set a bomb.

__________________
Give me the dust of my fathers
Stand on the face of the ancients
Bare the secret flesh of time itself

GraceAbounds

__________________

Minor Axis

Open your eyes. It's right there (resisting urge to call a name).

Just another way to throw an insult. Because it was a "so called" apology with another insult added to it. You must be so used to communicating in that manner that it went over your head.

__________________
"I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!"

BadBoy@TheWheel

Hey. Message to all, let's break off the who called who/m what and get back on the topic of this thread...Please

Thanks folks, you are all too intelligent to get into the name game.

There feel better

__________________

Strauss

So, in essence, you think I called him an irrational woman? Somebody please contact NOW.

BTW, I think Minor Axis is a big boy who can, if so chooses, defend himself. There were no insults....he called me "sir", I called him "madame". Its a play on genders..........geeze the fake self-righteousness around here is disheartening. And, so that you understand, its his choice to determine if he is a rational human being I never said he wasn't. Some of you are quick to jump to assumptions.

I'm done, back on topic.

__________________
Color is the deed and sufferings of light.......Goethe

Where there is one religion, there is despotism; where there are two, civil war. Let there be thirty religions and they will live together in peace........Voltaire

BadBoy@TheWheel

I would hope so

__________________

Strauss

Oh yeah OH YEAH, your Momma (< That is a joke, chill, relax, take deep breathes )

(Can let me in again on what the topic is?)

__________________
Color is the deed and sufferings of light.......Goethe

Where there is one religion, there is despotism; where there are two, civil war. Let there be thirty religions and they will live together in peace........Voltaire

BadBoy@TheWheel

Rewards of Wisdom

As McCain's stand on the surge shows, experience cannot be separated from judgment.
by Matthew Continetti

In January 2007, with Iraq in flames and Democrats set to take over Congress, President Bush had two options. He could side with Senator Barack Obama and begin a gradual drawdown of American troops in Iraq, leaving the Iraqis to a grim fate and dealing a serious and consequential blow to American interests in the Middle East and beyond. Or he could side with Senator John McCain and change strategies, sending additional troops to Iraq in an effort to secure the population and assist the Iraqis in their fight against al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias--the so-called "surge" policy. This latter option was the one Bush eventually adopted, of course. And for that, he deserves the thanks of Americans, of Iraqis, and indeed the world.

The surge is over. The last of the reinforcements sent to Iraq have returned home. The Iraq those troops leave behind is an utterly transformed place. Since their first offensive operations began in July 2007, overall attacks have been cut by 80 percent. The sectarian bloodshed staining Iraq in 2006 and 2007 has almost entirely abated. American casualties have fallen dramatically, with U.S. combat deaths in Iraq in July 2008 the lowest monthly total since the war began more than five years ago. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been routed, and the global al Qaeda organization faces what CIA director Michael Hayden calls a "near-strategic defeat" in Iraq. Shiite radical Moktada al-Sadr remains "studying" in Iran, while his militia has been cut to pieces by U.S.
and Iraqi troops. The Iraqi army is progressing admirably; more than two-thirds of Iraqi combat battalions now take the lead in operations in their areas.

<SNIP>

The Iraqi government has met almost all of the "benchmarks" the U.S. Congress set for it, and, although a national hydrocarbons law remains elusive, the country's oil wealth is being divided among its 18 provinces. That wealth is increasing dramatically as security has allowed oil production to return to prewar levels (and as prices have soared). The major Sunni political bloc has rejoined the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Awakening, which began in Sunni-dominated Anbar province in the fall of 2006, has blossomed into a trans-sectarian, national, grassroots political movement. And Iraq is busy preparing for provincial and national elections that will further accelerate reconciliation by broadening and deepening the political participation of all the major groups.

<SNIP>

Had Bush listened to Obama and decided to retreat last year, not only would the progress we see today not have occurred, but it is quite likely that the situation in Iraq would be much worse than it was at the end of 2006. Bereft of U.S. security, Iraqis would have turned to the nearest sectarian militia for protection from the widening civil war. An empowered and belligerent Iran would have moved to fill the vacuum America left behind, thus allowing the mullahs in Tehran to pursue unchecked their policy of "Lebanonization" in Iraq. And Al Qaeda in Iraq would have continued its barbaric killing spree, using the departing American soldiers as a recruitment tool, evidence of American weakness and unreliability. It would not be al Qaeda but the United States facing a "near strategic defeat" on Osama bin Laden's chosen front. And a defeated America would have led to a more dangerous world.

<SNIP>

One of the chief lessons of the surge is that we are not powerless. Policy matters. The previous policy in Iraq was failing; Bush tried a new policy that is working. Another lesson is that, in this era of "soft" or "smart" power, force is still an effective means of achieving strategic goals. Those who argued that violence in Iraq would not stop until political accords were reached ignored the lessons of the first years of the war, when the Iraqis made great gains politically at a time of worsening violence. It was thought then, too, that the political gains would result in a more secure Iraq. Not so. When violence careened out of control in 2006, the Iraqi government was powerless to stop it. "Soft" power was useless. Military might was required to staunch the bleeding. And only when the violence was brought under control through the application of deadly force could politics resume and Iraq make its first real steps toward normality.

<SNIP>

Obama not only lacks experience and judgment; he lacks the capacity to admit he made a mistake and is therefore willing to risk everything the surge has achieved. Obama got it wrong when the stakes were greatest, and on the central issue of our time. Why on earth would we choose to reward him for it?

__________________

Strauss

Oh yeah, Mulder stealing my stuff again.

__________________
Color is the deed and sufferings of light.......Goethe

Where there is one religion, there is despotism; where there are two, civil war. Let there be thirty religions and they will live together in peace........Voltaire

Strauss

While admittedly off-topic, I'm going to ride my motorcycle and blow off some steam. Later dudes and dudettes (<That's for Minor Axis )

__________________
Color is the deed and sufferings of light.......Goethe

Where there is one religion, there is despotism; where there are two, civil war. Let there be thirty religions and they will live together in peace........Voltaire

gLing

I just don't understand what is so appealing about McCain for conservatives. It's no secret I'm very conservative when it comes to politics but I can't stand the guy.

__________________