Hey! Our mudslinging isn't mindless! It's actually really well plotted and executed with gusto and panache! You philistine, have you no artistic appreciation for the finer points of mudslinging?!
Well, Wordin ain't got shit. Not even a frozen nugget. Skin will tear Wordy down like a Kleenex curtain. No effort required. No particular passion -- Wordin's not an adversary. Not an opponent. Nothing more, really, than an incidental. Skin will shred the pansy faggot with nary a glance and not even a moment's direct attention; just flatten the fairy puppy like an insect under a steamroller.
Another :repwhine: thread disguised as a bragging thread. Good work Jamie, you've done well. :santa_ok:
Especially since I blasted his credibility out of the water in the Southfail thread. He hasn't even attempted to refute the points I brought up; Yaweh tried, which only expanded the point I made.
Not so much. You did no such thing as blast Oerdin's credibility, and my point directly contradicted yours.
No, your point SUPPORTED mine. My point wasn't that the South was in good shape. My point was that Oerdin failed to use any critical thinking with the map.
I am proud to say that after 37 years of sexually deviant behavior, I have now officially contracted my first STD.
and that, of course, is his first non-fact based opinion. Me, i get a real laugh out of any and all of these tools who's basic delivery style is BEHOLD MY MIGHTY INTERNET PERSONA!!!!! Delusions of grandeur are one thing but affected delusions of grandeur that everyone can see is affected is just sad.
Thing is... I wouldn't say I have "delusions of grandeur" myself... I know my strengths and weaknesses. It's impossible for me to really debate anything with a hard-core right-winger, because our basic moral codes are so different, I might as well be shouting at a wall... so I refrain from that, and try to discuss issues where it's possible to reach a level of understanding. However, if there's anyone of the "lefties" on this board who would like to really enter into a discussion regarding nuclear power, oil/coal, nuclear weapons, global warming, pro-anti-European Union, Feminism, etc... well...
This bit translates as "anybody who doesn't agree with my reasoning is a [generic inferior person]." Might I ask how wall-like you are in response to "hard-core right-wingers" trying to debate with you?
You're wrong. I don't consider anyone who don't agree with my basic position inferior to myself. However, yes, I think I'm just as wall-like as them when it comes to discussions where our basic moral values clash in that way. The reason is that your core moral values are not possible to "prove". Someone can tell me, "I want all people to die", I can ask them "why?", and they can reply "I just do." It's impossible to argue about that.
Yet you limit your debating prowess to only those who already agree with you. A clash of basic morals prevents you from debating with a hard-core right-winger? Guess the critical issue is your means of determining who belongs in the impossible to debate group. Arguing against an opinion or belief is fundamental to debate. Yeah odds are debating won't change many opinions, but that's still better odds than preaching to like-minded folk. Though there may be less pos-rep.
No, what I am talking about are core values. That's different from "opinions" or "beliefs". A core value is something that by its nature is impossible to prove right or wrong. It is, at its root, the nail you hang your belief system on, and if your core values are fundamentally different, discussion often becomes pointless. One example of a constructive discussion would be between two people who believe, say, that the people should be empowered versus the bourgeoise, if a continued industrialization of the Third World would help or hinder this. Or, between two people who believe in the sovereignty of a given nation, if dismantling its defense is a good or a bad thing.
So, basically you're saying that a "core belief" is hard-wired into a person, an intractable bit of code that is static for the length of the believer's life, and there is no possibility that any amount of constructive discussion can alter it. In other words, a person is stuck with their "core beliefs".
The bourgeoisie are the people. The difference between the Haves and the Have-Nots? The Dids and the Did-Nots.
Not really, but it will take more than just some internet fights to alter said person's truly basic beliefs, and that the people best equipped to do so would be persons that are closer to them. Which means that generally speaking, me trying to convince you that the most progressive thing that could happen would be for the working class to seize control of the state is more or less doomed to fail. Just an example.
