America is facing a dilemma today. Our problem is the present comatose state of the U.S government. We average American citizens have entered into our own sort of comatose state as well. We have believed the fairy-tales of the politicians far too long (I hope) to still believe that our current government can still function in such a way that not only improves our own people but the people of the world as well. The problem with Democracy is that it is too easily manipulated to help the people who hold power. This created mistrust between the government, who in reality holds power, and the people who really hold power, the American citizens.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: This created mistrust between the government, who in reality holds power, and the people who really hold power, the American citizens.
wait so which one holds what
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The giant doggie holds the tiny kitten, and he will call it George.
Pay attention, Samp.
---
Welcome to Hatrack, JacenGWiggin. I am also a little confused by the details of your post, but I can pick up that it's a passionate topic for you.
Any chance you could get at it in a less abstract way? I think that would help me understand your point better.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, you're wrong?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
That's it GlennArnold. Lifetime ban!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Damn.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Damn.
You wanna go? Afterlife ban!
Posted by JacenGWiggin (Member # 13369) on :
Sorry Folks. Okay, first of all, it isn't democracy that is faulty. It is a republic that we have and is why we are in our current situation where our government gets nothing done. Us average/not so average people have entered a state of mind where we have just given up ever changing our government. Republics are too easily manipulatable.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
technically we have a democracy and a republic
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I find it interesting that we have such a hard time accepting that democracy and republic can be concurrent things. And to take a step further, we have a socialist, communist, capitalist, democratic, republic, oligarchy. I'll stop short of claiming that we have a dictatorship, although in many aspects of government, leaders have the authority to dictate both policy and action.
There is no one label that we can put on a form of government that encompasses everything that a government is. This is one of the reasons that until this year, I didn't join a political party. I think it's too confining to align yourself with a particular platform. Rigidity is the thing that bothers me most about politics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by JacenGWiggin: Sorry Folks. Okay, first of all, it isn't democracy that is faulty. It is a republic that we have and is why we are in our current situation where our government gets nothing done. Us average/not so average people have entered a state of mind where we have just given up ever changing our government. Republics are too easily manipulatable.
In fact the problem is not that our system is too easily manipulated. It's that the people originally set in charge of doing the manipulation-that is, the people themselves-largely abdicate that responsibility entirely. And contrary to doomsayers, it isn't new. It's not some facet of the modern political age.
Voter turnout has *always* been quite low. Knowledge of current events and world affairs has always been low, and I don't think it's some special American malaise. I think it's what generally happens when society is stable and secure and prosperous-people tend to worry about their own lives, the lives of their families, things they can see and touch and love and so on. In fact even for presidential elections I don't think it's gotten over 2/3s of eligible citizens in anyone's living memory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Democracy only really works when everyone agrees, actively, on a daily basis, to be in a democracy.
The moment one side or group decides they don't want to be in a democracy anymore, it starts to collapse.
I'd argue that the pillars holding up that framework are a well-educated citizenry and an independent, dogged media.
Those pillars have been seriously weakened by the rise of a corporate media more interested in profits than journalism. I'd argue that problem is most easily evidenced in the rise of Trump. The symbiotic relationship between corporate media and Trump is both alarming and highly destructive. The media is no longer there to inform or investigate. They're just there to put on the biggest spectacle they can, but with the imprimatur of authority and trust they earned as a holdover from the golden age of news that preceded them.
And education has been so thoroughly deconstructed in America that even an engaged citizenry isn't equipped to deal with the larger issues and to poke through all the lies they hear on a daily basis.
It all works together. If the media fails, it's all the more important our politicians are trustworthy and our people educated. If education fails, we need the media to be on their game as a bulwark against corruption. If both the media and education fail, we really need our leaders to pitch in and work together.
When all of it collapses at the same time?
Your country starts its inevitable decline. And that's where I think we are today.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Even Rome fell. America has been sinking for awhile now...let's see which is faster...taking on water, or those trying to bail.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: technically we have a democracy and a republic
Drives me bonkers when Americans smugly say, "We're not a democracy, we're a REPUBLIC."
Basically, I go like this.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I have that when people say tomatoes are not vegetables, they are fruits.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have never understood why people don't think that fruits are vegetables. A fruit is a specific part of a plant and we call all parts of plants vegetables. Seeds, leaves, flowers, stems, fruit...and so forth.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think there is a cultural reference that "vegetables" are the catch all for parts of the plant we eat which aren't seeds, or fruits, i.e. the offspring genetically.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Avocados, peppers, cucumbers, squash...
Posted by RivalOfTheRose (Member # 11535) on :
the decline of this thread is a microcosm of the decline of america
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
your mom's a macrocosm of america
ohhhhh
*high fives self, continues eating taquito alone*
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I may have to vote for Trump. My previous idea, of writing in Ted Cruz' name, wouldn't do any good. Hillary Clinton is a known great evil, and cannot be allowed to become Commander-In-Chief, and be able to pick the next possible four or five Supreme Court justices. With Trump, I could only HOPE he would not abandon all his positions (which he has said are "just negotiating points"). A Trump win would probably guarantee that Republicans retain control of the House and Senate--which might help hold him in check (but they didn't do much good against Obama).
It looks like as a nation we have already crossed the line. Democracy has failed. The majority of likely voters are now gullible dupes who do not bother to exercise critical judgment. With a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, how could we be anything other than doomed as a nation? We will likely get the government we deserve. All I can do is try to minimize the damage, and Trump looks like he could be a lesser evil than Hillary. But that is only a hope, not a certainty.
If I vote for anyone other than Trump, I will be responsible in a real way for allowing Hillary to win. It is no joke that she would be the "Felon-In-Chief." The only thing worse would be allowing an openly avowed socialist to take over. At least with Trump, it is not certain that he would be as bad as Hillary, and there is some hope (however minuscule) that he might not go back on every one of his campaign promises and positions. At least he is not responsible for the utter disgrace and national betrayal of Benghazi. And he is not manifestly a total incompetent like Hillary, and has not made a career out of seeing how many laws he can get away with breaking. But he is a mannerless churl, willing to exploit racist sentiments, and who fears strong, intelligent women who do not submit to his domination.
*Sigh* Voting for Trump, I will feel like I am voting for the American Hitler. But I could not in good conscience have a part in allowing someone as truly evil, as outright criminal, as Hillary to win.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just to be perfectly clear, is this the one hundred and seventy first time you have declared that democracy has failed and the nation appears doomed, or is it the one hundred and seventy second? I keep losing track.
Also if the majority of american voters are preventing democracy from working because they just don't have the good sense to vote ted cruz like you, what's your solution? How does Ron solve the problem of the majority of americans just being so beneath him?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sneering and awareness that they'll burn in hellfire is a plan.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I already got the typical unhinged Ron speech about how I am commanded by satanic influence and have a propensity to murder my own family members, because I disagreed with him about politics — that's old news.
What I want to hear now is how Ron explains the moral superiority he says he wields as a man who wanted to vote for Ted Cruz, who is considered (with little hyperbole, honest) by republicans and democrats alike to be an excruciatingly loathsome and self-obsessed person.
quote:It looks like as a nation we have already crossed the line. Democracy has failed. The majority of likely voters are now gullible dupes who do not bother to exercise critical judgment. With a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, how could we be anything other than doomed as a nation?
Did you just completely forget that you already wrote off the nation as doomed four years ago? Why are you wondering how likely it is that the nation already crossed the line when four years ago you were certain that we had crossed that line and insisted 100% that the Lord would return within 9 years?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sneering and awareness that they'll burn in hellfire is a plan.
Oh the irony!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: *Sigh* Voting for Trump, I will feel like I am voting for the American Hitler. But I could not in good conscience have a part in allowing someone as truly evil, as outright criminal, as Hillary to win.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. Trump may be the American Hitler, but Clinton is somehow worse than Hitler? Because of . . . what? Benghazi? The email thing?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sneering and awareness that they'll burn in hellfire is a plan.
Oh the irony!
I'm actually not sure which direction this zinger is pointed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You were sneering at Ron...for something samp said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which might have been ironic, had they not been accurate castings of Ron Lambert's beliefs. Though the hellfire bit was aimed at Ted Cruz for whom Ron expressed support, but in hindsight that wasn't clear. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken Ron is a Seventh Day Adventist, and that theology doesn't believe in hell.
Keep an eye out, though! Politics can sometimes make people feel bored and apathetic. Fight it!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I try.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It shows! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: *Sigh* Voting for Trump, I will feel like I am voting for the American Hitler. But I could not in good conscience have a part in allowing someone as truly evil, as outright criminal, as Hillary to win.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. Trump may be the American Hitler, but Clinton is somehow worse than Hitler? Because of . . . what? Benghazi? The email thing?
Emailgate alone already makes Clinton, like, eight hitlers
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If I vote for anyone other than Trump, I will be responsible in a real way for allowing Hillary to win. It is no joke that she would be the "Felon-In-Chief."(*)
(* -- Felony not included.)
Clarified this statement for everyone.
I don't think arch-conservatives should be throwing around terms like felony, given the preponderance of evidence of the previous administration's Iraq War obfuscations that led to thousands of lost American lives versus 4.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: *Sigh* Voting for Trump, I will feel like I am voting for the American Hitler. But I could not in good conscience have a part in allowing someone as truly evil, as outright criminal, as Hillary to win.
I'm having a hard time understanding this. Trump may be the American Hitler, but Clinton is somehow worse than Hitler? Because of . . . what? Benghazi? The email thing?
Emailgate alone already makes Clinton, like, eight hitlers
Well, I mean, Hitler never sent his email through a private server, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is no evidence that Sec. Clinton was responsible or could have prevented the loss of those 4 lives.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is no evidence that Sec. Clinton was responsible or could have prevented the loss of those 4 lives.
Doesn't matter. Ten hitlers extra are added to Clinton's total level of complete and depraved evil.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Hey, at least Clinton *had* emails. Hitler didn't write a single one, denying historians this critical store of data.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
NobleHunter, the 'e' in email is clearly denoting 'evil'. So Clinton is incontrovertibly more evil.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Emailgate alone already makes Clinton, like, eight hitlers
so evil Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Seriously, Ron, what are Clinton's crimes that are so heinous that it's preferable to vote for someone who might literally be the next Hitler? Remember that the Clintons have been in power before and have utterly failed to start World War III or round up and execute religious and ethnic minorities by the millions.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*slight quibble on the rounding up :/
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
If you're talking about deportations, then yeah, that's a fair point, though I was thinking more about concentration camps. And of course, Trump has promised to be far worse in that regard than anybody else.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Jon Boy, the Clintons have been lifelong professional criminals. Just because they keep getting away with their crimes does not mean they are not guilty as sin of a long, long list of serious offenses--up to and including murder. Here is a link to one of many, many sites that detail the serious crimes of both Bill and Hillary Clinton: http://clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintcrimefamily.html
As for whether Hillary is worse than Hitler, she has not been a head of state--yet. But when Hitler was first elected, he was not known to have committed any crimes. He did reveal what kind of beliefs he had in his book, Mein Kampf. But who knows for sure how much a person means what he has written in such a book, and whether he would really resort to genocide to deal with what he wrongly imagined was the problem of the Jews?
We look down on the people of Germany for having been so gullible as to have voted for Hitler by 98%--twice. But they did not know the future. We have the lesson of history, and we can see what happens when a Democracy is subverted and outright hijacked by someone resorting to the kind of campaign methods employed by Trump and Hillary. With Trump, we can still hope he might keep his word about such things as appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court who will abide by the Constitution and not try to revise it on their own, and about showing more respect for religious liberty against the insanity of "political correctness"--that has gone so berserk lately as to seek to require that anatomical males be allowed into ladies restrooms and showers and locker rooms. (In my opinion, each and every person who favors this should be branded for life as a sex offender. Including Obama.) How could anything be more obvious? It is appalling that so many people could view this favorably. Fifty years ago, if anyone had proposed this, they would have been thrown in jail, or remanded to a psychiatric institution. I know a guy who was arrested just ten years ago for entering a ladies' restroom. What has happened to society? Has everyone gone daft? It is almost exclusively Democrats who favor such insanity. This is one of the things that confirms my belief that the Democratic Party is now totally on the side of Evil.
The election of Trump could have bad consequences. But there is not doubt of the absolute certainly that the election of Hillary Clinton would have the worst possible consequences. Lifelong habitual criminals who have already demonstrated that they have no morals at all should not be given the power of the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth!
[ May 18, 2016, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yeah, never mind. I should know by now that it's fruitless to ask.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just as a side note: Ron, you do know that it has almost never been illegal for a man to enter a woman's restroom, right? That the trumped-up outcry over this issue and all the feigned outrage is being used to justify changes to the law, because the status quo is that transgender individuals are already allowed to use the bathroom they'd prefer?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it should come as no surprise to discover you are profoundly ignorant about even basic history of Nazism in general and Hitler in particular.
Mein Kampf, the book you referenced, Ron, was written *from prison*. For an attempted violent overthrow of the government. The elections you cite were absolutely rife with violence and voter intimidation. By the second election they certainly knew what they were getting, or might be getting. But on the bright side it makes your invoking of Hitler no less stupid, just less reprehensible by virtue of ignorance.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: If you're talking about deportations, then yeah, that's a fair point, though I was thinking more about concentration camps. And of course, Trump has promised to be far worse in that regard than anybody else.
I'm actually thinking of the disproportionate effects of Clinton-era crime bills on black and hispanic populations. I should have been more clear.
I don't actually think Bill Clinton (or Hillary) intended this to happen out of racial animus, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally sputtered out by Ron Lambert: Fifty years ago, if anyone had proposed this, they would have been thrown in jail, or remanded to a psychiatric institution.
Fifty years ago you could get put in jail for marrying outside your own race and we would still forcibly sterilize human beings for being homosexual. I'm glad we're over 50 years ago. Too bad you aren't.
quote:We look down on the people of Germany for having been so gullible as to have voted for Hitler by 98%--twice.
I shouldn't be surprised that you still believe this completely 100% super false thing that you got corrected on something like four years ago, repeatedly, by people who actually know what they are talking about.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: 1933 Election 43% voted for Nazis 1934 Plebiscite 89% (38m) voted `for' Hitler. 1936 Election 98% voted for the Nazis - people were obliged to vote, 99% turned out.
Here is one example in history of what happened when voting was made mandatory.
quote:Originally posted by Tristan: Ron Lambert,
I really begin to wonder. As far as I can tell, you pull your facts out of thin air. There WERE no general elections in Nazi-Germany after 1933. After the cancellation of all other parties (July 5, 1933) and the ban on new parties (July 14, 1933), the National Socialists was the only remaining political party (source). This situation remained until after the war.
Please provide some sort of reference to your facts. I've spent some time digging on the web now, and I can honestly say I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Edit: I did find a reference to the 1934 plebiscite. Since it was held to show approval of Hitler combining the offices of president and chancellor in his person -- basically only confirming a fait accompli (and with considerable pressure to do so) -- I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion. (Source.)
No mention yet of an election in 1936, though.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Jon Boy, are my answers so contrary to what you want to believe that you cannot bear to consider them at all? That doesn't say anything good about you.
Rakeesh, John Bunyan wrote his Protestant classic, Pilgrim's Progress, while he was in Bedfordshire county prison. But he was not a criminal. He was in prison because the Church of England was persecuting him. They were the ones who were criminals. He was in the right. ("Bunyan began his work while in the Bedfordshire county prison for violations of the Conventicle Act, which prohibited the holding of religious services outside the auspices of the established Church of England."--Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pilgrim's_Progress) So just because someone was in prison, doesn't prove he was a criminal.
As for Hitler, the people of Germany evidently decided he was justified in participating in the gun battle ("Beer Hall Putsch") against political adversaries. (1923--repeated in 1933) At least they did not hold it against him.
Samprimary, OK, there was one election where 98% were said to have voted for Hitler (like I said), and a previous election where 89% voted for him. If I misremembered and transposed the numbers on the earlier election, why is that a "completely 100% super false thing"? Of course, one also wonders if those last elections were secret ballot or not--if not, then few would have dared not to vote as they were supposed to. But you miss the real point. This was a democracy that Hitler subverted and hijacked, by using the methods of telling people what they wanted to hear, blaming some convenient minority group for their troubles, resorting to demagoguery, and so forth. The very tactics that Trump has used.
It is good that you actually made some effort to check the records of history. I am sure that if you checked a few more Internet sites, you would find some mention of the 1936 election. Here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election_and_referendum,_1936
[ May 19, 2016, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, for pity's sake. Records of religious persecution in 17th century England that took place two-hundred and forty-six years prior to the events of the Beer Hall Putsch have *nothing* to do with whether or not Hitler was a criminal, or that it was known in Germany. That is actually longer than our nation has existed, Ron.
Nor was my point 'people knew and didn't care'. My point was to highlight your ignorance on this subject matter, which was relevant because you invoked Hitler and the rise of nazism. Hitler was a criminal. He was convicted. He did time in prison. People knew it. The thing which shot him to fame was a book published from prison!
Or is it your contention that he was persecuted by the Weimar Republic, and thus his time in prison should not be taken to mean he was a criminal? We can have that discussion, if you like. I do wonder how far your fanatical anti-Clinton politics will push you, though. You've been dead to any sense of shame or accountability on this forum in political discussion for years now, but are you actually going to stick to this Hitler apologetics schtick you're doing now?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jon Boy, are my answers so contrary to what you want to believe that you cannot bear to consider them at all? That doesn't say anything good about you.
The irony in this sentence is almost overwhelming.
Have you ever considered something that was contrary to what you want to believe? You want so desperately to believe that Clinton is evil that you buy into a bunch of conspiracy theory crap about all the murders they've committed and then tell yourself that somehow this is still worse than someone who might be the next Hitler.
Then you go on to predict the "worst possible consequences" if Hillary is elected, even though we seem to have avoided those consequences—whatever they are—when Bill was president. Which brings me to the next point: have you ever successfully predicted anything? You've been prophesying the end of the world, or at least the end of America, for a long time, and I'm not sure a single one of your predictions has ever come true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary, OK, there was one election where 98% were said to have voted for Hitler (like I said), and a previous election where 89% voted for him. If I misremembered and transposed the numbers on the earlier election, why is that a "completely 100% super false thing"?
i dunno what do you call something which is not true?
i mean you were (with wrong numbers) trying to make it out that there was an actual election going on where 99% of the voters chose the nazi party against competitors.
what actually happened here in 1936 as you can see is that it was a single question referendum. nobody picked anything. it was all just a single question: "do you agree with us y/n"
how you think this is relevant in comparison to elections where people are actually freely picking their leaders is beyond me
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, as anyone knowledgeable about psychology will tell you, one of the most important indicators of intelligence, is the ability to draw valid analogies. That means you have to be able to recognize inherent principles, and recognize the parallels that exist, as opposed to understanding clearly which parallels are poorly drawn and are not valid. I don't think we have much to talk about. You make it abundantly clear that you are not willing to make the effort to draw valid analogies.
Jon Boy, I did answer you, and you did not answer me. Any irony you perceive is entirely contrived on your end.
Samprimary, it is evident that there is quite a lot that is beyond you.
Look, none of you could possibly be so willfully obtuse that you do not recognize that I am more conservative politically than you are. Can you possibly by any chance appreciate how difficult a position someone like me is in, to have to choose between Trump and Clinton?
Of course, you liberal Democrats are having to choose between Clinton and Sanders--which promises to split the Democratic Party even worse than the Trump/party establishment threatens to divide the Republican Party. And Sanders has driven Hillary so far to the left, it will be nearly impossible for her to pivot and move meaningfully back to the center. So the Democratic Party has been driven into an extreme aberration that will leave it in disarray for years to come.
Those liberal college and university professors who have gloated over their ability to brainwash young people into believing their liberal propaganda, are beginning to realize now the harvest they have been sowing--a generation of young people so ignorant of the lessons of history, that they are actually willing to believe that socialism is something good and desirable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, you can recast the exchange however you like. But in this case you're simply lying. I wasn't objecting to analogies, you made factually incorrect statements about Adolf Hitler and the political landscape of Germany in the 1930s.
You weren't making analogies. You said 'he wasn't a criminal' and 'they voted for him'. Your analogy was in Trump being an American Hitler, which is let's face it pretty stupid also, but it wasn't a statement of fact that you were just flat-out wrong about.
If I were going to have criticized you for analogy, I would've gone into that and then further pointed out how reprehensible and fanatical your stance was that it would be better to vote for 'American Hitler' than Hilary Clinton.
Look, I realize you're basically seething with hatred for her and contempt for Americans who do anything less this also hate her. That's clear to just about everyone in the conversation. But until and unless you advocate violence to correct these 'failings' (which frankly I wouldn't put past you, and I don't make that statement lightly at all), that's your right. You can hate her all you like, you can think she is *worse* than 'American Hitler', and hey, even though that's one of those pesky rights Trump isn't so enamored with, exercise your freedom of speech, Ron.
What you don't get are your own facts. You don't get to say she's worse than 'American Hitler' because, for example, Hitler wasn't a criminal and she is. That is at least 50% flat out wrong, even if we assume she is a criminal. You don't get to sneer at 'American Hitler's' inexperience with winning elections and say 'well Hitler won elections and tricked people too'. That's enormously understating at best the situation. He won office with major violence and intimidation, and used multiple separate efforts at fraud and stagesmanship (such as plots to blow up buildings) to maintain popular support.
I didn't object to your use of analogy. Is it possible for you to stop ****ing lying for just a few minutes and acknowledge that your statements about Hitler were factually wrong?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As to your whining about the choice between Trump and Clinton, I am confident that if asked prior to this, no one would have thought even for a second you would vote for Clinton. Most, I think, would have thought what I did: that you'd find some self-righteous line of bullshit rationalization to justify voting for someone who is by your own moral lights a scumbag.
Had I know you were going to crawl back out from your rock this soon, I might've made that prediction already. Alas!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Regardless of your politics, you have to ask yourself about the harm either of them could do.
At the end of the day, even for a conservative, Hillary isn't that dangerous. The GOP has neutralized Obama for 6 years now. He's barely gotten anything done since he lost Congress, and most of what he has accomplished has been in inches, not miles. Hillary, if nothing else, is at least professional and will hold the office in trust while the GOP grinds her into dust.
But Trump? He could do an awful lot of damage. His wild statements could send the stock market into a crash. His dealings with foreign leaders could set back America's standing in the world for decades. He's prone to flattery and sensitive to slights. Not good qualities in a president.
I'm not really as worried about him becoming Hitler. What little faith I have left in American institutions is in the ones that would keep his wilder excesses in check. But even for a Republican, a conservative Democrat over a potential time bomb in the Oval Office shouldn't actually be that difficult a choice.
If the Democrats had nominated whatever the liberal equivalent of Trump is and the Republicans nominated a center-right Republican, I'd vote for the Republican. No-brainer.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If Hillary gets to pick the next four or five Supreme Court justices, that could give the Supreme Court an overwhelming liberal bias that would gleefully set aside the Constitution and rewrite it to suit their whims, that could ruin America for decades, and probably forever.
If anyone would like to see an amusing picture someone produced, taking a stock historical photo of Benito Mussolini and drawing Trump-like hair on him--it is uncanny how much like Trump it actually looks! Here is a link: http://ai-jane.org/bb/attachment.php?aid=521 Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Do that many justices really have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel? I know justices are old, but....
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Do that many justices really have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel? I know justices are old, but....
Well, Scalia's spot is still open, so that's one (whether Obama fills it or the next president is still undetermined).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. If Clinton were to win, she'd very likely step down within the next 4-8 years. If Trump were to win, she'd likely try to hold out as long as possible, but she's also survived cancer twice at this point and been hospitalized at other times.
Kennedy will be 80 in July and has a coronary stent that has landed him in the hospital a few times.
Breyer will be 78 in August with no known health issues.
It's a fair bet that there will be at least 3, and possibly 4 Supreme Court appointments made over the next 8 years.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, as anyone knowledgeable about psychology will tell you, one of the most important indicators of intelligence, is the ability to draw valid analogies. That means you have to be able to recognize inherent principles, and recognize the parallels that exist, as opposed to understanding clearly which parallels are poorly drawn and are not valid.
Literally the thing that we were talking about is that you were using a parallel which was poorly drawn and not valid. The whole thing with how the elections you were talking about with the 99% nazi vote, they actually had literally no competitors on the ballot and nobody was really being elected
is that not pretty much classically a poorly drawn invalid parallel nested inside a godwin
are you trying to tell us that you have no important indicators of intellgence
are you hinting something important to us
is this a cry for help ron
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, you failed even to identify the principles of the parallels I was drawing. So not only did you fail utterly the most basic test of intelligence, you did not even correctly recognize the nature of the test. I did spell out the parallels--the methods Trump has been using to suborn the masses, compared to the methods that Hitler used (telling the gullible what they wanted to hear, blaming an ethnic minority for their problems, and engaging in demagoguery). The success Hitler had with the masses was substantial. Even 89% was substantial, not to mention the 98% in 1936--and Trump is having increasingly large numbers support him. Fortunately, not as large as Hitler and his Nazi Party claimed. But the important point to remember is that Hitler did indeed hijack a democracy. He did not overthrow the Kaiser, that had already been done. So having a democracy as a form of government is no guarantee that your country will not be taken over by a tyrant who will lead the nation into a ruinous war. It happened in Germany--which was arguably the most advanced, civilized, and cultured country of its time. So it could happen to us.
My only cry for help is for Divine Providence to give us a better choice for president than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders). But alas, perhaps "the people get the government they deserve," as was stated by Jefferson and Tocqueville.
[ May 25, 2016, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At this point I'll just shrug, laugh, and reiterate that it's a popular belief not founded in actual history that Hitler's rise to power was peaceful and accomplished solely by popular persuasion. There was a lot of crime and violence involved as well. Himmler was the head of the SS I forget how long exactly but it was at least 2 years before Hitler became chancellor.
Trump is loathe some and a disgrace to American democracy, and a shame to millions of his supporters, even though they don't know it. But comparing him as broadly as you're doing to Hitler, even prior to WWII Hitler, is not just a loosely drawn parallel. It's historically wrong. Period.
All of that is without even touching on the parts where you claimed Clinton was actually *worse*.
Do you get this, Ron? Are you capable of understanding this bit of major human history that's been settled for decades? The worst excesses of Trump, the allusions to intimidation, the deniable threats, the personal attacks, the targeting of outsiders, those are comparable to Hitler on one of his good days. Like maybe a day in which he time traveled and watched a marathon of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood or something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I like how each time it comes back to that Ron was using made up numbers and false historical bullshit, he tries to turn it right back around to something like "well you obviously just don't understand the point of my made up bullshit parallel, so you're the idiot"
I guess we should learn from his example and just use fake numbers as long as they support the narrative we want to push. Hey Ron, did you know that one hundred percent of conservatives are fascists like hitler? If you criticize my numbers you are failing a basic test of intelligence.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:Germany--which was arguably the most advanced, civilized, and cultured country of its time.
I can't decide between "it was in ****ing ruins (metaphorically) at the time" and "well, good thing it has nothing in common with the US then. The US being neither civilized, cultured, or advanced, in case you need it spelled out."
It could indeed happen to you draped in the flag and carrying the cross, as the saying goes.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, and few others: It is unfortunate that your teachers failed to educate you in the basics of critical thinking. All you know how to do is argue like children; you do not know how to debate anything intelligently. You resort to lying and misrepresenting and mischaracterizing me. You might as well just hurl insults--that is practically all you are doing. I try to be patient and keep explaining things reasonably, if by chance I might be able to educate one or two of you. We might have an interesting conversation, if you were really willing to think honestly and fairly. Well, it is your problem, not mine. This is how you want to be. So suffer the consequences in your lives. You get what you choose, whether you know what you are choosing or not.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: It happened in Germany--which was arguably the most advanced, civilized, and cultured country of its time. So it could happen to us.
Does this include the fact that Germany, more specifically Berlin, was one of the most gay friendly places at the time?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
NobleHunter, were you there in pre-WWII Germany? Then what justifies your superior attitude? Even after the destruction of WWI, Germany remained the single most powerful nation in Europe, and more importantly, was proud of being the country of Kant, Nietzsche (not my idea of a wise man, but the Germans were proud of him), Freud, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc. At the time just before WWII, America was still recovering from the Great Depression. Name one noted American philosopher, scientist, or composer up to that period. About the best you can do is Washington Irving, Poe, Thoreau. You have to go back to the founding fathers to find a community of people who wrote and spoke with real intelligence, and accomplished something truly noteworthy. Yes, we had Einstein; but he was born and raised in Germany.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Willard Van Orman Quine, Oppenheimer, Ernest Miller Hemingway, and Michael Edwards you ignoramus philistine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And left in significant part due to German culture at the time, but whatever.
Germany was eventually the most powerful nation in Europe, but it took years and was certainly not the case in the aftermath of WWI. This is, again, simply a question of fact you're radically distorting for whatever purpose. Most Powerful nations don't get wrecked in treaty negotiations, for example.
Again, it's not your absurd rhetorical points that are most at issue here, though they are pretty silly too. It's factual let's just call them what they are at this point lies you continue to offer up, and then insult others for not swallowing them whole.
You're not being reasonable and you've not been mischaracterized. Your points on Germany between the wars are ridiculous and unfactual. You've been challenged on them repeatedly by myself and others and ignore it, and then smugly lecture about how others are being unreasonable.
Tell you what, Ron. You want a discussion? Then you need to deal with the question of political violence and what impact that has on your comparisons between Hitler and Trump and Worse than American Hitler Clinton. That was brought up quite awhile ago and you've completely failed to address it.
Now, I already know you're a liar without the stomach to confront uncomfortable and inconvenient facts when you discuss history and religion. But maybe some of these 'others' you're trying to educate will hear your response to this and see your point, contained in a substantive rebuttal to the question of how your comparisons are valid.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I wasn't being superior to 1930s Germany, I was being superior to the modern US, do keep up.
And how was Germany's economy doing in the early 30s? How many of those eminent philosophers and composers were living in Germany when Hitler came to power? Why exactly did you lot end up with Einstein, again? Germany had been great but it was a wreck under the Weimar Republic, with substantial mitigating circumstances, but still a wreck.
What? No love for HP Lovecraft? He seems to be your type.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Another fun fact: scratch the die-hard religious conservative, and be surprised at how willing they are to be impressed by autocratic regimes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All you know how to do is argue like children; you do not know how to debate anything intelligently.
It's a shame that the only person here who knows how to debate intelligently is consistently, constantly, embarrassingly wrong about everything.
[ May 25, 2016, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I try to be patient and keep explaining things reasonably
Ron, do you remember when I simply copied and pasted almost word for word the way that you 'patiently' and 'reasonably' argue with others, and you took one look at what was actually your own patronizing attitude and dismissed it as being a childish farce by someone who neither thinks critically nor is mature?
Because it was an important potential learning experience for you. It was you experiencing yourself and calling yourself out. Your own tone wasn't different or better, and I caught you on it, hard.
It was about how you don't explain things reasonably, you just throw an interminable and pathologically patronizing haze of pseudological farcery at us and remain absolutely, resolutely impervious to even the most basic correction of some astoundingly clear wrongdoing on your part. This is why the whole "barack nate dhlana" thing was so poignant — you couldn't even understand or acknowledge facts about a video you yourself posted and described incorrectly.
Sometimes, you are immensely satisfying to play with, because you match your arrogance with a tendency to be completely wrong over and over again and sometimes it's just bizarrely fascinating to watch. You think so highly of yourself only because your brain is incapable of processing your own shortcomings — which are many, and profound.
I certainly hope it's fun for you, too!
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Robert Morse Thomas Edison Eli Whitney Cyrus Mccormick Robert Fulton
And for the writers...
Mark Twain Herman Melville Jack London Henry David Thoreau
It took me literally sixty seconds with Google and Wikipedia to pull those names.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Fun Fact, up until may around late 1938 Germany would've been easily curb stomped by Britain and France; and arguably would've been forced to fold at the British and French seriously pushed into them during the invasion of Poland.
Then there's the fact that had the British and French accepted Stalin's proposal they would've had over a million Soviet Red Army troops as well in the mix in 1938. Germany was absurdly lucky in its geopolitics.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Play Hearts of Iron, Elison? There's a lot of brute force railroading required to get WW2 going according to script. Things get really trippy when the player refuses to co-operate.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: NobleHunter, were you there in pre-WWII Germany? Then what justifies your superior attitude? Even after the destruction of WWI, Germany remained the single most powerful nation in Europe, and more importantly, was proud of being the country of Kant, Nietzsche (not my idea of a wise man, but the Germans were proud of him), Freud, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc. At the time just before WWII, America was still recovering from the Great Depression. Name one noted American philosopher, scientist, or composer up to that period. About the best you can do is Washington Irving, Poe, Thoreau. You have to go back to the founding fathers to find a community of people who wrote and spoke with real intelligence, and accomplished something truly noteworthy. Yes, we had Einstein; but he was born and raised in Germany.
Um, Carnegie, JP Morgan, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Rockefeller, The Wright Bros, Charles Lindbergh, Isaac Asimov, Harry Houdini, Howard Hughes, Helen Keller?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Play Hearts of Iron, Elison? There's a lot of brute force railroading required to get WW2 going according to script. Things get really trippy when the player refuses to co-operate.
What do you mean? If the player is Germany and is careful they can win in 38'. I've recreated Harry Turtledove's "War that came Early" as a scenario and it went according to the books decently well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It is very charitable of Ron Lambert to challenge people in a manner that allows an entire forum to defeat him with something like a single minute of Google searching
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I may have to vote for Trump. My previous idea, of writing in Ted Cruz' name, wouldn't do any good. Hillary Clinton is a known great evil, and cannot be allowed to become Commander-In-Chief, and be able to pick the next possible four or five Supreme Court justices. With Trump, I could only HOPE he would not abandon all his positions (which he has said are "just negotiating points"). A Trump win would probably guarantee that Republicans retain control of the House and Senate--which might help hold him in check (but they didn't do much good against Obama).
It looks like as a nation we have already crossed the line. Democracy has failed. The majority of likely voters are now gullible dupes who do not bother to exercise critical judgment. With a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, how could we be anything other than doomed as a nation? We will likely get the government we deserve. All I can do is try to minimize the damage, and Trump looks like he could be a lesser evil than Hillary. But that is only a hope, not a certainty.
If I vote for anyone other than Trump, I will be responsible in a real way for allowing Hillary to win. It is no joke that she would be the "Felon-In-Chief." The only thing worse would be allowing an openly avowed socialist to take over. At least with Trump, it is not certain that he would be as bad as Hillary, and there is some hope (however minuscule) that he might not go back on every one of his campaign promises and positions. At least he is not responsible for the utter disgrace and national betrayal of Benghazi. And he is not manifestly a total incompetent like Hillary, and has not made a career out of seeing how many laws he can get away with breaking. But he is a mannerless churl, willing to exploit racist sentiments, and who fears strong, intelligent women who do not submit to his domination.
*Sigh* Voting for Trump, I will feel like I am voting for the American Hitler. But I could not in good conscience have a part in allowing someone as truly evil, as outright criminal, as Hillary to win.
Remind me, has:
Hillary Rodham Clinton been indited for any crimes whatsoever? Has Hillary Rodham Clinton been found guilty by an American court for any criminal or civil offense? How would the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton, be worse than the deprivations of war, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, committed by the Nazi regime? Can you name a single concrete policy from her platform that would be worse than the industrialized murder of over 6 million Jews and millions of Slavs?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I will give you Fulton and Edison--though actually Nikola Tesla was far his superior; Edison was simply better at marketing. And Tesla of course was born a Serb in the Austrian Empire.
Twain was a good writer, but others like Jack London and Melville did not really change the world; at least they are not acknowledged as the major pioneers of schools of thought like many German writers. Here I have to rely on the opinions of other scholars, since I do not read German--though some famous German writers have been oft translated. But would anyone really wish to compare Thoreau with Kant in terms of influence? Thoreau was just an amusing pre-new age lightweight. I never knew any English majors who took him seriously. The idea of going off to live on Walden Pond has its appeal to young people at some point, but serious students want their lives to amount to more than that. Kant is someone you have to take seriously, disagree with him or not. Likewise even an atheist like Nietzsche.
To defeat Germany in WWI it took the combined efforts of the other major nations of Europe plus the wealth and troop numbers of the United States. Germany remained the largest European nation outside of Russia, with the most natural resources, and a still large population of people with military experience, even after the war. Why do you think Germany was able to rebuild its military and economic might so quickly, so that it very nearly won WWII? German tanks were better than anyone else's tanks--why was that? Germany was on the way to producing an atomic bomb, well ahead of the other European nations--the one thing that America beat them to. But even then, America did not have the bomb until after Germany surrendered. And America had the help of Einstein, who was born and raised in Germany; and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was the son of a Jewish textile importer who had immigrated from Germany in 1888.
Samprimary, you have never refuted me in any valid way, except in your own distorted imagination. Revising history by misrepresenting it is not valid evidence. Though your approach is a little more pretentious, in that you pretend to cite past statements (taken out of context and misinterpreted by you), you are still doing no more than hurling insults.
Why don't you want to make a sincere effort to think, to really deal with actual, substantive facts and logical arguments? What would it cost you?
Tom, I would simply note that it is logically impossible for anyone to be wrong about everything. You are just trying to be insulting. This is childish arguing, not mature debating--or discussion, if you want to use a less contentious term.
[ May 25, 2016, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I tried really hard to catch up on the recent posts in this thread...but it all seems like a Monet painting...up close it's all noise but from far away it's clearly Ron saying something factually/morally questionable, some nice posters trying to borrow him a clue...Rakeesh & samp being mean & personal & trying to force a clue on him...meanwhile Ron gets mad at friendly poster & shots are exchanged...rinse & repeat. Sometimes change of subject...rinse & repeat.
Hmmm...this cycle also described several disscussions where I've been in Ron's place.
Anyway.
My grandmother once told me a story. Of a man who walked down a street and fell in a big hole. The man tried very hard to get out of the hole and it took almost everything he had to get out. The next day he fell in the same hole and it was a little easier to get out of. The next day he remembered to dodge the hole. And eventually he just started using a different street.
It seems like you guys have fallen in this hole before.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Interesting perspective, Stone_Wolf_. Though I would quibble about your phrase: "Ron gets mad at friendly poster...." They haven't been friendly posters, and rather than get mad, despite my disgust at their immature behavior, I have been patient enough to try to explain things to them reasonably. That just makes them madder and meaner. They seem to be determined to incite me to indulge in the same kind of spirit they do. My refusal to do so is another argument against them, and in their hearts, they know it.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Germany remained the largest European nation outside of Russia, with the most natural resources, and a still large population of people with military experience, even after the war.
England & France combined had more resources, population, GDP, and industrial capacity than Germany did.
quote: Why do you think Germany was able to rebuild its military and economic might so quickly,
It was a strategy based on being able to unopposed annex nations and loot their treasuries; the arms build up was unsustainable and would have led to the collapse of the German economy if WWII didn't start when it did.
quote: so that it very nearly won WWII?
Germany at virtually no point during the war was likely to have won the war outright. They were never capable of invading England even if they had managed to clear the RAF. They were also never capable of the logistics to have pushed past Moscow even if somehow they had managed to take the city (they were never more then 14 km away).
The entire German operational means of production was not well suited for total war production; their total production of AFV's was woefully behind the Soviet Unions and barely more than Englands. The odds were stacked against Germany right from the start and every victory only managed to push back the inevitable.
Even if we were to grant Germany complete victory in Europe by 43' the end result would've been just the United States nuking Germany with something on the order of over a hundred nuclear bombers sometime in 1947; according to an professional nuclear warfare operations consultant I know of who posted about this considerably and wrote a book series based on the premise.
quote: German tanks were better than anyone else's tanks--why was that?
This isn't even remotely true and is basically just you being a Wehreaboo. The best tank is the tank that manages to get where you need it to be when you need it. The Sherman and T-34/85 are basically the two best tanks of the war in terms of being a tank. Over 70% of all tank casualties came from sources other than other tanks, tank on tank duels rarely happened. But rather the effectiveness of a main battle tank depended on cooperation with all branches of the armed forces working in combined arms operations.
The majority of German tanks were a complete waste of industrial resources; broke down too often, consumed too much fuel, and could't fight once they got to the front as a result. A tank that breaks down is a useless tank. Only a single regiment of Panthers were used shortly by France post war. While the T-34 and Sherman were widely exported.
quote: Germany was on the way to producing an atomic bomb, well ahead of the other European nations
Not true, the Manhatten Project, which was a cooperative effort between a variety of Allied nations was considerably ahead of Germany the entire time from it's inception. Germany was late to the effort and barely got anywhere.
quote: But even then, America did not have the bomb until after Germany surrendered.
And? What is this supposed to mean? How does this relate to you're point? This is a non-sequitor.
quote: And America had the help of Einstein, who was born and raised in Germany; and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was the son of a Jewish textile importer who had immigrated from Germany in 1888.
The Manhatten Project was a cooperative joint effort employing tens of thousands of personnel consisting of thousands of technicians and hundreds of scientists from a variety of nations; mainly Americans. And Oppenheimer was born in the United States.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: To defeat Germany in WWI it took the combined efforts of the other major nations of Europe plus the wealth and troop numbers of the United States.
Are you under the impression that Germany took on the whole of Europe by its lonesome in WWI? Some of the other nations of Europe were actually part of the Central Powers. Whole huge swaths of Europe in fact. Empires even.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They haven't been friendly posters, ...
In all my years here I have never seen JohnBoy be anything but polite...even in this thread.
I think perhaps you may be coming off stronger than you mean to?
I kno at times -I- have lost my cool unintentionally when needled.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As difficult & frustrating it can be to disclose your world view for public preview, it is essential! And I encourage you to do so. If for nothing less than a low consequence place to try & see what a public reaction might look like.
I say low consequence bc unlike work or church for instance, you aren't going to have the awkwardness of running into samp or Rakeesh at the water cooler. However it can be SO PAINFUL to not have instant praise when issuing new ideas or philosophy...and not even a lack of praise, but actual hostility...AND criticisms of parts of what you are saying that you thought were just obvious truths, and not even your main point! It's hard and it's polarizing & angering & nessecary.
If even only for your piece of mind that your ideas can withstand attack...or not.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: To defeat Germany in WWI it took the combined efforts of the other major nations of Europe plus the wealth and troop numbers of the United States.
Are you under the impression that Germany took on the whole of Europe by its lonesome in WWI? Some of the other nations of Europe were actually part of the Central Powers. Whole huge swaths of Europe in fact. Empires even.
It should also be pointed out that the Germans decided very early on to focus on defence on the Western front aside from a couple of major offensives when it seemed prudent and instead put their effort in trying to crush the Russian Empire who seemed so much weaker and their front much more flexible for maneuver war.
If the Germans hadn't had so much pressure on Russia and if the Entente had made some smarter choices the war probably would've been over in 1917.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Elison R. Salazar, I have to dispute most of your claimed facts. First of all, I did say Germany was more powerful than any one other nation. Your statement that England and France combined had "more resources, population, GDP, and industrial capacity" only agreed with my statement.
Yes, Germany annexed Austria and some other territories, but that is not the only reason they quickly built themselves up into a military power great enough to challenge the other nations of Europe.
You are quite mistaken in your denial that the Germans could have won WWII. Some military historians who knew what they were talking about have said that the British air force was "on the ropes," and have estimated that if the Luftwaffe had continued their bombardment of British air power only a few more DAYS, Britain would have been unable to oppose a German invasion.
Many military experts have also observed that the Allies were on the verge of defeat, and would have been (after all France had fallen, Poland and the Balkans had fallen, Scandinavia had fallen, all that was left was Britain) if Hitler had not decided to attack Russia instead of finishing the job in the west.
The misguided "Operation Barbarossa" almost succeeded in defeating Russia--at the peak, German tanks were in sight of the Kremlin in the first Autumn after the invasion of Russia.
Germany squandered at least three opportunities to win the war outright. This gave time for America to enter the war and build up troop strength in Britain capable of launching a counter-offensive, that finally turned the tide.
The only other nation that actually fought with Germany was Italy. No other nation in Europe made any major contribution to the German war effort. Bulgaria may have been counted as an ally, but it contributed only minor military forces, that were all used against Russia. While the USA was building up its forces in Britain--and supplementing the British fleet and air force--the US armored forces led by Patton took on Rommel in northern Africa, bailing out the British mechanized units that had been on the defensive, then moved on to attack Italy.
All military analysts of comparative tanks in WWII regard the German Panzers as being the best tanks, at least in the early part of the war. The Sherman tanks were a later addition, that were only a factor after the USA entered the war. The advanced Russian models were not introduced until late in the Russian campaign. At the start of WWII, Germany had the best tanks. Period. That is one reason why their "Blitzkrieg" tactic was so effective, and blew right through the French lines (surrounding the Maginot line), went all the way to Paris, and later almost made it to the Kremlin. (By the way, I used to play a game by Milton Bradley called "The Russian Campaign," and competed with players all across the country by mail. I was even nationally ranked for a while among the top 50.)
That reminds me of another mistake Hitler made that potentially cost Germany the war--his decision to stop using the "Flieger Corp" because of setbacks when it was poorly used in Crete, to which Hitler over-reacted. Actually it was a very effective tactical element, where paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut supply lines and catch enemy forces in a pincers. On the battlefield, the Flieger Corp added a considerable force multiplier effect.
It is really hard to understand how the Germans could have lost the war--they had so many advantages, so many clear opportunities to have won the war. Many blame misjudgements by Hitler.
Germany did have a project to develop an atomic bomb. They might actually have built an atomic bomb before anyone else, if it were not for the Allied bombing of the German heavy water processing plant, and related research facilities. Germany had scientists capable of building the bomb. Here is what Wickipedia says about the Nazi effort to develop nuclear weapons:
"The German nuclear weapon project (German: Uranprojekt; informally known as the Uranverein; English: Uranium Society or Uranium Club), was a clandestine scientific effort led by Germany to develop and produce nuclear weapons during World War II. This program started in April 1939, just months after the discovery of nuclear fission in December 1938, but ended only months later due to the German invasion of Poland, after many notable physicists were drafted into the Wehrmacht.
"A second effort began under the administrative purview of the Wehrmacht's Heereswaffenamt on 1 September 1939, the day of the Invasion of Poland. The program eventually expanded into three main efforts: the Uranmaschine (nuclear reactor), uranium and heavy water production, and uranium isotope separation." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapon_project
Of course we also should not forget the German rocket program. They virtually invented the military use of rockets like the V-2. At the end of the war, over 1,500 German scientists were recruited by the Allies, mainly the USA.
[ May 26, 2016, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, so it's 'move on to pretending there aren't critical challenges to my assertions of similarity between Trump, pre-war Hitler, and Clinton in descending order of awfulness' phase of this particular discussion.
Well, we've been there before. Obama's grandmomma totally said he was born in Africa, amirite?
(Stone_Wolf, if this post wasn't sufficiently 'mean' for you to clutch your pearls over, lemme know and I'll amp it up to give you something to criticize while pretending Ron is gabbing in good faith.)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Seemed fine to me. You accomplished your apparent goal of making sure Ron knos that you kno that he is dishonest. I bought pearls...for my wife, before we wed. I've never clutched them tho. Nor am I a lil old grandma as you seem to be characterizing me as.
I'm sure you can handle the "heat" of my comments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ]Samprimary, you have never refuted me in any valid way, except in your own distorted imagination.
Here's a question for you, Ron -
Do you sincerely not remember what happened in the last two elections, where I went pretty directly head to head against you on your predictions?
Do you sincerely not remember the "Barack nate dhlana" shit you put us through?
Do you sincerely not remember any of the times you've tried to argue evolution vs. creationism?
This is a for real question. I want to know if you can literally think that I've never refuted you 'validly' because you have memory issues, or because your brain simply takes almost any or literally all instances in which you've been refuted and simply discards it to try to avoid some sort of psychic pain related to shattering your worldview of yourself as a greatly wise and logical person who sees himself as so much better than the average person.
hell, to bring up my favorite individual ron absurdism, do you remember that time you were certain that star wars' midichlorians were based off mitochondria and I actually got to use being a tremendous star wars nerd to point out that your grasp of biology is terrible? I mean, I enjoyed that. Did you? Do you even remember these things?
I'm serious, give me more insight.
Tell me if any of these instances rings a bell.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, I was essentially correct in everything I said. Your repeated lying about it does not make your falsehoods true. I backed up my sound, logical arguments with documented facts. Especially about the proven fact that evolution is scientifically impossible, and contrary to the vast bulk of solid, concrete evidence. Not you nor anyone else has ever disproven anything I said about that, and I am willing to debate anyone on earth on the subject, fairly and honestly, sticking only to the facts. Which I have done, all along.
I maintain that the evidence is Obama was born in Kenya, and was never qualified to run for president. That, of course, was not his fault. But it is the fault of gullible people like you who do not seem to care about the U.S. Constitution, and refuse to question the mainstream party line, and of the biased mainstream media who never did their job to vet Obama properly. Someday, sooner or later, people like you are going to be faced with conclusive proof that all our criticisms of Obama were valid and true, and you never had any excuse for refusing to face the evidence we conservatives supplied.
Can you honestly say that Obama is a "uniter"? Can you honestly deny that Obama has made the country more grievously divided, especially along racial lines, than it ever was before? Can you deny that Obama has given nothing but support for the "Black Lives Matter" movement, many of whose spokespersons have openly called for killing police and even killing any whites? Can you honestly deny that this potentially brings America to the brink of race war? Can you honestly say that Obamacare is a good thing? Can you honestly say that Obama has not made all our allies in the world distrust us, and all our enemies in the world laugh at us? Can you honestly deny that Obama has weakened our armed forces to a level not seen since the 1940s? Can you honestly say that the Iran deal was not a total disaster, and could only have been negotiated by total incompetents? Can you honestly say that anatomical males should be allowed into ladies' rest rooms, locker rooms, and showers? (I admit, that is so indecently extreme that I did not even imagine it would ever happen!)
[ May 26, 2016, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Can you honestly say that Obama has not made all our allies in the world distrust us, and all our enemies in the world laugh at us?
False claims, everything totally untrue. Biased reporting. Contrary to basic common sense and 99% of all news reports. These articles are so stupid they are not worthy of further comment. Do not confuse our allies' respect for America based on history, with respect for the present Obama administration.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you have any data at all to dispute the data presented in either the Gallup or the Pew Research Center studies? I mean, they give you the raw data and the methodology. What is your criticism of the methodology? Neither Gallup or Pew are considered partisan. Do you have any evidence that they are?
You want to dispute data? Have some data of your own.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I was essentially correct in everything I said.
No! That's the entire point of asking you what you remember! The whole, endlessly absurd argument you offered about Obama's grandmother apparently being recorded on video saying. We've had this discussion ('discussion') before, because it needs to come up literally any time you make the ridiculous assertion that you have always been correct and 'never been validly refuted' because all it means is that you simply do not have the mental capacity to understand when you are caught saying untrue things.
here:
quote:You posted a video where you said that you could see Barack's grandmother saying "barack nate dhalani"
People really seriously tried to explain to you, over and over again, that the video did not actually show this. At first it could have been assumed that you were possibly just confused with the language used. But it was explained to you multiple times. The video did not show barack's grandma saying what you claimed it did. It didn't show it at all. There was no video of it. It cut away and offered it as a sound clip with no attached video of Barack's grandmother.
People explained this to you over and over again. We asked you to provide a timestamp in the video where you were claiming the video showed Barack's grandmother saying barack nate dhalani. You continued to attest that the video showed something that it completely, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, did not show. Repeated rewatchings of the video in question pretty much showed that what you were saying was false, but you kept insisting it was true and becoming increasingly agitated and demeaning towards everyone who was observing that you were saying completely and unambiguously incorrect things. You went into your standard tirades about other people's intelligence and how nobody else is logical or has a clear mind or can see the truth because obviously the way you described the video was absolutely true (it wasn't)
It was absolutely amazing. You started to sound, literally, just outright insane.
Every time you make the absolutely ridiculous assertion that you've never been factually refuted, this comes to mind, because it perfectly encapsulates how laughable that claim really is, moreso than the literal hundreds of times you've been more generally refuted on issues of politics, sciences , or social issues. You literally just can't even admit you were wrong about the issue of barack's grandmother, even when you were using it as centrally valid evidence of your obama Birtherism.
Do explain this, Ron!
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Elison R. Salazar, I have to dispute most of your claimed facts.
And I look forward to destroying you. I hang out with a *lot* of PhD's and people getting their PhD in history and they've discussed much of the same content to death; and since they are wiser and more knowledgeable I listened. You are a poor sod who doesn't know what he's getting into.
quote: First of all, I did say Germany was more powerful than any one other nation.
No, this was not your claim. You were attempting to make the claim that Germany ~is just so sugui da na~ due to some intrinsic superiority in its culture and mindset. Acknowledging that Germany is not more powerful than any two other European powers together basically undercuts the point you're trying to make.
quote: Yes, Germany annexed Austria and some other territories, but that is not the only reason they quickly built themselves up into a military power great enough to challenge the other nations of Europe.
Read Wages of Destruction, it's all about how schizo the German Nazi regime was and how dysfunctional the Reich was and how prone to failure the arms build was; the Austrian and Czech gold reserves were instrumental for allowing Germany to deficit spend their way back to having a military.
quote: You are quite mistaken in your denial that the Germans could have won WWII. Some military historians who knew what they were talking about have said that the British air force was "on the ropes," and have estimated that if the Luftwaffe had continued their bombardment of British air power only a few more DAYS, Britain would have been unable to oppose a German invasion.
Again, this is a myth.
quote: Many military experts have also observed that the Allies were on the verge of defeat, and would have been (after all France had fallen, Poland and the Balkans had fallen, Scandinavia had fallen, all that was left was Britain) if Hitler had not decided to attack Russia instead of finishing the job in the west.
The History Channel doesn't count as "Experts". Additionally this is shifting the goal posts; Germany victory is often defined as also "winning in the East vs the Soviet Union" if they don't fight the Soviet Union, then can you say that they've won?
quote: The misguided "Operation Barbarossa" almost succeeded in defeating Russia--at the peak, German tanks were in sight of the Kremlin in the first Autumn after the invasion of Russia.
Do you even know where the Soviet industrial centers were at that time? Or how much left of even European Russia remained? Or just how much larger the logistical impossibility taking Moscow would've made the German situation right at the moment Siberian reserves reach the front line for the Winter Counter-Offencive that almost broke the Wehrmacht then and there? You're looking at purely lines on a map and not the logistics or operations side of things.
quote: Germany squandered at least three opportunities to win the war outright. This gave time for America to enter the war and build up troop strength in Britain capable of launching a counter-offensive, that finally turned the tide.
You're positing a counter-factual narrative that would require Germany make perfect decisions and win battles that they didn't doesn't at all imply that they "almost won the war"; especially when this presupposes not just one battle, or two, but at least three? This is nonsense.
Applesauce if you will.
quote: The only other nation that actually fought with Germany was Italy. No other nation in Europe made any major contribution to the German war effort. Bulgaria may have been counted as an ally, but it contributed only minor military forces, that were all used against Russia. While the USA was building up its forces in Britain--and supplementing the British fleet and air force--the US armored forces led by Patton took on Rommel in northern Africa, bailing out the British mechanized units that had been on the defensive, then moved on to attack Italy.
You're just randomly typing on the keyboard; there's no context to anything you are saying; they contribute nothing to your argument that Germany "Almost won".
Remember this is a dual edged sword; remember that the Allies themselves had made many mistakes on various levels but won anyways; if you wish to suppose a alternate history where they didn't make their mistakes; how can you say that the Allies couldn't have not made those mistakes either and won in half the time?
quote: All military analysts of comparative tanks in WWII regard the German Panzers as being the best tanks, at least in the early part of the war.
But the war was not only fought in 1940; but all the way to 1945 with Germany making ever more impractical designs and making little improvement to this military-industrial complex to increase output. So what if the Panzer III was arguably the best early war tank (It wasn't)? Overall the best tank designs were not German.
Additionally, your claim was "German tanks were better than anyone else's tanks--why was that?" You didn't specify whether they were early war or late war; German tanks were not the best tanks overall. Attempting to specify early war tanks is shifting the goalposts (and is also wrong).
quote:That is one reason why their "Blitzkrieg" tactic was so effective, and blew right through the French lines (surrounding the Maginot line), went all the way to Paris, and later almost made it to the Kremlin. (By the way, I used to play a game by Milton Bradley called "The Russian Campaign," and competed with players all across the country by mail. I was even nationally ranked for a while among the top 50.)
Again with the random typing of assertions without context. You have zero understanding as to why Blitzkrieg worked, and it wasn't because the Panzer III was a good tank (it was, but not because of whatever stats you think it has for tank duels, it was awful at that), but because the Germans were first in implementing mechanized warfare as a combined arms operation between the different service branches.
quote: That reminds me of another mistake Hitler made that potentially cost Germany the war--his decision to stop using the "Flieger Corp" because of setbacks when it was poorly used in Crete, to which Hitler over-reacted. Actually it was a very effective tactical element, where paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut supply lines and catch enemy forces in a pincers. On the battlefield, the Flieger Corp added a considerable force multiplier effect.
Germany rarely held sufficient control of the skies or the logistics to make use of them in that role after Crete regardless; there aren't any obvious situations where they would've been useful in Russia.
quote: It is really hard to understand how the Germans could have lost the war--they had so many advantages, so many clear opportunities to have won the war. Many blame misjudgements by Hitler.
Germany was doomed from the start; it is actually a wonder that they lasted as long as they did.
quote: ermany did have a project to develop an atomic bomb. They might actually have built an atomic bomb before anyone else, if it were not for the Allied bombing of the German heavy water processing plant, and related research facilities. Germany had scientists capable of building the bomb. Here is what Wickipedia says about the Nazi effort to develop nuclear weapons:
This is well beyond myth; the Manhatten Project was a huge undertaking and Germany had not anywhere near the resources or production capacity to have possibly have gotten the bomb first; but again, you're delving into illogical territory; "If they hadn't bombed the heavy water facilities" is history channel thinking; it's nonsense. Why couldn't Germany have bombed the Allies effort? You're trying to illogically minimize the achievements of the Allies and them making correct strategic decisions to deceptively advance your point.
The bit you quote give no indication that the Germans had any ability to have gotten ahead of the Allies considering the sheer imbalance in resources that they could throw at the project.
quote: Of course we also should not forget the German rocket program. They virtually invented the military use of rockets like the V-2. At the end of the war, over 1,500 German scientists were recruited by the Allies, mainly the USA.
This has no context; its History Channel bs. So what? It was a waste of resources that brought Germany no closer to winning the war. Notice how the Allies instead of bizarre wonder weapon one off projects instead focused their efforts on armaments that let them win the war sooner.
You are not only not really responding to my arguments except in the most broadest of brushes, but you're basically just spouting popular notions of history and History Channel nonsense. What's next, Germany would've won if they weren't messing about with the occult?
[ May 26, 2016, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: False claims, everything totally untrue. Biased reporting. Contrary to basic common sense and 99% of all news reports. These articles are so stupid they are not worthy of further comment. Do not confuse our allies' respect for America based on history, with respect for the present Obama administration.
This is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, shouting, "lalalalalIdon'thearyoulalalalala", and claiming victory.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Note an assertion nested in it: that it is contrary to "99% of all news reports"
which is strictly factually untrue even when you count in the whole area of opinion reporting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In fact, it wasn't even 10% of the reporting one gets when googling "Obama international approval ratings". The closest article to Ron's notion was an article reporting on how Gretchen Carlson is wrong when she claimed what Ron was claiming.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You could probably even do a more rigorous cross section survey of news reports that could more empirically declare that.
Additionally, Ron has helpfully included an absolute condition in his assertion — he said "Can you honestly say that Obama has not made all our allies in the world distrust us"
so technically all you would need is a collection of all the requisite polling in literally any allied country to show that the U.S. is viewed more favorably and trusted more under Obama than it was before. And apparently we're viewed better across the board in almost any country!
Gallup had an a-ok methodology in doing this rating, with, quote, respondents in 134 countries and Hong Kong giving the U.S. top marks, with 45 percent approval, followed by Germany (41 percent), the EU (39 percent), China (29 percent) and Russia (22 percent). The U.S. rating was four percentage points below its peak of 49 percent in 2009, after Barack Obama took office, but well above its low point of 34 percent in the last year of George W. Bush's administration, when U.S. leadership was outranked even by China.
This is not fundamentally contested by much of any reliable polling you can find.
Distrust of the U.S. abroad apparently peaked under George W. Bush.
REMEMBER, though, and this is for those of you in the cheap seats (you, Ron, I mean you) — Ron's absolute conditional means that he's wrong even if you find just one single, solitary allied country who likes us better under Obama, even though it looks like they literally all do.
dang!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Can you honestly say that Obama is a "uniter"? Can you honestly deny that Obama has made the country more grievously divided, especially along racial lines, than it ever was before? Can you deny that Obama has given nothing but support for the "Black Lives Matter" movement, many of whose spokespersons have openly called for killing police and even killing any whites? Can you honestly deny that this potentially brings America to the brink of race war? Can you honestly say that Obamacare is a good thing? Can you honestly say that Obama has not made all our allies in the world distrust us, and all our enemies in the world laugh at us? Can you honestly deny that Obama has weakened our armed forces to a level not seen since the 1940s? Can you honestly say that the Iran deal was not a total disaster, and could only have been negotiated by total incompetents? Can you honestly say that anatomical males should be allowed into ladies' rest rooms, locker rooms, and showers?
So, yeah, I think we can safely conclude that Ron is just broken and delusional.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I could honestly answer "yes" to all of those unconditionally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally blurdeburred by Ron Lambert: Can you honestly deny that Obama has made the country more grievously divided, especially along racial lines, than it ever was before?
guys obama made the united states more grievously divided, especially along racial lines than it ever was before
this includes
- the literal civil war - literally slavery
watch out for that race war everyone, it's totally coming
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
like ron that statement of yours alone is really bad that it should be called out. and yet it does not exist in a vacuum, and is in fact just one of a thousand such soundbites from you floating in a sea of absurd wrongness, so it's easy to miss because it's so like the rest of everything you produce.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I also love the part about causing all of our allies to distrust us. I guess Ron forgot all about the Iraq War and the fact that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize basically for just being Not Bush.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Hey Ron, I took some of your arguments to a History forum and they would be very interested in hearing your arguments; it costs 10$ to register and I wouldn't mind paying for your account; but you must absolutely repost your argument there.
e:Ron, is "RonLambert@wowway.com" still a valid/working Email address? Would you like your username to be "RonLambert" or "Ron Lambert"?
[ May 26, 2016, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So, yeah, I think we can safely conclude that Ron is just broken and delusional.
This is why I tell people to ignore you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
samp & boots are making great points. And being v. nice about it too.
I've been trying to be a voice for the middle of this discussion...but really I'm not sure how you can still think what you seem to think in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.
One of the hardest & best things I ever did was listen to these guys about some stuff I really REALLY believed. But it was wrong. And so was I. And so are you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heya Elison...two questions:
What's wrong w/ the History Channel? I -love- the history channel.
2: What was the best early WWII tank? I was under a sumilar impression as Ron about the Tiger's effacacy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for the History Channel, it's simply bad history quite a lot. That and it's been misnamed for some years now. Do a google search on 'history channel shows' and see how many of them are significant historical documentaries. Of the first ten shows I saw, only two of them were even about history and one was Vikings!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I guess I kno what you mean. Ancient Aliens is fun & has lot of cool evidence that our current accepted views are wrong (Archeology's views on monolithic 1k ton stones are laughable!) , however their own conclusions are...memeable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So, yeah, I think we can safely conclude that Ron is just broken and delusional.
This is why I tell people to ignore you.
dude, just look at what tom is saying that in regards to.
just look at it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's been a long time since I watched the history channel, really. It was still neck deep in the phase of 'mostly the only bit wars, ever, were WWII and the American civil war and maybe Korea, sometimes'. I've tuned in a few times over the years, always to be disappointed, except when I watch Vikings. But what I remember is that the history shown on THC had an edge only on very entry level history, like high school history. Archaeology on the subject of ancient construction, for example, is hardly static and I would be surprised if THC scooped any actual historians.
Don't get me wrong, I loved it back then. My drifting away was as much due to the style of 'let's have crappy actors with crappy costumes on crappy sets reenact a given historical event' angle production.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So, yeah, I think we can safely conclude that Ron is just broken and delusional.
This is why I tell people to ignore you.
dude, just look at what tom is saying that in regards to.
just look at it.
It doesn't matter!
Card & Clive & Ron & EVERYONE deserve common decency! And name calling is straight out. It's counter productive & immature.
No cavats.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I've tuned in a few times over the years, always to be disappointed, except when I watch Vikings.
I should watch that show. I have a standing policy of not watching a show til it makes it to the third season.
Firefly broke my heart too hard to trust again so easily.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:
Card & Clive & Ron & EVERYONE deserve common decency! And name calling is straight out. It's counter productive & immature.
No cavats.
I provide everyone common decency. if i met him in the street, i would not punch him. i would, in fact, be decent enough to not provide them a paper-thin veneer of politeness to them about their reprehensible views. people are not unfailingly owed politeness.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The History Channel used to be good but is now a cavalcade of mediocrity at best and misinformation and lies at worst. Literally I was listening the other day and it was about how aliens must've been influencing the Nazi's; it's nonsense.
Similarly the narrative of earlier shows always put a huge emphasis on how THIS WAS THE BATTLE THAT DECIDED IT ALL when in truth the result of the battle was basically predetermined due to the innumerable choices that led up to said battle or even if there was improbably circumstance and luck resulted in the opposite result (Midway) it would've been irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Like, a lot of people on the internet talk about how Pearl Harbour the Japanese made a HUGE MISTAKE not sending out the third wave, or how Midway was the "turning point" but the truth is if you check out that link I gave earlier (the second one) it really doesn't matter; the US was going to have like 30 more carriers by 1946; the Japanese didn't stand a chance but you couldn't tell at all by the tone of OMG OMG OMG the HC constantly has.
As for best early war WWII tanks, in 1939 the T-34 was produced already in small numbers and was probably single handedly the best tank in terms of protection; the KV-1 was virtually invulnerable as were some of the French mediums.
The key thing to understand is that in 1939 in the invasion of Poland the vast majority of the German tank fleet was something like 80% light tanks like the Panzer II.
We've learned from our WWII experience and further experimentation further confirmed that the best tank carefully balances mobility, armament, and protection so it isn't so heavy as it'll be likely to break down or unable to cross bridges; armed enough to engage it's likely opponents and fast enough that it can do it's role as a breakthrough tank. This is the essence of a Main Battle Tank.
The BT-7/T-34, and the Panzer III were probably the 'best' but it isn't really the stats that matter; its whether you can have the tanks where you need them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To an extent, but one can theorize about best equipment separate of best tactics separate of what actually happened.
The US Sherman is a very underwhelming individually, however en mass they kicked ass.
One of the things I like a lot (on the military channel, part of the discovery network ) is the ten best list show...they grade on 4 or 5 criteria...and some of theit conclusions are debatable, but enjoyable.
I watch science channel, left to my own devices (read as rarely)...but my life is a bit on its ear atm.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Card & Clive & Ron & EVERYONE deserve common decency! And name calling is straight out. It's counter productive & immature.
No cavats.
I provide everyone common decency. if i met him in the street, i would not punch him. i would, in fact, be decent enough to not provide them a paper-thin veneer of politeness to them about their reprehensible views. people are not unfailingly owed politeness.
We've talked this over more than once...and while you convinced me that, at times, brow beating bigots into silence is worthy, we disagreed on which unfailing traits represent you the speaker, vs what is owed.
It was a pretty good discussion if memory serves.
Reguardless...what Tom said was not okay...if simply for no other reason than it is against the TOS.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, I appreciate your civility. The rest of these guys will just have to answer to God as their final Judge. None of them will ever be able to say I did not make every effort to get through to them about what is truth, with logically sound arguments and documented facts. It seems though that logic and facts alone are not enough to persuade some people, if they do not want to be persuaded. Hopefully God will find some other way to get through to them. As Jesus said to the Church of Laodicea, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten." (Revelation 3:19a)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, this isn't the hill you want to die on, SW. Pick better fights. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I still think you are wrong Ron...nor have you been a gleaming example of charitable spirit or anything.
Tom: Rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
In this post, I detailed clearly that Ron is absolutely a bigot because he holds clearly bigoted views and is afraid of Obama as a president because he listened to a pastor 20 years ago who said that a black president would usher in the apocalypse. It was removed because I'm apparently supposed to say "Holding these views makes you bigoted" rather than being able to say "this person is a bigot for the following reasons"
[ May 29, 2016, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Parkour ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Whistled.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, it is very generous of you to want to make sure my fair and accurate statements are seen by a moderator who might otherwise miss it. I expect he will be along shortly to explain why it's okay for me to call someone a bigot when they act bigoted.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: None of them will ever be able to say I did not make every effort to get through to them about what is truth, with logically sound arguments and documented facts. It seems though that logic and facts alone are not enough to persuade some people, if they do not want to be persuaded.
Literally EVERYONE is saying that.
As much as I am standing up for you, I must point out your steadfast refusal to to acknowledge even basic factual truth, while projecting your own negative behaviors on to them is irksome.
And to be perfectly honest, these negative reactions you are encountering here are earned thru -years- of such hypocrisy & philosophical myopia.
I am starting to wonder, why you post here? Surely there are a plethora of boards which would welcome your particular brand of eccentricities with open arm...but you keep coming back...to folk that challenge you & your beliefs, why?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, it is very generous of you to want to make sure my fair and accurate statements are seen by a moderator who might otherwise miss it. I expect he will be along shortly to explain why it's okay for me to call someone a bigot when they act bigoted.
The accuracy of your statements isn't the issue, and you are smart enough to kno that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Whistled.
Ron: Obama is a liar who is an agent of evil who will help usher in the apocalypse, starting with race wars in this country.
Parkour: Ron is clearly a bigot. See: all of his crazy classic bigoted beliefs, such as 'Obama will start race wars', one of the classic cliches of the most die-hard racists when they talk politics.
Stone_Wolf: Whoa, whoa, you can't talk like that about Ron!
Gimme a ****in' break, man. What is necessary, to you, before it is acceptable to label someone a bigot? Does that person need to actually say outright, "I am a bigot!" (Said nobody, ever, including the most obvious bigots of history.) If someone says, "I hate ni%#*rs!" can you call them a bigot or will you wring your hands and I daresay clutch your pearls about using the dreaded word bigot? I mean that's obviously a palpably bigoted thing to say, but maybe that's where the line is drawn. If someone says, "I don't have a problem with coloreds except that they're lazy and tend more to crime and suck down government assistance," can you say it then? Or must the bush continue to be beaten around?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: To an extent, but one can theorize about best equipment separate of best tactics separate of what actually happened.
The US Sherman is a very underwhelming individually, however en mass they kicked ass.
One of the things I like a lot (on the military channel, part of the discovery network ) is the ten best list show...they grade on 4 or 5 criteria...and some of theit conclusions are debatable, but enjoyable.
I watch science channel, left to my own devices (read as rarely)...but my life is a bit on its ear atm.
This isn't true either, the Sherman had almost as much protection as the Tiger in the front because it utilized sloped armor; was considerably more reliable, had almost as good hill climbing performance as the Panther, was arguably the safest tank to survive the war in, and it's armament could pierce both the Tiger and the Panther from the front using HEAT rounds at 1km, and normal AP at 300.
The Soviets in particular LOVED the Sherman and used them in large number even in Manchuria; it had some of the best ergonomics of all WWII tanks except for maybe the F2 Panzer IV or the Tiger.
The Sherman with the 76 gun and expanded turret + "wet" ammo storage was pretty much operationally one of the best tanks of the war.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, it is very generous of you to want to make sure my fair and accurate statements are seen by a moderator who might otherwise miss it. I expect he will be along shortly to explain why it's okay for me to call someone a bigot when they act bigoted.
The accuracy of your statements isn't the issue, and you are smart enough to kno that.
Oh, right. A very high-minded ideal you're pursuing here that couldn't have even the slightest relation to preexisting personal issues, nope. No hint of that. Because God knows the time to involve a moderator is when the word bigot is used to describe someone, and not the many, many, many instances prior to that where explicitly bigoted views were expressed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, it is very generous of you to want to make sure my fair and accurate statements are seen by a moderator who might otherwise miss it. I expect he will be along shortly to explain why it's okay for me to call someone a bigot when they act bigoted.
The accuracy of your statements isn't the issue, and you are smart enough to kno that.
wait, so
if the accuracy of his statements aren't at issue, then it's like, "of course he is those things, you just can't call him those things"
this is some bizarre civility policing, overall
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which of course is entirely divorced from any preexisting personal issues that have played out in the past.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Do we really have to explain this again? I will get back to this when I'm done driving I'd appreciate it if the obvious TOS violations were removed before then.
If you need a hint try describing someone's opinion as bigotry instead of calling the person a bigot.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Elison...man...that was not the impression I got from the discovery network shows...which you also called into question...
Uh oh...research needed.
I bet you're right...tho
Rakeesh...you are right...it is a past issue that can't be seen thru...by you...about me.
I'm not stirring the pot, or beating a dead horse or whatever.
Resorting to name calling reflects poorly on the name caller...REGUARDLESS of if the title is warented or not.
This place has grown a culture of harshness that almost makes the -correctness- of the views espoused impossible to hear.
Ron comes back here for...a reason.
Maybe one day he will want to hear the wisdom we all here have to share with him, and maybe that day will never come.
But in the end, others will read our words.
Others who can hear you.
And they will turn away from your words because the words you pick are judgmental and unkind.
Does your labeling him a bigot make it so? If you held your tongue would his views be any less bigoted?
Your harsh words about Ron don't negativly reflect on him. HIS do. YOUR harsh words reflect negativly on YOU.
It takes almost NO effort to say EXACTLY the same thing but discuss Ron's (Card's too) VIEWS, instead of talking about HIM.
But instead of just using a micron of tact, people here seem to actually enjoy verbally roughing up on those who have it wrong.
They came here to talk .
And if you try and force a fist full of right down someone's throat via their teeth, THEY WON'T HEAR YOU.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh and it is HUGELY disrespectful to BlackBlade. Are y'all trying to get him fired? Or just enjoy effing w him?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
(Post removed by JB)
[ May 29, 2016, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Have you known a lot of old super religious people who changed their disgusting views because someone asked them to nicely?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Oh. And if by talk you mean write words, then yes. He is here to talk. If you mean he is here to discuss and debate in good faith, then that is obviously bullshit.
I mean, really. Of all the people to white knight for...Ron Lambert?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It really REALLY isn't about him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok. Ron, just about every damn thing you have to say about Obama is bigoted, superstitious tripe that makes him look better just by the virtue of your being the one to criticize him. One would be perfectly justified, by the large and repetitive sampling of statements by you, in concluding that you are a superstitious bigot. However, I won't say that, and instead just repeat that nearly everything you say on the subject is superstitious bigotry.
What a difference it makes. The world in general and the forum in particular is made just a little bit better by this tissue-thin prevarication that fools no one but sustains a lovely little fiction. That fiction being that something worth preserving is maintained by enforcing a rule 'don't call anyone a bigot', while also doing nothing (and indeed by the ToS nothing can be done) not only about someone who repeatedly makes racist and homophobic and transphobic statements (but should not be said to be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic, heavens no), but who also routinely refuses to respond to direct challenges to his positions not only on rhetorical grounds but on questions of the merest fact. And who then insults those who do.
The ToS has nothing to say about that, and neither do you really, aside from ineffectual lecturing about how maybe someday blah blah blah. But for heaven's sake don't let's let anyone say that a man who has made racist, homophobic, transphobic remarks for years for god's sake over a decade now, saying that man is racist and transphobic and homophobic that's just going too far! We have rules!
It's not about getting JB in trouble. He doesn't make the rules. Don't try to wrap that cloak of martyrdom around your shoulders, Stone_Wolf. Oh, and the assertion that 'name-calling' always diminishes the speaker is ridiculous. If I call Bull Connor or David Duke bigots, I haven't freaking diminished myself.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
(Post removed by JB)
[ May 29, 2016, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I accept that you disagree strongly, however, waving away my points and dismissing my opinion aren't the same as actually refuting them.
The really real point of labeling Ron (or anyone) a bigot is to dehumanize them so they may be neatly and cleanly catagorized and dismissed.
The really real point of separating discussions of people's views vs them is to give them the beginning the separation from their views for little perspective.
How can someone admit their views are wrong when their self identity are based on those views?
Eventually right fighters can get addicted to the fight...and the high of putting bigots in their place. Til their actions are only slightly better than that of those they are pressuring.
Honestly Rakeesh, why do you bother to get so uppity about Ron still? Why so outraged, still. For a decade you point out...he has been consistent. So why?
It isn't about a veneer of politeness...it's about honest politeness.
Ron shouldn't be hated, he should be pitied. And treated kindly, as if he were blind or deaf or mentally disabled.
BC he is NEVER going to change.
So refute his bigoty. Let him kno his views are unhealthy, but be a beacon of high ground clairity, don't muddy the waters about who the asshole is.
And our discussions being searchable and durable is not nothing to be waved off.
Words change worlds.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And no shit BB doesn't make the rules...his boss does. He is paid to enforce them.
So if you all keep breaking them...you are putting him in a place where he either has to yell at you...again...again...again...or get in trouble for not doing his job.
Like misbehaving for the sitter bc you are mad at Dad.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your message: It's okay to call them names...they are bigots.
Bigots message: it's okay to call them names...they are niggers.
Your message: it's okay disregard anything he says...he's a bigot.
Bigot's message: it's okay to disregard anything he says...he's a nigger.
Your message: He doesn't deserve respect...he's a nigger.
Bigots message: he doesn't deserve respect...he's a bigot.
Whups...switched those last two.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Nevermind that Ron was likely raised deeply inbedded into a culture of hate, which is also wrapped up into his religion. Nevermind that he is a complex, multi faceted human being who has felt pain & loss & given love & shared joy...he can be summed up, encapsulated & disregarded as merely a bigot. Clearly the ONLY way HE could improve humanity is by dying! Heck, maybe we should help w that! You guys bring the torches...I've got my pitch fork!
To his children he is THE ONLY FATHER.
To his mother his is HER BABY.
To you he is...
You kno, I'm still unclear what you get out of this.
I mean if he -really- didn't matter, no one would bother replying & he wouldn't have come back for a decade.
If you believe him a troll...why not just ignore him?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, I don't have time to get to the rest of this now, but let me just highlights three things. One, your opinions haven't just been dismissed, specific objections have been raised against them. To claim that others are simply shrugging them aside as you did is misleading at best. Two, I put forward that it is not actually polite nor more embracing of anyone's humanity to treat them more nicely because they are 'blind, deaf, or mentally disabled'. (Goodness, the things to be said about this part alone, but time is short.) Third, no one has suggested responding to anything Ron has said with anything other than words, so your remarks about 'better off dead' and 'maybe we should help that happen' are, at best, completely misleading as well.
But since that was the second time you grossly misstated a stance I and others took, Stone_Wolf, it would be understandable if I called it a lie. Just to be very clear, wouldn't want to transgress, I am saying that those two remarks you made were false statements. I'm certainly not suggesting anything so impolite as to say you uttered words that were untrue.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I didn't use quotes...I'm not literally saying you said that...obviously...I had thought.
It is the exaggeration to prove a point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
stone wolf, you are in ridiculously over your depth here
sorry man
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I didn't use quotes...I'm not literally saying you said that...obviously...I had thought.
It is the exaggeration to prove a point.
Me: "Steak medium rare is the best, and people who like it well done are really just pretty silly."
You: "Rakeesh is speaking as though medium rare is the only intelligent way to eat steak, and people who like it well done should be compelled to eat only vegetarian."
Me: "WTF?"
You: I was exaggerating to prove a point!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Ron shouldn't be hated, he should be pitied. And treated kindly, as if he were blind or deaf or mentally disabled.
As if he were, say, broken and delusional?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Or deaf or blind, apparently.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Name one [emphasis added] noted American philosopher, scientist, or composer up to that period. About the best you can do is Washington Irving, Poe, Thoreau. You have to go back to the founding fathers to find a community of people who wrote and spoke with real intelligence, and accomplished something truly noteworthy. Yes, we had Einstein; but he was born and raised in Germany.
Um, Carnegie, JP Morgan, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Rockefeller, The Wright Bros, Charles Lindbergh, Isaac Asimov, Harry Houdini, Howard Hughes, Helen Keller?
Late to the game here, but there's also
1. The entire school of pragmatism in philosophy: Charles Sanders Pierce, John Dewey, and William James (mid-1800s to early 1900s).
2. Aaron Copeland -- Appalachian Spring premiered in 1944, but his major works were in the 1930s and 1940s
3. Frank Lloyd Wright -- Fallingwater was 1935
4. The whole Art Nouveau and then Arts & Crafts Movement, with a Gustav Stickley (born in Oceola, Wisconsin, thankyouverymuch) sideboard from the early 1900s going for $360,000 nearly 30 years ago
5. Jonas Salk had not developed the polio vaccine yet, but he was working as a medical researcher by 1939 and laying the groundwork for it
6. Robert Freaking Goddard, the father of modern rocketry, built the world's first liquid-fueled rocket in the 1920s
That's just what I remember off the top of my head, though I did go back to check dates.
The US was not a cultural or scientific wasteland at that time, not by any means. We were not at the top of the heap, but we were in the game and a solid voice in the world conversation.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: stone wolf, you are in ridiculously over your depth here
sorry man
Right behind the eight ball...just where I like it baby
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Silly Rakeesh...my exaggeration was still more on target than yours on the previous page dudemanbro.
quote:Stone_Wolf: Whoa, whoa, you can't talk like that about Ron!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Ron shouldn't be hated, he should be pitied. And treated kindly, as if he were blind or deaf or mentally disabled.
As if he were, say, broken and delusional?
Yes...exactly.
Maybe you wonder the the streets accosting homeless vets w ptsd about how 'broken & delusional' they are...but I doubt it.
I kno I'm not going to change your view or Rakeesh's, but really think about it.
If you are correct about Ron, really & truly...don't you think you should treat him with kindness befitting someone who ain't all there instead of needle him & label him & mess with him?
How do you usually treat people you honestly think are broken & delusional?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The interesting part is where you seem to think this equates to more courtesy and politeness towards Ron, rather than something that is enormously patronizing. For one thing, as ridiculous and bigoted as so many of his remarks are (heavens, not him personally, of course), he's not homeless. He's not stricken with a mental illness to the point where he cannot keep a home or a job or his own wellbeing.
And since he's not, your asserting some sort of community responsibility to protect him from...what, himself?...under the guise of 'civility' is off-base. It isn't civilized to treat someone as less than a functioning adult human being, especially just because their politics are silly! It is, in fact, hugely condescending and fundamentally dishonest to the person you're nominally doing this 'for'.
Let's see, what else. Ah, when you said that people weren't addressing your opinions and we're just dismissing them, well, that was wrong. I'm not insisting you have to agree, but people did not just say 'you're wrong'. That was an untrue statement you made, and even after having it brought to your attention you don't seem inclined to address it.
My bit about steaks was very accurate to your 'exaggerations to prove a point': at no point did I say or suggest 'Ron's words are so bad violence is the answer', nor did anyone else. Which was what you were suggesting. However, in my bit about the steaks, there *is* an example of someone inflating a criticism to an absurd degree-which is what you did. Dudebro.
Finally, I wonder if you can after considering it for a little while see what problems might exist with comparing deaf and blind people to the mentally handicapped, and for that matter going on to likening all of them to homeless vets who are often stand-ins in conversations in our society for 'insane'. There's a lot I could say about this, and many others. However, I think this is probably another case of your simply not having considered the question before, so I'm asking you to think about it now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Ron shouldn't be hated, he should be pitied. And treated kindly, as if he were blind or deaf or mentally disabled.
As if he were, say, broken and delusional?
Yes...exactly.
WHISTLED
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Here I am about to answer Rakeesh when I see samp's whistle.
Sam Sam sam....are you even trying to add to this discussion any more?
I really expected more outa you man.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So...you don't think Ron is delusional & broken?...sounds like you and Tom should argue that one out* brotatochip.
As to "civility" I have asserted several arguments for my views...none of them was "under the mantle of civility" or whatever.
Providing David Duke as an example completely ignored two...count them two of my arguments.
As to others ignoring my arguments how many times has it been asserted "for Ron? Really?" after I have gone to great lengths to specificlly & throughly explain it ain't bout dat.
As to who was closer...it was me hands down. The parallel I was drawing how name calling of ANY KIND leads to dehumanization & dehumanization leads to dismissal which is the same damn mind set that leads to lynchings.
You were talking about meat? Whatever.
As to the comparison of different disabilities goes, I'm sure frank talk ruffled some PC feathers, but let that go a second & get my point here.
And here it is...we are all one race, one people, one soul, one cymbiotic organism, all stuck on the same rock...and if you are strong in a particular way, find someone who is weak & help them & be gentle and kind to them. Have mercy and gentleness for something broken, help it to mend.
I've asked you more than once what you get out of this Rakeesh...why are you mean to people online who are backward & delusional? Are you trying to help them you think? Honestly...what do you get out of calling Ron a bigot?
[ May 27, 2016, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Here I am about to answer Rakeesh when I see samp's whistle.
Sam Sam sam....are you even trying to add to this discussion any more?
I really expected more outa you man.
the point of it is that you just described ron something that you chastised tom for describing ron as.
i am using 'wry' 'humor' to make a point that your position is equally insulting to ron but you are pretending it is magically better in a way that actually just makes it more patronizing.
unfortunately it seems to have gone over your head, thus the explanation now
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
- MARK 1 -
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps your joke missed its intended mark?
If both of our positions are equally patronizing then which tactic is more successful? Ron thanked me...so...I'll take that as his vote.
Bottom line...you guy's are too hard on people and are getting your jollys off at Ron's expence...he maybe 180 bassakwards but at least he's...sincere is the wrong word...but...um...personally invested? idk...
Brb
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: - MARK 1 -
You just love explaining your jokes eh?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
quote:As to "civility" I have asserted several arguments for my views...none of them was "under the mantle of civility" or whatever.
Considering that your stance, in support of JB's policy, is one that not calling someone a name even if you call most or all of their behavior and speech that same name is more civilized, that you're using the argument that calling someone a name degrades the person doing it regardless of its accuracy, you seem to be arguing for civility for its own sake here. It's not a 'whatever'. If that's not your argument, explain yourself better.
quote:Providing David Duke as an example completely ignored two...count them two of my arguments.
Since you misunderstood my reference, no, I didn't ignore any of your arguments. If I did, tell me which one. The point of David Duke was not 'hey hate that guy so hate Ron too!' It was to take someone who is indisputably a bigot and ask, "Am I diminished by calling him a bigot, too?"
quote:As to who was closer...it was me hands down. The parallel I was drawing how name calling of ANY KIND leads to dehumanization & dehumanization leads to dismissal which is the same damn mind set that leads to lynchings.
You were talking about meat? Whatever.
First, if you even approached practicing or even appearing to try to practice such a high-minded philosophy-some might say so high in the ivory tower of idealism to be divorced from reality-I might be less dismissive. But I'm still addressing your arguments. It is not, repeat not, the same thing or even 'the same mindset' to apply a bad label to someone based on their behavior as it is to ****ing lynch someone. Which is especially perverse coming from you, given your past beliefs about what the how responsible other people should be for how their speech and dress make you feel.
Think about this standard of yours. If someone, say, tortures a man to death by dragging him from their car along a road because he was a homosexual, and I call that person a homophobe, I am actually participating in the 'same worldview' as the man who lynched the homosexual? That is an extreme example, but if I take your professed worldview to such a scenario that is exactly the course of action recommended by you.
Argue all you like that 'calling people names' is bad. There's a case to be made for that, although you're doing a really bad job of it. But dude, lynching? That's not a freaking exagerration, that's you distorting an argument to the point where it's unrecognizable.
quote:As to the comparison of different disabilities goes, I'm sure frank talk ruffled some PC feathers, but let that go a second & get my point here.
And here it is...we are all one race, one people, one soul, one cymbiotic organism, all stuck on the same rock...and if you are strong in a particular way, find someone who is weak & help them & be gentle and kind to them. Have mercy and gentleness for something broken, help it to mend.
Goodness, yes. Lumping in the deaf and the blind with mentally handicapped people and homeless vets suffering from mental illness, goodness. Your 'frank talk' sure did ruffle my PC feathers, which was the source of my objection to those statements by you, Stone_Wolf.
Wait. No, no, I'm confused. It wasn't that at all. Maybe it was the part where you adopted an enormously patronizing-to these people, not to me, though you did that too-position in which you more or less treat them like children in a meaningless way that has as much to do with making yourself feel good as it does about helping anyone, and then lecturing others about being more charitable.
Know what none of the people on your list need, including Ron? A self-righteous, mentally lazy niceguy who thinks things are better if the whole people, the ones who aren't 'broken', would just be nice to them.
Let me put it even more simply: the people on your list, and especially the blind and the deaf, are empowered by your method of 'helping' them. Furthermore, your lumping in of the deaf and the blind and the mentally handicapped with people so mentally ill they are homeless and potentially dangerous to themselves and others is lazy and offensive. It's not 'frank talk', Stone_Wolf. It's just another example of your not really having thought about an issue before, shooting from the hip, and then believing that your own good intentions mean you can't be wrong.
quote:you mean to people online who are backward & delusional? Are you trying to help them you think? Honestly...what do you get out of calling Ron a bigot?
The funny thing about this is that I, and others, actually have a lot more respect for the mind and personhood of Ron Lambert than you do. To me, even though it would be difficult for me to disagree with him more than I do already, he is an intelligent adult with free will, who gets both credit and blame for his speech and actions. Given that I think these things, it stands to reason I also don't think he's some emotionally anemic helpless victim, who cannot stand to hear criticism of his views. The man has published books, Stone_Wolf. Now yes, later on he'll mourn my ignorance and profess a desire that God help me see the light, or more properly that I start listening to God, etc. And he'll continue to ignore inconvenient criticisms to his factually ridiculous arguments and probably wrong predictions.
You? You think he's helped by treating him as though he were mentally handicapped.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This almost always happens when we get into it, you and I...this copy and paste...fute & refute...this grind into minutiae...and long winded rants that cross talk and utterly dodge/miss the point. By both of us. And I'm kinda tired it...especially the part where you tell me how I feel, what I'm going to do next or what my motivation is.
It honestly takes the wind out of my sails.
All humans are weak and strong and right and wrong and need each other to survive.
All your sneering & near constant bickering & inuendo of dishonesty have worn me down.
Just remember kids...you have homework to do before Daddy gets home (TOS violations).
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, some posters are just never going to be able to accept when they are wrong and quit, and it's quite damaging to them and their psyche. I really pity people like this and it is why I am sad to see you going down this path. I feel that it is for the best that you stop trying this, because it is the only kind thing. If you keep doing this, you will just get hurt!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I love you too Parkour
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Congress better get busy if they're going to have that National Sunday Law passed in time for Obama to sign it.
(Post edited by JB)
[ May 29, 2016, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I love you too Parkour
Please don't play around with things like this, Stone Wolf! You have to stop posting now, it's for your own good.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Awww...you too cute...like a puppy dog playing with rainbows & kittens.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, we see this far too many times. Stubborness (presumably from childhood trauma) is sometimes cute, and sometimes you can "roll with the punches" but in other cases it's just really actually very sad and it makes you think that another person is fundamentally broken inside! I am asking you entirely out of kindness to ask yourself if you are as broken as people like that might be, and I can suggest some password scramblers so that you never have to put yourself through this out of habit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you don't want innuendo of dishonesty, try skipping next time the part where 'this is the same mindset as lynching' bullshit. Are you actually going to sit there and whine about being told what your intentions were when you responded with 'PC feathers ruffled' and 'get the pitchforks' and blah blah blah?
Anyway, since you're too tired now to address specific rebuttals, though not too tired to come up with an excuse not to, I'll sum it up: it is offensive to lump together deaf, blind, handicapped, homeless, and mentally ill people as 'broken' together; the mere application of the label 'bigot' to someone is not necessarily the same mindset as being bigoted towards other people, much less lynching; suggesting that Ron ought to be treated as broken or delusional is not being kind, or civil, or polite.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Swing for the fences lad...are you even trying P?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Swing for the fences lad...are you even trying P?
Stone wolf, I think I have come to know and care for you as a human being and I want you to know, that I don't see ability. I don't see competence. I see us all the same. I don't judge you because of what you are, because I know you didn't choose it. I sometimes feel like I understand what it must be like to be you, but then I remember that it's not my place to be anything but your guardian. I can only recommend what has worked for other people who have severe deficiencies in logic and reason and cannot hold their own in a forum conversation without getting stuck in an endless chain of pointless responses that accomplish nothing that they want. I feel like the best way to be kind to you is to say that many people like you have found other things to do with their life besides posting. You too can be free of this affliction. I don't know what caused you to put yourself through this but we know better for you and it's time for you to move on. We will all be really happy for you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I lump all humans together and care less what that paints me.
Every single human has a disability...some are substantial and some subtle.
I really wonder what yours is that generates this apparent need to put bigots in their place.
Reguardless...I am not just well meaning...I have and do help.
All of us deserve pitty, and help and not being judged as human beings because let me tell you something my right fighting friend, the most morally steadfast human to ever lived hurt the people they loved internationally in their worst moments and the worst of us had moments of kindness & love.
So...keep judging and condemning other human beings...we are all one ****ed up childhood & a really bad day away from being murderer. You ain't behta den me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your point is ever so precious Parky, however, it falls on deaf ears. Oh woe is you.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your point is ever so precious Parky, however, it falls on deaf ears. Oh woe is you.
Stone wolf, is there someone near you in your life that you can trust? Please give me some contact information so that we can talk to them directly. We want them to be able to to help you when you are compelled to post. Remember, there's no such thing as an awful poster, there's just people who go through awful phases in their life and shouldn't post!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Like a new born babe...I could just eat you up!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I can keep this up all night Paaaaaarky...plus I'm putting WAY less effort into this game than you...and having at least (if not more fun) than you.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, I want you to remember that I care about you and I will try to stop other posters from saying things to you like "You just say stupid things and then you don't stop saying them" because that is impolite and rude. No matter how you act you should be able to keep posting as long as you want to and nobody can be rude to you. If we are mean to mentally deficient people who post bad things, that does not do nice things to the community and it is not a standard of civility we should be aiming for. Tell me the next time someone calls you a "really bad poster who cannot give up an argument and will continue responding no matter what" and I will tell them to stop that because calling someone a really bad poster is mean! Also let me know if you get stuck in a posting hole and think you are being clever but are actually being baited into responding over and over again by design. I worked at a school for special needs children so I can use some crossover experience.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fairy dust ain't got nothing on you my lil guy! Look at you! You make my heart soar on wings of joy.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I'm serious, Stone wolf, let me know if you catch someone who has figured out your stubborn fixation on posting because they think it would be entertaining and make you look stupid to bait you into never not responding to their posts even if they are clearly telegraphing what they are doing to you. This is a mean trick to play on people who do not know any better. I am really trying to help you here. You need to make sure to tell me before you get strung along and make enough of what we think you think are clever retorts to fill up an entire page of forum dialogue, because you definitely don't want that to be on record! We have to look out for the needy posters.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just take a hard look at your post count & then again at mine...you lack the steadfastness to make this joke stick and we both kno it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For the record, I previously identified this hill as not being a desirable one on which to die.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, you need to let me know immediately if someone is saying something "I think a good test of if someone is really easy to bait because they are a bad poster with a tendency to never leave enough alone, is to see if I can get them to keep responding to me for a full page and I would have a lot of fun doing that" because that would make them a mean person and we need to protect you from meanness. Make sure to let me know before you have responded to them 20 times!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Shorter already.
You won't last to the next page dear boy.
Disappointing really.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For the record, I previously identified this hill as not being a desirable one on which to die.
For the record...I still ain't dead.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, let me know if you encounter a poster who has a forum name "I am trying to make the point that stone wolf is a really bad poster who really just is stubbornly and stupidly fixated on always getting a not-clever retort in, and he gets really stubborn about it, and I am actually just going to keep baiting him to respond to me in order for his own behavior to make my point about him being a bad poster" because that user could be trouble for you, and also that name is too long!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think you should change your name to "Twinkle Heart Light"...you are just SO adorable!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, let me know if you encounter a poster who has a forum name "I am trying to make the point that stone wolf is a really bad poster who really just is stubbornly and stupidly fixated on always getting a not-clever retort in, and he gets really stubborn about it; and I am actually just going to keep baiting him to respond to me in order for his own behavior to make my point about him being a bad poster" because that user has a semicolon in his name!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Copy and paste...we are near the end folks.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, let me know if you encounter a poster who has a forum name "I am trying to make the point that stone wolf is a really bad poster who really just is stubbornly and stupidly fixated on always getting a not-clever retort in, and he gets really stubborn about it‽ and I am actually just going to keep baiting him to respond to me in order for his own behavior to make my point about him being a bad poster" because that user has an interrobang in their name and interrobang sounds like a bad word!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And two paste jobs...three strikes and yer out!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, Stone_Wolf! Hey, man, somebody said some stuff once about 'why do you keep interacting with these people like this'. I'll direct them to this set of exchanges, and maybe you can help them understand!
Translation: Goddamn it didn't take long for the veneer of worldly restraint to wear off for you, Stone_Wolf.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, let me know if you encounter a poster who has a forum name "I am trying to make the point that stone wolf is a really bad poster who really just is stubbornly and stupidly fixated on always getting a not-clever retort in, and he gets really stubborn about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and I am actually just going to keep baiting him to respond to me in order for his own behavior to make my point about him being a bad poster" because that user has way too many exclamation points in their name!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Interrobang...that's a fun word.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yer out!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Stone wolf, let me know if you encounter a poster who has a forum name "I am trying to make the point that stone wolf is a really bad poster who really just is stubbornly and stupidly fixated on always getting a not-clever retort in, and he gets really stubborn about it, and I am actually just going to keep baiting him to respond to me in order for his own behavior to make my point about him being a bad poster, but surely he won't be gullible enough to keep doing it if I'm making it obvious what i'm doing" because that user has no interrobang in their name and interrobang sounds like a bad word!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hey, Stone_Wolf! Hey, man, somebody said some stuff once about 'why do you keep interacting with these people like this'. I'll direct them to this set of exchanges, and maybe you can help them understand!
Translation: Goddamn it didn't take long for the veneer of worldly restraint to wear off for you, Stone_Wolf.
Did my calling Parkour adorable offend you?
You are BOTH so cute!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, it's good to know that all those skills honed to razor-sharpness in the Last Post Thread aren't useless in the real world.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Tru dat. My 5!(1LLz is mad sharp, boyyyee.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I rest my case about Stone wolf.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
233 more you get a landmark buddy! You can do it!
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I have to admit that what I wasn't expecting was for Ron to come off looking second worst in this thread.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am living in the land of confusion, but that's okay. Things are a little oddly colored here, though. It's like a dimly lit acid trip, or at least what that seems like it would be from the descriptions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Could you elaborate?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heya Tom...why ignoring my relevant questions and just drive by snarking?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Ron shouldn't be hated, he should be pitied. And treated kindly, as if he were blind or deaf or mentally disabled.
As if he were, say, broken and delusional?
Yes...exactly.
Maybe you wonder the the streets accosting homeless vets w ptsd about how 'broken & delusional' they are...but I doubt it.
I kno I'm not going to change your view or Rakeesh's, but really think about it.
If you are correct about Ron, really & truly...don't you think you should treat him with kindness befitting someone who ain't all there instead of needle him & label him & mess with him?
How do you usually treat people you honestly think are broken & delusional?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For the record, I previously identified this hill as not being a desirable one on which to die.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:you mean to people online who are backward & delusional? Are you trying to help them you think? Honestly...what do you get out of calling Ron a bigot?
The funny thing about this is that I, and others, actually have a lot more respect for the mind and personhood of Ron Lambert than you do. To me, even though it would be difficult for me to disagree with him more than I do already, he is an intelligent adult with free will, who gets both credit and blame for his speech and actions. Given that I think these things, it stands to reason I also don't think he's some emotionally anemic helpless victim, who cannot stand to hear criticism of his views. The man has published books, Stone_Wolf. Now yes, later on he'll mourn my ignorance and profess a desire that God help me see the light, or more properly that I start listening to God, etc. And he'll continue to ignore inconvenient criticisms to his factually ridiculous arguments and probably wrong predictions.
You? You think he's helped by treating him as though he were mentally handicapped.
I ask (repeatedly) about YOUR MOTIVATION and you ignore, deflect & talk talk talk about Ron & me.
Let's try yet again...what do you, Rakeesh, get out of calling Ron a bigot?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the point of it is that you just described ron something that you chastised tom for describing ron as.
I didn't tho...I agreed w Tom & then asked him what are the ramifications of his stated beliefs...he ignored me & dog piled
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You don't get to credibly complain that someone is ignoring a 'point' of yours. Your reply to 'hey maybe there's a problem with grouping the deaf, blind, mentally handicapped and mentally ill and homeless all together as broken and requiring your pity' was 'oh don't be so PC this was just frank talk'.
You're the one who has never had any reply, much less a good one, for why it is somehow nicer to Ron or anyone to treat them as though they were 'broken and delusional' than to react with criticism or even hostility to their words. You're the one who when asked 'so is someone diminished if they call David Duke a bigot?' with 'calling a bigot a bigot is the same mindset as lynching'. Who lectures others on 'why do you respond when you know it won't do any good?' and then almost immediately does exactly the thing you were just lecturing others for with Parkour.
Well, I mean you *can* complain to Tom about a point not being addressed. Just not without looking pretty silly.
Anyway, I know you're too 'worn down' to really address any of that, so please revert to 'jokes' that are actually laughably disguised passive aggressive jabs, m'kay?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
More talk talk talk...about Ron...about me...you really don't want to admit to yourself that you like picking on folk eh?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Jesus everloving christ, stone wolf
You need to stop
You need to learn how to stop
No wonder you try people's patience so hard. You just genuinely don't know any better. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Rock Dawg is there a reason why your choosing this earthly protrusion to expire on?
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: ‽
What.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: (Rakeesh)...the mere application of the label 'bigot' to someone is not necessarily the same mindset as being bigoted towards other people, much less lynching;
This is not an argument...just disagreement & dismissal.
quote: (me) The really real point of labeling Ron (or anyone) a bigot is to dehumanize them so they may be neatly and cleanly catagorized and dismissed.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your message: It's okay to call them names...they are bigots.
Bigots message: it's okay to call them names...they are niggers.
Your message: it's okay disregard anything he says...he's a bigot.
Bigot's message: it's okay to disregard anything he says...he's a nigger.
Your message: He doesn't deserve respect...he's a nigger.
Bigots message: he doesn't deserve respect...he's a bigot.
Whups...switched those last two.
I'll look for it...but boots made this exact point recently as well in a different thread.
Reguardless...the point you are missing (actively dodging) is those fellas in white hoods doing the hanging label & disregard their victims...and so do you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm challenging the status quo...I knew there would be resistance.
But you guys can't keep pretending this is all about me and my issues if I stay on target & copy and paste pertinent & ignored points I've made.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, don't be so chickenshit. You know the answer to your 'serious question', as we've discussed this topic at least once before. And I'll note that your question loses a lot of its weight when you engage in exactly the same sort of behavior you are condemning.
Anyway, to answer again: one, there is utility in reacting with negative criticism to a bigot, or a misogyist, etc., in that it serves a purpose both for the individual to recognize 'hey this might not be socially acceptable', and for society at large. Further, it simply isn't true that the only way to persuade someone is through gentle, civilized correction. Not everyone is so thin-skinned.
Of course in the case of Ron, it's part frustration and venting of anger over other related political issues and it's also part amusement over 'what will he say next?' since God only knows when someone he knows will have a prophetic dream or something.
Finally, on a more serious note, men such as Ron don't simply have crazy, bigoted opinions. They feel their religion should be a source of legal power in our country, and would see it happen if they could. And they're not at all shy about invoking God and all associated virtues to their side of things. And since I'm not motivated by religion or philosophy to turn the other cheek regardless of context, I'll give that sort of talk the contempt it deserves after it's been made clear for years that no amount of reason will ever, ever work.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Could you elaborate?
I think you are Parkour are mad at each other? Or at least being insulting to one another at some level? But I'm not sure why. (A lot of interpersonal nuance flies right over my head.)
I think it's because you both feel passionately about aspects of the conversation but disagree, and I also think that it became a conversation about personal qualities rather than just abstract concepts. But I'm not sure exactly why, and I can't follow the underlying structure of the conversation. It's like watching Depp in the new Alice movie, but through a vaseline-smeared lens -- something is happening, and there are lots of colors, but it doesn't actually seem to have much to do with Lewis Carroll's text?
--- PS: tl;dr -- I'm confused, and it's not a new state for me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm challenging the status quo...I knew there would be resistance.
But you guys can't keep pretending this is all about me and my issues if I stay on target & copy and paste pertinent & ignored points I've made.
We're not 'pretending this is all about you and your issues.' There's also the issue that the civility policing you are attempting to enforce is not something we agree with and we don't care to follow. But you've got issues and you're acting and posting really super stupid and you are making all of us wonder if there's literally any point. You will not quit and the longer it goes on the more it shows that you are intractably annoying about it.
Right now, this is completely honest and genuine assessment where I'm trying to get you to see how you are coming off, okay? I'm not writing you off yet like I've written off Ron, king of the ferrous cranus (and most certainly an extremely bigoted individual who deserves to be called out for his delusional bigotry) but you have to change because you're being incredibly dumb. You even got straightforwardly trolled last night and it really put into sharp relief how reliably stubborn and thick you act.
The question is not about whether or not you should want to defend your whole (imo not valid at all) proposal that we have to be kind to people who come into this space to spew reprehensible bigotry and be an ass about it. The question is how you do it. Because right now you aren't helping your case at all. You aren't "challenging the status quo," you're showing people why not to listen to you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, so we're back to this.
First of all, 'labeling someone a bigot is just a way to dehumanize them' isn't actually an argument. It's a statement of my intent. Being quite hypocritical on some issues, you complained about that being done to you not long ago in this thread.
But anyway, to reissue my rebuttal to those remarks: it is not the case that labeling someone a bigot is only to dehumanize them. It can be in some cases, which is not the same thing. As an example I'll ask again: if I label David Duke a bigot, a man who indisputably is a bigot, am I diminishing myself by doing so? By calling the man what he explicitly is, am I actually engaging in the same mindset as a lynchmob?
The thing you're missing is that there is a difference between using a racial slur to describe a minority, and calling someone who routinely advocates the racial inferiority of ethnic groups a bigot. Yes, both of those things are critical remarks. But one of those things is simply factually untrue, and founded in emotional hatred and insecurity and the other is awareness that the word 'bigot' has a definition that applies to some human beings.
That was why I talked about steaks, and I'll just say that I don't normally make food analogies but I was baffled as to how to get through. 'Mid-rare is the best, and well-done is kinda silly' and 'mid-rare is the best, and people who want well-done should never be allowed to eat steak' are both criticisms, yes. But they're not the same! A molehill is not a mountain, despite their similarities.
So I'll ask you again, and for God's sake you've ignored this question at least twice now so please enough with the complaints that you're being ignored: is someone diminished by calling David Duke a bigot? Or a man who lynches a homosexual a homophobe?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Right. Yes. Start with that question. If literally david duke came into this forum, am I diminished at all by saying "You're a bigot"
Am I diminished even in the slightest by this ~namecalling~
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm going to leave it there for a bit to be crystal clear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, now that we've established that this is a firm rule, is it an absolute one?
For example, someone who lynches a homosexual because they don't like homosexuals. Am I diminished by labeling him a homophobe? On the other end of things, am I somehow ennobled if I apply the label 'heroic' to someone like Rosa Parks? Or is this the sort of rule where one is only diminished by applying bad labels, and good labels are virtue-neutral for the one using them?
Am I diminished more if I were to, say, call Rosa Parks a bigot than I was for labeling the man who lynched a homosexual a bigot, or are they equally detrimental to me?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Would it be rude to call Hitler a Nazi?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To say that their actions were the definition of bigotry is fair. To say they are a bigot, is still fair, however it is HUGELY more* effective for all parties involved to separate the actions of the doer from the human who did them...when a person self identifies with negative believes, those beliefs can not be examined...no perspective...
For the caller of names it encapsulates the called, this person is a bigot and thus everything else they are becones irrelevant...on this we may judge them alone as a human being.
Maybe this person you would name a bigot is also complicated, hurt, damaged, loved, loving, sorry, confused, trying desperately to out grow small thinking, redeemable AND a bigot...or what if how we treat this person was a shining example of the very empathy we say he lacks and it* teaches someone else who read our words?
There is NO advantage to condemnation & personal judgement.
When you stoop to their level you only muddy the waters.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Would it be rude to call Hitler a Nazi?
Not at all...Nazi was a (evil) political party (in his day) & is not at all the same as calling a living breathing human with living breathing feelings broken & delusional to their face.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:There is NO advantage to condemnation & personal judgement.
Muddy waters being said...I also muddy waters...much less now, than in my hayday, however some serious effort has been laid down in...even at times admittedly...into distract the point & taunt me into a tantrum.
It isn't that I succeed in my attempts at unflagging kindness...that is obviously not the case...it's that I put effort into it.
Vs actively borderline unhealthy dog piling, sneering disregard & outright name calling (not even talking about Ron here).
You think your anger and sarcasm is of benefit, and I suppose it has -some- utility, however you serve yourself & those who read you better with simple kindness & restraint and god forbid a little respect.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:There is NO advantage to condemnation & personal judgement.
Had Hitler kept it to his opinion instead of...um...attempted genocide... this "observation"
-Mk Two-
In my view isn't* helpful or valid. But I totally understand where you commin' from Sam*.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: (Rakeesh)...the mere application of the label 'bigot' to someone is not necessarily the same mindset as being bigoted towards other people, much less lynching;
This is not an argument...just disagreement & dismissal.
quote: (me) The really real point of labeling Ron (or anyone) a bigot is to dehumanize them so they may be neatly and cleanly catagorized and dismissed.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your message: It's okay to call them names...they are bigots.
Bigots message: it's okay to call them names...they are niggers.
Your message: it's okay disregard anything he says...he's a bigot.
Bigot's message: it's okay to disregard anything he says...he's a nigger.
Your message: He doesn't deserve respect...he's a nigger.
Bigots message: he doesn't deserve respect...he's a bigot.
Whups...switched those last two.
I'll look for it...but boots made this exact point recently as well in a different thread.
Um...I doubt that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
christ, stone wolf, stop trying to be a witty asshole about this. i'm genuinely trying to play it on the level with you and for once i'm sincerely trying to take your position into account.
and then you try to make zingers about it, which wouldn't be so painfully embarrassing if you didn't come off as such a 50 year old man going "look at me guys i'm hip too" when you do it.
i'm serious. please give me some reason not to just write you off by acting this way.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That you see my sincere beliefs as you do...there's nothing for you not to write me off.
I'm not being flip or upset.
This is not a fit...this is really REALLY how I see it dude. (And if I'm wrong, it ain't by much).
And if that means I'm not to be taken seriously in your eyes, that's your call man.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
quote:To say that their actions were the definition of bigotry is fair. To say they are a bigot, is still fair, however it is HUGELY more* effective for all parties involved to separate the actions of the doer from the human who did them...when a person self identifies with negative believes, those beliefs can not be examined...no perspective...
Earlier you were lecturing others on simply dismissing an argument without making one. Here you've simply said 'it's more effective not to' as though it were a given, when that's exactly the case you're trying to make.
You're mistaken that beliefs one identifies with cannot be examined. It's harder, sure, but people do it. Further you're wrong that to call someone a bigot necessarily means that anything they say ever is ignored and dismissed. You're probably wrong about this, in fact, Stone_Wolf. For all that you've complained of the tone of the objections to Ron's posts, they haven't just dismissed them outright. Giving an argument, much less showing facts, that conclude 'this claim is absurd' is not the kind of dismissal you're referring to, but you're lumping them all together.
quote:Maybe this person you would name a bigot is also complicated, hurt, damaged, loved, loving, sorry, confused, trying desperately to out grow small thinking, redeemable AND a bigot...or what if how we treat this person was a shining example of the very empathy we say he lacks and it* teaches someone else who read our words?
There is NO advantage to condemnation & personal judgement.
Other people as well as myself have discussed potential advantages. Please stop saying there are none, and speaking as though no objections to that claim of yours have been raised.
As for the rest, how exactly is patronizing someone explicitly as you're suggesting more empathetic and likely to change their mind? People tend to recognize when they're being patronized, and when they do it tends to alienate them.
Also, if I call the man who lynches a homosexual for being gay a homophobe, I am not 'stooping to his level'. I've failed to make you understand how stupid and lazy this thinking is, so I'll just repeat myself by stating that your absolute rule, like just about any absolute rule, that 'stooping to their level' is always, irrevocably bad is not true in all cases. Even if it were stooping to a violent bigot's level by calling him a bigot.
You also neglected several of my questions.
quote:On the other end of things, am I somehow ennobled if I apply the label 'heroic' to someone like Rosa Parks? Or is this the sort of rule where one is only diminished by applying bad labels, and good labels are virtue-neutral for the one using them?
Am I diminished more if I were to, say, call Rosa Parks a bigot than I was for labeling the man who lynched a homosexual a bigot, or are they equally detrimental to me?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
secondly, if someone came in here and was just going "hey stone wolf, I want people to invade your home and brutally torture and kill you and your family. like, i want groups of people to target you and cut your throats because i consider you little more than animals."
let's say for funsies they were just playing it the way that Ron plays 'civility,' where they were just keeping it to their opinion. they'd say "yes, i want to enact legislation to make it happen, but that's my right as a citizen. this is all just my opinion. i'm not saying i'm going to do it myself, but someone's got to take care of you ****ing animals someday, i think. "
like they're always super polite about it
but they're psychopaths
if you gave anyone crap about calling them a psychopath about that (which I don't think you would, if sincerely someone was advocating killing your whole family and now suddenly this is a PERSONAL issue of marginalization, as opposed to people being bigots towards other groups of people you expect to just suck it up and be polite back so that we are not all 'lessened') it would put into a sort of clear demonstration how just fantastically bizarre your notions of tolerance are.
We have ALREADY had the argument about how being accomodating and deferential to polite bigotry is choosing the side of oppression and how it is important to call out bigotry as bigotry. All of the lessons, apparently now unlearned and forgotten, have already happened.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also I'm 36 and entirely not hip.
Self mocking...that I am.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Could you elaborate?
I think you are Parkour are mad at each other? Or at least being insulting to one another at some level? But I'm not sure why. (A lot of interpersonal nuance flies right over my head.)
I think it's because you both feel passionately about aspects of the conversation but disagree, and I also think that it became a conversation about personal qualities rather than just abstract concepts. But I'm not sure exactly why, and I can't follow the underlying structure of the conversation. It's like watching Depp in the new Alice movie, but through a vaseline-smeared lens -- something is happening, and there are lots of colors, but it doesn't actually seem to have much to do with Lewis Carroll's text?
--- PS: tl;dr -- I'm confused, and it's not a new state for me.
I think it is that Stone Wolf is pretending/mistakenly convinced that he is the grownup here and trying to be the civility police. This despite the cavernous gaps in his own understanding. Some people find that irritating. He is forumsplaining? and that makes people want to smack him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:He is forumsplaining?
oh damn
what a way to put it
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No Sam...those lessons are not forgotten...but it doesn't change that there is a better way.
And if someone did advocate for that...I wouldn't talk to them AT ALL. That's a job for the police...or if they managed to make it into my house...an undertaker*.
Words aren't the only answer...or else we would still be Britts.
But when words are *the method in use, angry ones are harder to hear.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots...that's one explanation...but I think that having identified a pattern of my past behavior, these old friends of mine are stuck on their old conclusions & not really staying on topic.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh...the only absolute in life I have identified is change.
I'll get to your questions...tho I really can't see how they are relevant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And if someone did advocate for that...I wouldn't talk to them AT ALL. That's a job for the police
1. i severely doubt you, king of feeling irrationally compelled to respond to literally everything, would not say something about what they are doing
2. should other marginalized people follow your principles if someone comes into a place where they are hanging out and is continuously saying that they think they are subhuman and should be legally discriminated against? is it their requirement to either be polite or be silent?
3. it's not a job for the police, remember, it's ~just their opinion~
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And Sam...this is super relevant...
(forgive the caps)
YOU CAN (AND SHOULD) CALL OUT PEOPLE'S BAD BEHAVIOR WITHOUT JUDGING THEM AS A HUMAN BEING.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT POLITE TO INDIVIDUALS WHO OPENLY PROMOTE DELIBERATE OPPRESSION AGAINST MARGINALIZED PEOPLE
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
1. I'm stubborn...and talkitive...sure, however there are simply no words for those who threaten my family...you have never met the person I become when I believe my family are in danger. I'm quiet & serious. I do what must be done without regard for my own hobbies and foibles. This is not a veiled threat. I'm just different than you have ever seen me.
2. Polite or silent is a drastically unfair recap. I never once suggested this. Or implied it.
3. No...that's simply not true & you know it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT POLITE TO INDIVIDUALS WHO OPENLY PROMOTE DELIBERATE OPPRESSION AGAINST MARGINALIZED PEOPLE
And yet..here I stand...on my little hill..."dying" by most accounts.
*The caps lock (obviously failed) was me trying to show you the huge blindspot you just aren't seeing.
Judge actions...not people ≠ polite or silent.
*edit
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:He is forumsplaining?
oh damn
what a way to put it
No?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no like i agree completely. i just never considered that a thing before haha
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Um...did you agree w me? Or boots...confused
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: (Rakeesh) Ok. Ron, just about every damn thing you have to say about Obama is bigoted, superstitious tripe that makes him look better just by the virtue of your being the one to criticize him. One would be perfectly justified, by the large and repetitive sampling of statements by you, in concluding that you are a superstitious bigot. However, I won't say that, and instead just repeat that nearly everything you say on the subject is superstitious bigotry.
What a difference it makes. The world in general and the forum in particular is made just a little bit better by this tissue-thin prevarication that fools no one but sustains a lovely little fiction. That fiction being that something worth preserving is maintained by enforcing a rule 'don't call anyone a bigot', while also doing nothing (and indeed by the ToS nothing can be done) not only about someone who repeatedly makes racist and homophobic and transphobic statements (but should not be said to be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic, heavens no), but who also routinely refuses to respond to direct challenges to his positions not only on rhetorical grounds but on questions of the merest fact. And who then insults those who do.
So if it makes no difference in the end in your view...and the effort of switching "he is a bigot" vs "his views/actions are bigoted" is negligible...
And ignoring the TOS is disrespectfull to BB.
And the kinder way is (arguably) more effective...
Why not?
Either I'm not the only stubborn one here or there is specifically a reason why you need to call Ron (and Card) bigots.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think it is that Stone Wolf is pretending/mistakenly convinced that he is the grownup here and trying to be the civility police. This despite the cavernous gaps in his own understanding. Some people find that irritating. He is forumsplaining? and that makes people want to smack him.
Thanks, kmboots. It helps, it really does, but I guess don't get *why* he's doing that. Is this one of those situations (and I've been there, believe me) where you've kind of talked yourself into a corner, and it looks like the only option is to keep running with it?
I'm not trying to come off as dickish. I do get why -- in the abstract -- one person might want to argue against name-calling in the general sense, especially in a community forum, and also why someone else might want to advocate for being clear on calling out behavior that is toxic to marginalized groups, even in a forum with (at least historically) a pretty tight community. Like, I can see where you might start there, for both perspectives.
I just don't get why the most action this forum has seen in a coon's age is wayyyyyy down the rabbit hole from those starting points. But I really do think I'm just stretched thin lately, and I'm certainly not adding to this discussion, so . . .
PS: I'm also totally ready to get called out myself on that latter bit. I feel like an elderly person wandering through a deserted junior high auditorium without my glasses, trying to make sense of the graffiti.
PPS: What in tarnation does "rekt" mean? Lemonade? Is that some scatological reference? You young'uns and your dickbutts. Dagnabbit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
Actually, neither of us are arguing that the switch from patronizing niceness to mean accuracy makes no difference at all, so I don't understand what you're getting at.
My point was not 'there is no difference' but rather sometimes, any difference that does exist is so tissue thin as to make no difference at all. 'You are a bigot' versus 'everything you have to say about this subject you care deeply about is superstitious bigotry', which if I followed your 'civilized' method of treating Ron as though he were broken or delusional (or deaf, apparently) is what I would do.
It's palpable prevarication. Sometimes you *should* judge a human being, and it's OK. For example, on an extreme end of things I can look at the (not so) hypothetical homophobic murderer-excuse me, unique human being who behaved in a homophobic murderous way-and potentially understand a lot about him. He may have been raised all his life to despise homosexuals, may have come from a home with a history of serious domestic violence. With deadly, hate-filled results years later. Now at the same time as I am aware that had I been raised that way, I might have been no different I am also capable of recognizing that I am better than that tragically low bar of humanity set by the unique human who behaved with murderous homophobia. I am also entirely capable of recognizing that he is still a human being whose humanity should still be recognized.
Now, as for 'why do you 'need' to talk this way', don't play that game with me, Stone_Wolf. Why do you 'need' to correct others on how they're using the same mindset as a lynchmob when they call a bigot a bigot?
Finally, BlackBlade is entirely capable of speaking for himself. I do wish you would leave off speaking on behalf of others. You're pretty bad at it. You can see an example of it recently in this thread.
Oh, and also don't think I don't notice how you are *still* simply saying 'the kinder way is arguably more effective'. Given that that is exactly what we're talking about, no, no it's not! You can't use the end idea you're trying to persuade someone to believe as a cause to believe it!
"Hmm, I'm not convinced that idea x is correct. Here's why..."
"Well, given that idea x is arguably more effective, why not just do that?"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Were that my sole argument maybe.
Anyway...tragically...this awesome discussion that I am enjoying SO much (this is not sarcasm, it is God's honest truth) must wait a bit.
I have family duties to attend to and my sheer desire to participate in this thread is causing me problems.
I shall return with all haste! Any and all comments I will try and fully address.
P.S. Claudia...the echange between Parkour and myself was his attempt to show me the negative results of (his understanding of) My views. He seems to feel I am calling for how he treated me the same as my views on how I feel we should treat Ron.
My responses were an attempt to mirror the patronization, but channeled thru a positive filter...and to hi jack his game to show he us JUST AS stubborn as I, just puts WAY LESS effort into it.
Hope this helps Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Parkour was actually just trolling you and proving that you are very much invested in always having the last word. Also, the extremes that you'll go to to avoid admitting that you've got your own foot planted squarely in your mouth.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Your first assertion is likely the popular take away...which doesn't sway my thoughts...even tho that is likely also how Parkour would describe it.
As to your second assertion, I'm not suprised to hear it...I kno you are...shall we say...not my biggest fan, but honestly that's not me. I have been wrong about some pretty fundimental stuff & while I never went down w/o a fight (stubborn & talkitive & myopic at times I admit) down I went.
I admit when I'm wrong. And change.
Ask around.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can someone knowingly be trolled? I out played his game and my counter troll worked to defuse his original troll.
Trust me...there is hit dice & thac0 calculations...my troll math is pretty good.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
-Isaac Asimov
I just want to participate in this high quality thread.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Perhaps adding more fuel to the fire:
If we vote for Trump, we can only hope he will actually stand by and implement the sensible conservative principles he espouses on his website. Because these are not the things Trump has always stood for. We know for certain what mischief Hillary Clinton would do in all these areas. Not to mention Comrade Bernie Sanders--who might be the Democrat nominee if Hillary is formally charged with any of the numerous felonies she has been guilty of for decades. And if the Democratic Party decides to nominate some other candidate at the last minute--that would probably leave the party in shambles. And make them the laughing stock of the nation. Maybe it would lead Obama to declare martial law, and suspend the presidential election. I wouldn't put it past him. This may even be what he has been planning all along. You may be inclined to laugh at this now. But wait and see.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Stop trying to make this about you again, Ron.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, another prediction of martial law. I eagerly await your 'well that didn't happen' admission when it fails to happen. I'll hold my breath and stuff.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Can someone knowingly be trolled? I out played his game and my counter troll worked to defuse his original troll.
Trust me...there is hit dice & thac0 calculations...my troll math is pretty good.
Do you just not understand people when they're describing that you looked like an idiot when you were doing that? Because you looked like an idiot. I am half inclined to defend you sometimes, so it was painful to watch.
You thinking you came out on top of the whole scenario would make it worse, because it would underscore some personal delusion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Things have more than one meaning Sam. For the realies.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I edited posts I couldn't let stay around. Nobody ever takes me up on self-editing, sadly. I too find Ron's statemen's often deplorable but Pres. Obama isn't a member of this community.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The liberals Ron believes and routinely says despise America and want its downfall, well, some of them are members of the community. Coulda sworn, anyway.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay...so David Duke...the gold standard of bigotry it appears. This guy is a shining example of someone who embodies the spirt animal of dickishness (right?)
So let's say for the sake of discussion that Dave (he goes by Dave now, we are pretending) has had a rough decade. Nearly everyone hates his guts except for zee master race who can be tough friends to have...
Dave suffers, and thru his suffering gains wisdom & refutes his ways...he makes it his life's work to bring enlightenment thru service & dedication to high ideals.
A decade or so later...people still hold up ol' Duke as the measuring stick of bigotry...
Without research, can anyone tell me what DD has been up to lately?
Identifying David Duke as a bigot locks him down...this is the only thing in your life we care about...bigot.
Identifying David Duke's bigoted actions allows that he -may- have moved on.
People are not simply. We are complicated & controdictory. We are more than one thing.
Judge actions, not people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actions cannot be taken without people, so that's a silly standard to have.
And ok, I guess this wasn't obvious or you're ignoring the obvious intent to make a rhetorical point: if David Duke has changed such that he is a profoundly different person than the bigot he used to be, I will gladly no longer refer to him as a freaking bigot! Now be honest: is that *actually* surprising to you, Stone_Wolf? Did you *really* think, "When these people label someone a bigot that means forever full stop period?"
If you did think that, which seems unlikely but is still possible, I submit that you understand people and the way they speak much less than you seem to think you do. If as seems much more likely that isn't a surprise to you-that, if David Duke changes in a fundamental way, don't call him a bigot-well it sort of serves to highlight how strange your standards are here.
Also for about the sixth time now: am I ennobled if I call Rosa Parks a hero? Should I not label her a civil rights heroine? That is after all judging the person and not the action.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My point is YOU DON'T KNO.
DD is likely an unchanged man...but you don't kno...and are still claiming "he IS a bigot."
It's my point...you put him in a box a decade ago and never bothered checking before making a claim that may very be untrue to your knowledge!
Yet ANOTHER reason to switch from judging people to their actions...accuracy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Hero worship can and is at times a problem...but no, I imagine the same principle I'm expousing shouldn't need to be applied to positive judgments.
So...don't negativly judge people...Judge their actions.
Sorry about my first reaction...I'm seconds from sleep and was needlessly harsh.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Judge people by their actions...you know what? When people ACT by espousing views that you would normally only hear out of a bigot (is that tightrope fine enough for ya, BB? *eyeroll*) I'm going to go ahead and label and judge that for what it is.
Question for Ron Lambert, since he is happily still involved in this discussion. If the election unfolds, Obama leaves office, and the new president starts their term, without the National Sunday Act being signed, will the country then be safe until we oh so unwisely consider a black person for the office again?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Things have more than one meaning Sam. For the realies.
You either understand you looked like an idiot, or you don't understand that. I guess it's "dont," but stop trying to sell us on the idea that you just cunningly "played parks' game" or wore him out and are so clever.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Question for Ron Lambert, since he is happily still involved in this discussion. If the election unfolds, Obama leaves office, and the new president starts their term, without the National Sunday Act being signed, will the country then be safe until we oh so unwisely consider a black person for the office again?
It depends if whoever replaces him also hates America.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: Parkour was actually just trolling you and proving that you are very much invested in always having the last word.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your first assertion is likely the popular take away...which doesn't sway my thoughts...even tho that is likely also how Parkour would describe it.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Things have more than one meaning Sam. For the realies.
You either understand you looked like an idiot, or you don't understand that. I guess it's "dont," but stop trying to sell us on the idea that you just cunningly "played parks' game" or wore him out and are so clever.
*I don't think you are* listening Sam.
[ May 29, 2016, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Samp: Do you just not understand people when they're describing that you looked like an idiot when you were doing that? Because you looked like an idiot. I am half inclined to defend you sometimes, so it was painful to watch.
You thinking you came out on top of the whole scenario would make it worse, because it would underscore some personal delusion.
So...let me make sure I'm clear on your view...
My thoughts on what went down between Parkour & me, aren't your thoughts...and even though I addressed that my view was likely not the popular one...if I don't believe as you believe I'm delusional?
I had to look it up to make sure...but damn...it fits my understanding of your views...
quote: big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē/ noun intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf, I ****ing *know* you know there is more to that word than that. C'mon, man, Jesus.
quote:Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Please don't ask that you be given the benefit of the doubt to not have known that 'bigot' is not a word that just means 'intolerant of ideas', not in most definitions and certainly not how it's being used here. Or are we going to pivot now to the old chestnut about 'well you're just intolerant of intolerant people!'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My point is YOU DON'T KNO.
DD is likely an unchanged man...but you don't kno...and are still claiming "he IS a bigot."
It's my point...you put him in a box a decade ago and never bothered checking before making a claim that may very be untrue to your knowledge!
Yet ANOTHER reason to switch from judging people to their actions...accuracy.
It's getting harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt here about not simply being full of shit, Stone_Wolf. Tell me, did you *really think* that when I referenced David Duke I would also think, "Ok, David Duke was once certainly a major bigot. But even if years later he profoundly changes his politics about race, or if it is exposed that he is fundamentally damaged in some way beyond his control, well, once a bigot always a bigot, forever?"
I have a very, very hard time crediting that you sincerely thought I would think that, Stone_Wolf. Suffice it to say that if David Duke has changed and is no longer a bigot, I will-drumroll, please-no longer call him a bigot.
quote: Hero worship can and is at times a problem...but no, I imagine the same principle I'm expousing shouldn't need to be applied to positive judgments.
So...don't negativly judge people...Judge their actions
Ok, so we've finally admitted a qualifier into your absolute system of rules on how people should be discussed: don't judge people, judge actions. Unless they're good actions, in which case it's acceptable to judge them except in extreme edge cases.
Seems like a strange inconsistency to me. But moving on, alright, let's say I have two people, Ron Lambert and Lawrence Russel Brewer.* If I label Ron a bigot, and Brewer a bigot, am I equally diminished by doing so?
In other words, it's bad to call Ron a bigot because it's intrinsically bad according to you. Is it just as bad to call Brewer a bigot? The same? Better?
*It's very important to me to be clear here: I'm not equating these two men. One was a violent murderer, and to my knowledge as unpleasant as Ron's politics are he's never advocated even a hint of violence. For all that I dislike his politics, I can't say I have reason to think that in his life Ron isn't civilized.
It's just that he's being discussed right now, and I found an absolute extreme edge case example to fit in with your remarks about it being 'the same mindset' to lynch someone as to call them a bigot.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The liberals Ron believes and routinely says despise America and want its downfall, well, some of them are members of the community. Coulda sworn, anyway.
Is liberalism or conservatism a protected class according to the TOS? Has Ron called anybody specifically evil or some other pejorative? If he has, point it out and I'll deal with it. Lisa doesn't post hear anymore for that reason, and I really liked Lisa.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's getting harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt here about not simply being full of shit, Stone_Wolf.
That's because his position is full of it and falls apart on really simple review. His position also puts a greater burden on people who are the victim of bigotry to make sure they stay "well behaved" when bigoted people talk, and further bigotry. Stone_wolf's position is a position for cowards who value the potentially hurt feelings of bigots higher than the right of everyone to challenge bigotry as strongly as they wish.
I spit on it.
quote:Is liberalism or conservatism a protected class according to the TOS? Has Ron called anybody specifically evil or some other pejorative? If he has, point it out and I'll deal with it. Lisa doesn't post hear anymore for that reason, and I really liked Lisa.
Ron has called people evil very directly before. Lisa doesn't post here because YOU forced her to stop posting, because she finally spewed enough racist bigoted garbage that it wasn't even something this forum could ignore anymore.
The point of what was said was to point out that Ron makes attacks on active forum members too. He's not attacking groups who just don't exist here.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh...Did (do) you kno if Mr. Duke is still espousing a bigoted philosophy?
I never said that if he had changed, you would continue to call him a bigot. That's rather silly.
As to samp...I didn't call him a bigot.
I said my understanding of his VIEW on a single topic qualified as a bigoted view.
You guys really seem to be missing my points.*
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
With your whole, judge the actions, not the person paradigm, what do you do with a murderer? Or a rapist? Or a pedophile?
Because I've known murderers and rapists and pedophiles. And, honestly? They generally seemed to be nice, normal people. Except, they were also murderers or rapists or pedophiles.
And honestly, I have absolutely no problem judging their characters based on those acts. Maybe, maybe, maybe they can redeem themselves. Or prove themselves worthy of a second chance, but the onus is on them to prove that.
Edited because prove and proof are not the same.
[ May 30, 2016, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Risuena ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh...Did (do) you kno if Mr. Duke is still espousing a bigoted philosophy?
I never said that if he had changed, you would continue to call him a bigot. That's rather silly.
As to samp...I didn't call him a bigot.
I said my understanding of his VIEW on a single topic qualified as a bigoted view.
You guys really seem to be missing my points.*
The qualifier 'of course if this person has radically altered their fundamental worldview in a variety of ways, my opinion of them will be proportionally different' is kind of a given, Stone_Wolf. I didn't realize it needed to be spelled out. I am skeptical that you actually *did* need it spelled out.
As for calling Samprimary a bigot, I didn't say you called him a bigot. I called you on using a very technical and for common use incomplete definition, when I am certain you know that isn't how it's being used in this discussion. I then linked to Merriam-Webster to illustrate.
If I am intolerant of, say, someone who burns a cross on a black family's lawn I am not typically referred to as a bigot. Which I would be if we followed that definition you included to the letter. I know you know that, Stone_Wolf. Don't ask me to believe you didn't know that.
But hey, let's go with this latest gambit and apply it to actual situations and see how valid it is. I am openly intolerant of, say, people who ideologically support ISIS. I've never encountered any myself, but I am confident in saying that I would be intolerant of them if I did. By the definition you were using, I would be bigoted in my opinions about people who ideologically support ISIS.
Think about that for a minute, Stone_Wolf. Really get lather up in the absurdity of labeling someone opposed to ISIS a bigot, or 'holding a bigoted view'.
Now to get back to a previous question, have I diminished myself equally if I labeled Ron a bigot as I would if I labeled Brewer a bigot? If not, why not?
ETA: Risuena, I think you're at risk of invoking just how serious Stone_Wolf can be he'll kill 'em you don't even know you've never seen anyone as Batman as this if he has to deal with them.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ETA: Risuena, I think you're at risk of invoking just how serious Stone_Wolf can be he'll kill 'em you don't even know you've never seen anyone as Batman as this if he has to deal with them. [/QB]
Entirely possible. Luckily, I'm pretty good at drive-by posting, making points that I think are relevant, and not needing to have the last word.
In other words, I'll probably wash my hands of this discussion and go back to my other regularly scheduled forums. Or more likely, I'll pop more popcorn and go back to reading in silence.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's getting harder and harder to give you the benefit of the doubt here about not simply being full of shit, Stone_Wolf.
That's because his position is full of it and falls apart on really simple review. His position also puts a greater burden on people who are the victim of bigotry to make sure they stay "well behaved" when bigoted people talk, and further bigotry. Stone_wolf's position is a position for cowards who value the potentially hurt feelings of bigots higher than the right of everyone to challenge bigotry as strongly as they wish.
I spit on it.
quote:Is liberalism or conservatism a protected class according to the TOS? Has Ron called anybody specifically evil or some other pejorative? If he has, point it out and I'll deal with it. Lisa doesn't post hear anymore for that reason, and I really liked Lisa.
Ron has called people evil very directly before. Lisa doesn't post here because YOU forced her to stop posting, because she finally spewed enough racist bigoted garbage that it wasn't even something this forum could ignore anymore.
The point of what was said was to point out that Ron makes attacks on active forum members too. He's not attacking groups who just don't exist here.
Where are his posts that break the TOS?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
With your whole, judge the actions, not the person paradigm, what do you do with a murderer? Or a rapist? Or a pedophile?
Because I've known murderers and rapists and pedophiles. And, honestly? They generally seemed to be nice, normal people. Except, they were also murderers or rapists or pedophiles.
And honestly, I have absolutely no problem judging their characters based on those acts. Maybe, maybe, maybe they can redeem themselves. Or prove themselves worthy of a second chance, but the onus is on them to prove that.
Edited because prove and proof are not the same.
I hadn't looked to see David Duke's current status...I was hoping Rakeesh would...just out of curiosity. But I don't think he gets that point.
What about those who hurt others? Good question.
So far we have pretty much been discussing how to treat seemingly unreasonable people in a disscussion forum...
My views on what to do if someone attempts to harm you; if at all possible, regard for their life, however, do whatever it takes to preserve your own well being, including deadly force.
My views on what society should do if someone is found guilty of hurting others; our government is doing right by limiting offender's liberty to prevent convicted persons to harm others. Since wrongful convictions happen...it is better to lock someone away than risk kill an innocent person. Sam & Rakeesh taught me that.
I used to be more of "kill them all & let Buddha sort it out" kinda guy.
The only absolute I have managed to grasp is change.
Not sure why Rakeesh is trying to make it into some kind of unified theory of life that must be absolute & applied to situations that are seemingly off topic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
quote:was hoping Rakeesh would...just out of curiosity. But I don't think he gets that point.
Your point was irrelevant. If David Duke has radically changed his politics, I won't call him a bigot. If he has and my information is out of date and I labeled him that way, I'll cheerful eat crow and apologize to the guy. And of course you knew that, so for the love of God stop it with this 'he just doesn't get it' bullshit.
quote: Not sure why Rakeesh is trying to make it into some kind of unified theory of life that must be absolute & applied to situations that are seemingly off topic
Dude. You are the one who is expressing your ideas on this topic in absolute terms! Which is why if you'll remember how could you forget we've been talking about it for like two pages now Jesus I've been asking questions about how far this policy of yours actually extends.
And the questions are not at all off topic. You expressed an opinion 'judge actions not people' and so I asked 'what about good actions and good people?' How is that off topic for pity's sake?
An even more topical question since it concerns only negative actions-since we've pared down the 'judge actions, not people' guideline to 'judge bad actions, not bad people; judge good actions and good people'-is the one I've asked already about people who express a bigoted idea and people who are violently bigoted. Person a is ideologically bigoted, expressed by speech; person by is ideologically bigoted and bigoted in his actions, for example violence. You said earlier that someone is diminished by calling a person a bigot, so I'm asking: is a person equally diminished by calling person A a bigot as they are by calling person B a bigot?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
With your whole, judge the actions, not the person paradigm, what do you do with a murderer? Or a rapist? Or a pedophile?
Because I've known murderers and rapists and pedophiles. And, honestly? They generally seemed to be nice, normal people. Except, they were also murderers or rapists or pedophiles.
And honestly, I have absolutely no problem judging their characters based on those acts. Maybe, maybe, maybe they can redeem themselves. Or prove themselves worthy of a second chance, but the onus is on them to prove that.
Edited because prove and proof are not the same.
I want to thank you for participating in this disscussion. And double thank you for the respect in your words.
I'm starting to think "judging" maybe the wrong word.
Rakeesh pointed out that positive judgements are outside the concept.
And you point out that judging someone "dangerous" bc...well...they proved themselves capable of violent behavior is appropriate behavior.
Condemnation vs judgment -is- my meaning.
Condemn people's choices not the person themselves.
I would also say that in using deadly force in self defense is not necessarily condemnation. Merely nessecity.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Your point was irrelevant.
All my points are irrelevant...as judged by you.
Maybe you should sit this one out.
I'm sure DB or Orinoco or samp or Tom or boots or...I feel I'm missing someone...will pick up the torch.
While I appreciate your input you seem pissed off all the time dude...and always with the describing me as "whining" or "lazy" and all these sarcastic asides about how I have a hidden agenda...
You don't like me...it's okay. I accept.
Or at least could you cut down on the melodrama?
I mean if not, no big...I'll just stop responding...but I'd prefer not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're already not responding. This is at least the fourth time I've asked you about whether or not it's the same degree of diminishment when judging the person a vs the person b. I didn't start out with asides about your motives, either. And your point was irrelevant not simply because it was you-I explained why it was irrelevant. At least twice now. You've also sidestepped challenges to your use of the word bigotry and when it applies.
And hey, it's not you I don't like. It's your lazy approach to thinking and your sense of entitlement to having your opinions respected just because they're your opinions. It's almost like you're judging me and not my actions and words. Why, someone might be frustrated into remarking that you've been lecturing people about doing *exactly that* for some time now.
Just please, for the love of God, "Person a is ideologically bigoted, expressed by speech; person by is ideologically bigoted and bigoted in his actions, for example violence. You said earlier that someone is diminished by calling a person a bigot, so I'm asking: is a person equally diminished by calling person A a bigot as they are by calling person B a bigot."
I've asked that question at least four times in at least two different ways. If you don't want to answer the question, fine. But you won't be able to just ignore it and still act as though you're legitimately discussing ideas.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: I too find Ron's statemen's often deplorable but Pres. Obama isn't a member of this community.
Why does this matter? How do we know he isn't? If we knew for sure that there weren't any black people as active members of these forums, then would it be okay to refer to black people the way Ron does to Liberals?
quote: Perhaps adding more fuel to the fire:
If we vote for Trump, we can only hope he will actually stand by and implement the sensible conservative principles he espouses on his website.
Like deporting Hispanics ad Muslims?
quote: Because these are not the things Trump has always stood for. We know for certain what mischief Hillary Clinton would do in all these areas.
No we don't.
quote: Not to mention Comrade Bernie Sanders--who might be the Democrat nominee if Hillary is formally charged with any of the numerous felonies she has been guilty of for decades.
Hillary has not been found guilty of any crime; nor has she been indited for any crime. Why do you hate the most basic American value of "innocent until proven guilty"? You are 100% an example of someone who "Loves America but hates Americans".
quote: And if the Democratic Party decides to nominate some other candidate at the last minute--that would probably leave the party in shambles. And make them the laughing stock of the nation.
Just like the GOP is right now for nominating Trump?
quote: Maybe it would lead Obama to declare martial law, and suspend the presidential election.
Why is this even remotely possible? Do you know how much respect and love Obama must have for America to do his job for eight years? Have you seen the hours he works every day?
quote: I wouldn't put it past him. This may even be what he has been planning all along. You may be inclined to laugh at this now. But wait and see.
Why? There's zero evidence to support this.
Also when are you going to respond to my post correcting your erroneous understanding of history?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote: [QUOTE] And if the Democratic Party decides to nominate some other candidate at the last minute--that would probably leave the party in shambles. And make them the laughing stock of the nation.
Just like the GOP is right now for nominating Trump?
Also when are you going to respond to my post correcting your erroneous understanding of history?
Answer to your first question cited here: Yes.
Answer to the second question: I already did, by correcting your "corrections" in great detail. See my post posted May 26, 2016 01:39 AM.
Just an observation you won't like, but you need to face up to: Time again, many people in this community demonstrate that "liberals" are the most prejudiced and intolerant people in America. We also have seen this recently in the news, where it is always liberals who stage near riots and try to shut down conservatives from speaking. You don't see conservatives behaving that way. As for the supposed superior wisdom of people in this community, what you really can't stand, what makes you so furious, is that I, as a conservative, can and do stand up to you, and can and do answer every one of your arguments, even though you forget and pretend I didn't, and ascribe to me positions I do not hold, just so you can have something to refute easily.
I can be persuaded by rational thinking that is fair and honest and considers all the relevant facts. You have given me very little to respect here. Take it to heart, or reject it and continue your childish arguing. You are the ones who will have to live with being so seriously misguided.
[ May 30, 2016, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* At least you are always, perpetually, consistently wrong about everything.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
As far as responding to arguments--I am still waiting for any kind of intelligent, serious response to my conclusive argument I offered over a year ago, that disproves evolution and proves creation by an Intelligent Designer. Here is the argument again. It is fairly simple.
Variations in species, like all the various breeds of dogs, are not the result of evolution, they are the result of alternate characteristics already existing in the genome of the original progenitor of the species, and only become expressed when those portions of the genome are "turned on" in response to environmental conditions, or sometimes just chance flipping of the genetic "on-off" switches. This is subject to empirical proof. In fact, this is what selective breeders have always demonstrated. Why this destroys evolution, is that all evolutionists claim that the natural mechanism that drives evolution is "Natural Selection." But careful thought will lead to the inescapable conclusion that Natural Selection cannot operate to produce the complex coding of alternate characteristics, when they are NOT EXPRESSED!
Someone might suggest that the alternate characteristics were at first expressed, then somehow combined into the original progenitor genome. But it has been observed that when alternate characteristics are expressed, some of the original coding for the original characteristics are deleted. Thus while you may be able to breed down from a wolf and get a poodle, you cannot breed up from a poodle to get a wolf. So you cannot combine alternate characteristics into the original progenitor genome.
Someone might try to appeal to the mysterious sounding phenomenon of ionizing nuclear radiation causing mutation. But a chance bombardment by neutrons is not capable of producing complex coding consisting of millions of molecules that all have to be perfectly organized in order to work at all. If you bombard wolves with radiation for a billion years, all you are going to get is dead wolves.
Thus there is no way that Natural Selection can explain variation within species. This conclusively disproves evolution, and conclusively proves that creation by an Intelligent Designer is the only scientific explanation for how speciation works.
I challenge anyone on earth to refute this.
[ May 30, 2016, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *laugh* At least you are always, perpetually, consistently wrong about everything.
Again, just another unsupported assertion, and false and deliberately insulting characterization. This is arguing as a child having a temper tantrum. Do you really expect that I should respect such statements?
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Ron, the real question of WW2 is how did the Germans do so well. Read the wikipedia article on the fall of France for a good overview of how precarious the German victory was. Several times, any sub-optimal (from the German POV) result would have bogged them down but everything came up aces. Yet for all the fragility of their success, they had it almost all their own way until '42. Compare to the Japanese, who got one sucker punch then spent the next three years being driven back.
No respectable historian believes the Germans could beat the Soviets by purely military means. Even if Germany had managed to capture the three cities that marked the greatest extent of their invasion, it would not have had a material effect on the Soviet's ability to wage war.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Answer to the second question: I already did, by correcting your "corrections" in great detail. See my post posted May 26, 2016 01:39 AM.
And I responded to your post in great detail further down, I shall in fact, re-respond:
quote: First of all, I did say Germany was more powerful than any one other nation. Your statement that England and France combined had "more resources, population, GDP, and industrial capacity" only agreed with my statement.
No. Here is your original claim:
quote: Germany remained the largest European nation outside of Russia, with the most natural resources, and a still large population of people with military experience, even after the war. Why do you think Germany was able to rebuild its military and economic might so quickly, so that it very nearly won WWII?
The context makes your new claim a case of shifting the goalposts. It actually contradicts your overall narrative about how powerful Germany is; since you are trying to claim because they were so powerful they were able to rebuild their military.
Which I also disputed, I pointed out that the German rearmament program under Hitler was on a crash course to disaster; it was fundamentally unsustainable.
quote: Yes, Germany annexed Austria and some other territories, but that is not the only reason they quickly built themselves up into a military power great enough to challenge the other nations of Europe.
It is pretty much the main and principle reason; German military procurement was a mess; the scale of the German rearmament program under Hitler would have crashed completely on its face if not for the gold reserves in Austria and Czechoslovakia.
Yes Germany was a regional great power with a great deal of advantages; but a large portion of the popular conception of Germany military capability is myth making to justify the avoided defeats that Allies got handed to them early war.
"First amongst equals" status I can grant sure, but it isn't as impressive as you are making it out to be.
quote: You are quite mistaken in your denial that the Germans could have won WWII. Some military historians who knew what they were talking about have said that the British air force was "on the ropes," and have estimated that if the Luftwaffe had continued their bombardment of British air power only a few more DAYS, Britain would have been unable to oppose a German invasion.
I responded to this before but now I'll go into greater details; the idea that the RAF was on the ropes and would've been defeated if it weren't for the London blitz is absolutely a myth. The rate of attrition considerably favoured the British. The Germans lacked the range to stay dueling the British pilots for long enough and the RAF pilots frequently held the air after every engagement.
If the RAF really was losing they would have pulled their airbases further north; but the fact is the Germans were losing the Battle of Britain; the British had larger aircraft production capacity and the Germans could not have continued the effort indefinitely.
Even if they did defeat the RAF; and this is the part you are woefully ignorant of, the consensus of Operation Sealowe is that it was a clusterdangle, an absolute haberdashery of a military operation doomed to failure. You can find ridiculous amounts of detail online, but basically:
1. The Germans could maybe at most cover between 20% to 40% of the supplies needed for the invasion force.
2. The Germans could not reach the RN detachments in Scapa Flow, and thus the Royal Navy would be free to intercept the supplies coming across.
3. German High Command was an Organizational Dingleberry of epic proportions, to the point that the Luftwaffe and Heer actively obstructed the Navy's efforts at preparing for the invasion.
4. Even if the RAF was forced north; they would still be able to cause havok on the Germans attempting to land.
There are numerous history experts and phd's online who can all attest that the Germans had zero chance at succeeding; and short of Churchill dying in a car crash (cough) the British were never going to accept a compromise peace with Germany.
quote: Many military experts have also observed that the Allies were on the verge of defeat, and would have been (after all France had fallen, Poland and the Balkans had fallen, Scandinavia had fallen, all that was left was Britain)
Military experts at the time? Or contemporary analysts today? We have more than enough of the historical and military records to conclude that the result was never in doubt despite the shock of the Battle of France.
Sure, it's possible that Britain could have fell based on the above logic; but it is not even remotely as likely as you make it out to be.
quote: if Hitler had not decided to attack Russia instead of finishing the job in the west.
Here is the crux of your problem; you are arguing a number of "What if" counter factuals that while mostly implausible and the majority of them are easily disproven and discredited by the facts and the historical record; the simple fact is that most of that doesn't matter; there are a large number of scenarios we can imagine with Germany doing better than they did; but that would presuppose that they weren't Nazi's.
Hitler was inevitably going to invade Russia, there is no way that doesn't happen.
quote: The misguided "Operation Barbarossa" almost succeeded in defeating Russia--at the peak, German tanks were in sight of the Kremlin in the first Autumn after the invasion of Russia.
I specifically in my initial response to your post pointed out that the Germans coming within 14 miles of Moscow was the 'high water mark'; why does this fact make you think that the Germans were at all close to succeeding? The sheer amount of willful disregard of the logistics the invasion of the Soviet Union; of the struggle the Germans were facing just to manage basic everyday operations and the stiffening Soviet resistance to the invasion?
As one person put it the Germans successes were basically a series of critical successes of where they kept rolling perfect 20's over and over and kept needing to roll perfectly or else they would fail.
What good does it do if they defeat the RAF or take Moscow? Do you have any idea or understanding of what that would mean for the war or their war effort? What happens next? It just means that the war's inevitable result is just pushed back another six months until the next time they need to roll a crit or fail.
So they reach Moscow, then what? They get Stalingrad six months early! Fantastic! This is *already* when the Germans are completely exhausted and are at the end of their logistical tether at the onset of winter, and you expect things to somehow improve at this point?
quote: Germany squandered at least three opportunities to win the war outright. This gave time for America to enter the war and build up troop strength in Britain capable of launching a counter-offensive, that finally turned the tide.
And so the above here is completely wrong; there was never that moment, it never existed, it is completely a myth.
quote: the US armored forces led by Patton took on Rommel in northern Africa, bailing out the British mechanized units that had been on the defensive, then moved on to attack Italy.
Somehow I missed this; this is completely wrong. Do you even know when the Battle of El-Almein happened? It decisively defeated Rommel before Operation Torch could have had any major effect on the German's planning.
quote: All military analysts of comparative tanks in WWII regard the German Panzers as being the best tanks, at least in the early part of the war. The Sherman tanks were a later addition, that were only a factor after the USA entered the war. The advanced Russian models were not introduced until late in the Russian campaign. At the start of WWII, Germany had the best tanks. Period. That is one reason why their "Blitzkrieg" tactic was so effective, and blew right through the French lines (surrounding the Maginot line), went all the way to Paris, and later almost made it to the Kremlin. (By the way, I used to play a game by Milton Bradley called "The Russian Campaign," and competed with players all across the country by mail. I was even nationally ranked for a while among the top 50.)
Again this is all wrong.
1. Early war the majority of the German Panzer Korps was older models such as the Panzer II and Panzer I; the Panzer III & Panzer IV together only made up for 10% of the total tank fleet in the invasion of Poland; and the majority was still mainly light tanks during the Invasion of France.
The gun on the Panzer III and Panzer IV actually had huge difficulties with the British Matilda II, the Char B1, and the Somua S35.
The advantage of the Panzer III chassis was that it was upgradeable, something that only began to matter during the North African campaign and the Russian campaign; things like the commander's cupola and the wide spread usage of tactical radio's were crucial; the key point is that it is doctrine; the combined usage of proper tank tactics and organization of tanks into independent arms that allowed them to outmaneuver French and British forces.
quote: Actually it was a very effective tactical element, where paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut supply lines and catch enemy forces in a pincers. On the battlefield, the Flieger Corp added a considerable force multiplier effect.
I asked about this of some friends who are knowledgeable and again this isn't the case. Sure they could have been used in Varsity style operations, landed immediately behind the front and allow the Germans to more quickly capture ground; but the Soviet's had a lot of local AA and rarely did the Germans have the air superiority where such operations could've mattered.
quote: It is really hard to understand how the Germans could have lost the war--they had so many advantages, so many clear opportunities to have won the war. Many blame misjudgements by Hitler.
I've already included a bunch of links about how not only was German production horrifically inefficient, but how the war production of the Allies was just so much larger that again, the end was not at all in doubt.
The Germans were always doomed to lose a war of attrition and their economy was based around inevitably entering a war of attrition.
quote: Germany did have a project to develop an atomic bomb. They might actually have built an atomic bomb before anyone else, if it were not for the Allied bombing of the German heavy water processing plant, and related research facilities. Germany had scientists capable of building the bomb. Here is what Wickipedia says about the Nazi effort to develop nuclear weapons:
I disputed this already; it is absolutely a myth that the Germans could have gotten the bomb before the Allies. They lacked the resources to pour into the project and were no where near close to matching the progress of the allies; nor could they have because as you say, the Allies were quick to disrupt those efforts whenever they could; and had it been necessary, they would have assassinated key German scientists.
There is no "might" here.
At the end of the day, your argument presupposes the Germans manage to keep on rolling straight 20's while the Allies keep rolling 1's; when in reality the Allies made a large number of mistakes; if the Germans get a magic Wehraboo scenario where they make less mistakes, why don't the Allies also get a scenario where they don't make mistakes? You do not address this.
The fact is, Germany lost and lost badly.
All of this to construct an elaborate narrative about how the US could very well elect Trump because ~the superior culture of Germany and its sugui economic might~ also elected Hitler.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh...you have a really REALLY annoying habit of pushing & pushing (about something already answered) & not listening to the answer & then acting snottY & then thinking you've won.
It's not unlike playing chess w a chicken...
No matter the effort, care, time or method I use to try and make a point (almost any point ever)...
The chicken just kicks I over the peices, shits all over the board and then struts around like it won.
This question that you point out I need answered (and heavily imply bc I'm dishonest (or lazy!) was answered pages and pages ago, not once or twice...but consistently.
It does not matter.
If someone kills folk in the name of bigotry wouldn't a better tittle be murderer?
Please keep this in perspective here. We are talking about how to treat people here;...where there are no murderers.
Notice how when Claudia said DD was still a racist...I didn't say anything.
Why?
Mr. Duke doesn't post here. His real life feels are not in jeopardy.
I on the other hand do. And so does Ron.
You can (and consistently do) paint me as the problem while dismissing my arguments.
But you aren't Jean Valjean & I'm not Javert.
Third warning buddy...please talk about the ideas and not the poster (me) or I'll ignore you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Initially you said namecalling is always out, forever. After many, many questions this was 'clarified' to 'judge actions, not people'. So then I asked about good actions, and you admitted an exception to the rule. I'm trying to clarify if there are further exceptions to this rule of yours. So far, you have not answered my question. You haven't. If you have, point to where and I will cheerfully admit you were right and I was wrong, and apologize for it.
And man, it is a flat-out lie to say that I have not addressed your arguments.
quote:Ok, I don't have time to get to the rest of this now, but let me just highlights three things. One, your opinions haven't just been dismissed, specific objections have been raised against them. To claim that others are simply shrugging them aside as you did is misleading at best. Two, I put forward that it is not actually polite nor more embracing of anyone's humanity to treat them more nicely because they are 'blind, deaf, or mentally disabled'. (Goodness, the things to be said about this part alone, but time is short.) Third, no one has suggested responding to anything Ron has said with anything other than words, so your remarks about 'better off dead' and 'maybe we should help that happen' are, at best, completely misleading as well.
And since he's not, your asserting some sort of community responsibility to protect him from...what, himself?...under the guise of 'civility' is off-base. It isn't civilized to treat someone as less than a functioning adult human being, especially just because their politics are silly! It is, in fact, hugely condescending and fundamentally dishonest to the person you're nominally doing this 'for'.
Let me put it even more simply: the people on your list, and especially the blind and the deaf, are empowered by your method of 'helping' them. Furthermore, your lumping in of the deaf and the blind and the mentally handicapped with people so mentally ill they are homeless and potentially dangerous to themselves and others is lazy and offensive. It's not 'frank talk', Stone_Wolf. It's just another example of your not really having thought about an issue before, shooting from the hip, and then believing that your own good intentions mean you can't be wrong.
Don't tell me I haven't responded to your claims, Stone_Wolf. And you'll also note we were having a polite conversation about the history channel until you decided to unveil this incoherent, ambiguous, shifting policy about judging people.
Anyway, now your stance is to reject the question altogether in spite of your claim to have already answered it. And it is relevant. I'm asking about your philosophy on name-calling and judging actions versus judging people. So it is relevant to ask if one is equally wrong to call verbal bigot a bigot as calling verbal and physical bigot a bigot. Please answer the question, or show me where you have done so already.
Or ignore me as you 'threaten'. Even if I felt that was a legitimate threat-you've shown before it's not-threats generally speaking are supposed to be something that poses harm or unpleasantness to the other party. If you're not going to answer relevant, direct questions and are then going to lie about your own arguments not being addressed, please ignore me. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I answered (again again again) in my post above.
You can't seem to hear me man.
Here is my latest answer to your unanswerable question.
quote: It does not matter.
If someone kills folk in the name of bigotry wouldn't a better tittle be murderer?
Please keep this in perspective here. We are talking about how to treat people here;...where there are no murderers.
Notice how when Claudia said DD was still a racist...I didn't say anything.
Why?
Mr. Duke doesn't post here. His real life feels are not in jeopardy.
I on the other hand do. And so does Ron.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Stone, people are understanding your arguments just fine. They are also asking answerable questions, unless you mean 'unanswerable by my ethical theory as far as it has been demonstrated'
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Nor does Mr. Duke pay for the upkeep and maintenance of this site.
OSC does.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok. So your answer is that one is just as diminished by calling a lyncher a bigot as they are by calling someone who uses a racial slur in speech a bigot? Because what you quoted isn't a clear answer. First you say it doesn't matter which could be interpreted as a 'no, one is not any more diminished' or 'your question doesn't matter'. You further muddy the waters by suggesting the lyncher should be labeled simply a murderer...which is in fact a judgment, a label, but set that aside for a moment.
In another example of my 'not replying to your arguments', let me address that: it is not a better name to label someone who lynches a homosexual simply a murderer.
Murderer is a very general word considering all the types of killing there can be. Should we use the same description only to describe a man who gets into a fight with a friend and kills him in a fit of rage, as we should the man who hates black people and hangs a black man from a tree for trying to vote?
Of course not. And I know there are no murderers here. That's not the point, and I'm not just talking about how to treat people here. I'm asking about a philosophy you've expressed, which you've gone further in than just here.
I've asked for clarifications because you've already admitted some exceptions to your rule, but then you revert to replying in generalities again. Hence my asking questions about whether there might be further exceptions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OSC can do as he likes. Is your argument 'mine is a better system' with respect to judging people or is it 'it's against the rules'? Because you're right. It is against the rules. That's not what is being discussed. What's being discussed is whether it's a good rule.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Ron Lambert
I'm genuinely curious here; if Obama leaves office without signing a National Sunday Law, will the country be safe from the prophesied disaster until it once again elects a black man president?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Stone, people are understanding your arguments just fine. They are also asking answerable questions, unless you mean 'unanswerable by my ethical theory as far as it has been demonstrated'
I've read this entire thread three times...once as it was "born" so to say. And more reviews of hotly contested posts.
I hear you...I do not agree that the evidence supports your conclusion tho.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, it is not an unsupported assertion to note that you have always been wrong about everything. Rather, it reflects the fact that you have never, as long as I have known you, been right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If Ron has made a prediction that could proven to have been true, or disproven if false, about actual events that have transpired and can be checked by anyone, I have not heard it.
Ron, if you've been as right as much as you've said you have, it should be simple to point to such a prediction. I'm happy to wait.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: OSC can do as he likes. Is your argument 'mine is a better system' with respect to judging people or is it 'it's against the rules'? Because you're right. It is against the rules. That's not what is being discussed. What's being discussed is whether it's a good rule.
It IS a good rule.
For the many reasons I pointed out.
I feel as if I'm trying to tell you guys about a car that is a few model years newer than the one y'all are driving and are like
How will we get to our destination without a car? (Who will stand up to for oppressed people? )
I'm like: you still drive it...it just has new features. (Still challenge bad ideas & behaviors, just be specific to actions & concepts instead of people)
It isn't a big change I'm calling for here. But the philosophy behind this little tweek of how we treat each other requires you guys to admit you have stepped on toes unnecessarily & show maturity & restraint and you seem to be going to great lengths to paint this as "Uh oh...here goes that StoneWolf with his crazy ideas and thin skin...watch me provoke him so we can go back to the comfort safe place where simply ignore him.
But it's not working, bc I'm not loosing my shit & going off topic as I have in the past
And boy are you guys trying. But it was my pattern...I admit. But this time there are two major differences
1. I recognize my pattern & choose a different road.
2. I'm not wrong this time.
I love you guys.
You were right about me in many ways.
You taught me "how to drive" when I was still taking the public (not short:wink: ) bus.
So if you can't hear me now bc of our past stuff...um...okay. I can understand that. I made that bed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So...the really REALLY bad bigots...surely we can alienate them .
Am I worried about the bigot's feelings? Only when speaking to them or in their "pool" (we are in OSC's pool, and the pool has rules).
No...the point isn't to sheild their tender feelings...it is to not condemn them...to not hate them...to not label them as if that label alone encapsulated them...bc it's a healthier more sane choice.
All humans are bigots. I am a bigot. I hold views which are intolerat & wrong & so does every single one of us who drew a breath.
This model car gets better milage AND has Corinthian leather with quad climate control! Turn in your's today!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Elison R. Salazar--so basically what you are saying is that the Germans overran Europe in a blitzkrieg that gave them control over almost the entire continent in a mere matter of months because they were "lucky." Lucky again and again and again. Every hear of Murphy's Law?
The allies were lucky that Hitler made so many amateur mistakes, like choosing to launch Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia) before putting the last touches on finishing off Britain, when Britain was clearly on its last leg. Like choosing not to continue Luftwaffe attacks on British aircraft and aircraft factories, when they were only DAYS away from thoroughly destroying British air capability. Like choosing to abandon the use of the paratroop Fliegerkorps, after they were misused in Crete and suffered heavy losses. Like being overconfident when he launched the invasion of Russia, and did not equip the German invasion units with winter clothing.
Yes, it has been long debated what the exact results would have been if the three major cities of Russia--or just Moscow, even--had been taken by German forces. Another factor many forget is that the United States sent enormous amounts of aid to Russia, without which Russia could not have rushed into production those advanced tanks that were able to take on the German Panzers. This massive aid would not have materialized if Russia had remained an ally of Germany--which it was until the surprise German invasion of Russia. But if the administrative centers that directed the building of the Russian military had been taken, how could Russia have continued to fight? Remember, the fatal weakness of the Soviet Union, especially in its military, has always been its overly centralized structure, where its commanders are not expected or trained to take initiative on their own.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heya Ron...did you ever take Elison up on his generous offer of joining the historic discussion forum?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:All humans are bigots. I am a bigot.
I'm reasonably certain that I know several humans who are not bigots, actually.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, I have not claimed to be a prophet. I have from time to time set forth logical predictions of what could likely occur.
You liberals have predicted that President Barack Obama would be a "uniter." But he has proven to be the most divisive president in history. That his federalized health care plan would improve healthcare in America. In fact Obamacare is an utter failure that has increased costs and driven many doctors not to accept Medicare patients, and has NOT allowed people to keep the doctor of their choice. You have predicted that Obama would act to defend our country, and negotiate for us sensible treaties with other countries. Instead we get the treaty with Iran, that gave them 150 billion dollars for nothing, and we have Obama treating Israel like an enemy instead of our best ally in the Middle East.
When Reagan was president, his conservative principles of lowering taxes resulted in something liberals all had said was impossible--11 straight years of sustained economic growth. But liberals desperately try to deny or obfuscate this, and claim that Obama's approach to economics is what we need. Because of Obama, America's recovery has been slow and prolonged, and more in spite of what Obama and the Democrats have done than because of it. Were it not for the Republican majorities in Congress putting the brakes on the worst of Obama's excesses, we would not have had any recovery at all. And we're still 19 trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Just paying the interest on that is busting our budget!
[ May 30, 2016, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:All humans are bigots. I am a bigot.
I'm reasonably certain that I know several humans who are not bigots, actually.
Please introduce me to them Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heya Ron...did you ever take Elison up on his generous offer of joining the historic discussion forum?
No. I already am a member of more forums than I have time to participate in regularly.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Hey Ron..."you liberals" is not a cool way to address this forum.
Or even accurate really.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heya Ron...did you ever take Elison up on his generous offer of joining the historic discussion forum?
No. I already am a member of more forums than I have time to participate in regularly.
Cool beans...just out of curiosity...did you thank him & demure? Or just ignore him? Or something else?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
A comment about bigotry: What is meant by bigotry needs to be defined. It is normal and healthy for anyone to prefer the company of his own ethnic group. Tolerance is accepting others, and giving them fair treatment. Bigotry should properly be defined as being determined to judge people solely on the basis of personal prejudices, and not being open to having those prejudices corrected. Refusing to discuss those prejudices, however, is not tolerance. This again is the weakness liberals show, when they stage near riots to try to prevent conservatives from speaking in public venues.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Stone_Wolf_, I have answered him twice, in detail. Beyond this point, I probably will ignore him.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Hey Ron..."you liberals" is not a cool way to address this forum.
Or even accurate really.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Conservatives do not talk this way. Nor do we stage near riots to try to prevent liberals from speaking in public venues. We prefer to go online and ANSWER them, point-by-point.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh and yes...I fully admit that it can seem like a hall monitor (politeness police?) at times.
...but part of what I'm advocating for that the car analogy points out, one still challenges individuals whom they feel need to be challenged. One simply does so showing respect.
The respect one shows others reguardless of who they addressing only reflects the respect one should expect to recieve.
"He hit me first" & "he deserved it" never really worked w mom either.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Hey Ron..."you liberals" is not a cool way to address this forum.
Or even accurate really.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Conservatives do not talk this way. Nor do we stage near riots to try to prevent liberals from speaking in public venues. We prefer to go online and ANSWER them, point-by-point.
I disagree on the strongest terms.
The views and people here vary & in no way should we be all grouped into a little word like "liberals".
It is unfair & silly really.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I have answered him twice, in detail. Beyond this point, I probably will ignore him.
I'm confused.
You emailed him twice & he ignored you, or you answered here twice talking about history stuff and you ignored his offer*?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I mean did any one individual here predict that racial harmony would bloom under Obama and I missed it? Totally possible.
Even so, most of us didn't.
You are refuting something that wasn't said.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I have answered him twice, in detail. Beyond this point, I probably will ignore him.
I'm confused.
You emailed him twice & he ignored you, or you answered here twice talking about history stuff and you ignored his offer*?
Ron thinks that he has reasonably shut down all of his arguments in the forum.
We know he hasn't because we can just read everything he has written, but this is what Ron will decide has happened no matter what has transpired.
Thanks to you, I guess I can't just say "because he's deluded", I have to encode it "politely".
So:
If a person were to do what Ron is doing, it would be a significantly deluded action, and if it is how they acted across years, it would support that they are probably a deluded person.
Politeness. Winning.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Elison R. Salazar--so basically what you are saying is that the Germans overran Europe in a blitzkrieg that gave them control over almost the entire continent in a mere matter of months because they were "lucky." Lucky again and again and again. Every hear of Murphy's Law?
Essentially they were "lucky";
How about in 1937 the French didn't declare war when Hitler ordered the Rhineland remiliterized?
Or how about in 1938 when Italy switched its position on Austria and backed Germany enabling the Aunchluss? Which again, most of the German tanks broke down on the roads to Vienna and the Allies could have dow'd to end the threat then and there.
Or Late 1938, the Sudentenland, the Allies could have backed Czechoslovakia with the support of the Soviet Union who were allied to the Czechs at the time and ended the threat there as well before they could gain the Prague tank works.
In 1939 when the Soviet Union was upset enough with the West to agree to the M-R Pact; otherwise the Soviets invading Germany through Poland in 1939 would've ended the war then and there.
Or how about also in 1939 when France and England refused but the most timid attempts to relieve the Pole's because they had the wrong intelligence about the strength of the of the Siegfried Line right when the Germans were at their least ready to resist Allied advances?
Or how about during the Phoney War when the British and French bungled the effort to relieve the Scandinavians but still managed to largely cripple and mission-kill the KMS Surface fleet? Which again, could not have happened with active Soviet assistance.
Or how about in 1940 when the French neglected indepth defense of the Ardennes forest and were generally slow to react to the German advance and had pushed in too deep in the Low Countries? And this only happened because Manstein and Guderian went over their superiors straight to Hitler? You keep saying Hitler was to blame for Germany's defeat and yet it was Hitler who gave the go ahead for Operation Fall Gelb instead of the modified "Schlieffen" Plan?
Or how about what if the French simply not surrendered when they did in 1940 and kept fighting? They still had reserves and a front line, and the BEF hadn't been completely surrounded yet; in all the time you posit the Allies suddenly surrendering what about what-if the French didn't surrender?
Or how about lucky again that in 1940 the Soviets picked a fight with Finland instead of attacking Germany while they were committed to Fall Gelb?
Not good enough for you? 1941 Stalin repeatedly ignored British intelligence reports and the intelligence reports of both the GRU and NKVD intelligence services warning him that the Germans were about to invade on but the most superfluous grounds. Only the Soviet People's Navy was ready and prepared for Operation Barbarossa. The Airforce was 60% destroyed and the border armies badly mauled; in the time the Soviets first recieved reports and June 22 was literally months in which the Soviets could've reorganized and prepared indepth defences and supplied ammunition and fuel to frontline units; the Germans completely failed to neutralize wither the Black Sea or Baltic Fleet in the opening days because of their readiness.
Regular professional war games of Barbarossa by the US military shows Germany never gets as far as they did between two equally competent players (and by players I mean professional career military officers).
Still not satisfied? The Germans only managed to surround Kyiv and it's 600,000 defenders because paranoia among the Soviet officers about issuing uncalled for orders to retreat meant they didn't react in a timely manner to German tank movements; when if they had reacted promptly a majority, hundreds of thousands of battle hardened veterans could have escaped to regroup; which would have prevented the Germans advanced in 1942.
Still not "lucky" enough? There are over a half dozen accounts of Soviet commanders not responding appropriately because they were worried they would be shot for retreating without explicit orders from STAVKA. There are repeated instances where Soviet counteroffences do not have the artillery and armour support because of bad decision making; what if they had good decision making? What if in 1938 the Soviets didn't purge Mikhail Tukhachevsky the premier advocate of Mechanized warfare because of elderly biased of people like Bedyuny who had Stalin's favour? What if Konstantin Rokossovsky wasn't in prison until the last minute of the German invasion? The purge of the Officer corps devastated their readiness and professionalism; but to suppose that didn't happen supposes a Soviet Union without Stalin, same applies to Hitler and Nazism.
STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YA!? 1942 STAVKA sends a flunky to supervise the defence of the Kerch peninsula and overrules the professional opinion of the ranking commanding Red Army officer and abandons their defencive posture and lets themselves get smashed by Manstein; which likely would've been extremely slow and costly overwise; this enabled Operation Fall Blau and the offensive towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus oilfields and allows the fall of Sevastopol.
1943 the Soviets push past their limits and get stomped at the 2nd battle of Kharkyv because of overconfidence, creating the Kursk Salient.
1944 A Bridge too Far, the Allies accidentally let Market Garden plans fall into German hands and screw up the aerial assault royally; preventing the ready collapse of Germany then and there.
Also 1944, the Allies because of infighting and bickering between Monty and Patton allows the majority of the German personnel to escape the Falaise pocket.
1944 Again, the Allies are lax and overconfident enough to let the Germans attempt round 2 in the Ardennes but at this point they fail to confirm their crit because the Allies respond appropriately to the German offencive.
Around the 1943 mark both the Soviets and the Western Allies stop making stupid mistakes and learn to respond appropriately with appropriate level of force and material to German actions and German success, as they exist, become less in occurrence and in scope; and in the Eastern front cease completely at Kursk and are largely ineffectual after Market Garden.
You are completely out of your depth here in this discussion with me.
quote: The allies were lucky that Hitler made so many amateur mistakes, like choosing to launch Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia) before putting the last touches on finishing off Britain, when Britain was clearly on its last leg. Like choosing not to continue Luftwaffe attacks on British aircraft and aircraft factories, when they were only DAYS away from thoroughly destroying British air capability.
Okay serious wtf, I just responded to this, I just completely destroyed your argument about this. So thoroughly that your argument is entirely has been turned to dust.
The Germans were losing the Battle of Britain; the British were gaining pilots and aircraft the entire time. The British RAF was never at a risk of being finished off.
Operation Seelowe was never going to succeed for the reasons I already listed.
quote: Like choosing to abandon the use of the paratroop Fliegerkorps, after they were misused in Crete and suffered heavy losses.
Where would they have been useful? You do not know, you are completely out of your depth.
quote: Like being overconfident when he launched the invasion of Russia, and did not equip the German invasion units with winter clothing.
:ironycat: And why is that I wonder? You realize that this was only an issue because Barbarossa failed by that point right? They didn't lose because they lacked winter equipment, they had already lost the war by that point.
quote: Yes, it has been long debated what the exact results would have been if the three major cities of Russia--or just Moscow, even--had been taken by German forces.
Except you're not debating this, you're insisting it matters without following up on why or how or explaining a follow up. The Germans couldn't get closer to Moscow; if they had gotten closer, what would have been the result? Would it have been better or worse for Germany? You don't actually know this, you're just speculating and assuming it's to Germany's advantage when there's zero evidence of the case that it wouldn't in fact worsen Germany's strategic and tactical situation to the point they actually collapse in the winter of 1942.
quote: Another factor many forget is that the United States sent enormous amounts of aid to Russia, without which Russia could not have rushed into production those advanced tanks that were able to take on the German Panzers.
Completely wrong; full production of the KV-1 and T-34 was already begun in 1939; the IS-II and T-34-85 weren't introduced until late 1943 at the earliest. After already a massive effort at reducing the cost to produce the T-34 and KV-1 by 50% as well as various incremental improvements.
US and British Lend-Lease certainly helped produce more tanks though, but recall that the Soviets produced over 100,000 tanks to Germany's 67,000. Without Lend-Lease Soviet production is less sure, and more of it is needed for railstock and locomotives, but it doesn't detract the total figures much.
quote: This massive aid would not have materialized if Russia had remained an ally of Germany--which it was until the surprise German invasion of Russia.
So? The Germans were always going to invade, and if they didn't they wouldn't have been Nazi's.
quote: But if the administrative centers that directed the building of the Russian military had been taken, how could Russia have continued to fight? Remember, the fatal weakness of the Soviet Union, especially in its military, has always been its overly centralized structure, where its commanders are not expected or trained to take initiative on their own.
This is incredibly ignorant of how STAVKA works or the roll the various Soviet cities played in the overall war effort. You have zero evidence that even if Moscow fell, that the Soviets would've lost the will to fight when losing everything West of Moscow already hadn't already broken their will to fight.
You still haven't elaborated on how exactly do the Germans take Moscow? How do they hold it? Remember the Winter counter offencive nearly destroyed the Heer's fighting effectiveness in 1942; how does this not repeat itself and be worse in a Scenario where the Germans exhaust themselves more just to take Moscow? Remember the Soviets already moved most if not all critical functions of Moscow to Gorky, a further 800 miles to the East, and were already preparing new railways behind Moscow; how do the Germans take Moscow before these are functional and the role of Moscow is duplicated a few dozen miles further East? And surely out of reach of a German advance for sure? You can't actually answer this.
You have now been thoroughly refuted; but I bet you'll just go "Lalalalala" and just repeat yourself.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: Ron Lambert
I'm genuinely curious here; if Obama leaves office without signing a National Sunday Law, will the country be safe from the prophesied disaster until it once again elects a black man president?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Depends if he's a Democrat. Since all Democrats are Crypto-Communists and/or Muslims.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote: Remember the Soviets already moved most if not all critical functions of Moscow to Gorky, a further 800 miles to the East, and were already preparing new railways behind Moscow; how do the Germans take Moscow before these are functional and the role of Moscow is duplicated a few dozen miles further East?
Was Stalin still in Moscow? Or had he moved already? The only thing I could see taking out the Soviets was killing Stalin and then the USSR collapses into infighting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I have answered him twice, in detail. Beyond this point, I probably will ignore him.
I'm confused.
You emailed him twice & he ignored you, or you answered here twice talking about history stuff and you ignored his offer*?
Ron thinks that he has reasonably shut down all of his arguments in the forum.
We know he hasn't because we can just read everything he has written, but this is what Ron will decide has happened no matter what has transpired.
Thanks to you, I guess I can't just say "because he's deluded", I have to encode it "politely".
So:
If a person were to do what Ron is doing, it would be a significantly deluded action, and if it is how they acted across years, it would support that they are probably a deluded person.
Politeness. Winning.
Remember, too, that Ron or another person might not hear this and think, "They're calling me deluded," and so be more inclined to productive discussion. Furthermore, you are less diminished by doing the dance of the seven veils here, Parkour.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: BlackBlade is entirely capable of speaking for himself. I do wish you would leave off speaking on behalf of others. You're pretty bad at it. You can see an example of it recently in this thread.
This is wildly inaccurate.
quote:BB Do we really have to explain this again? I will get back to this when I'm done driving I'd appreciate it if the obvious TOS violations were removed before then.
If you need a hint try describing someone's opinion as bigotry instead of calling the person a bigot.
The "we" he is referring to is me & him.
Also the hypocrisy of saying BB can speak for himself is mind bottling! My mind is literally bottled right now guys.
He DOES speak for himself.
When someone violates the rules and thus causes BB unpleasant work, I think that's pretty disrespectfull.
I wasn't speaking for him, nor would I.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
To clarify: you are bad at speaking for (and frankly you've been bad about doing it in the past) others-what they think about your claims or what they would likely say about them. I was referring specifically to when you reference kmbboots' presumptive support of one of your positions, which she flatly rejected.
But hey, God forbid we 'disrespect' BlackBlade, right? The strange, wobbly line of who to respect how. Ron frequently says, more or less, 'these deluded liberal fools hate America', sometime even saying 'you liberals'. Now now speak reasonably in response to him blah blah blah.
In response to deluded, provably wrong predictions: 'holy cow this guy is deluded!' And the record scratches and right out the ****ing window with this respect you claim to value so highly. It's acceptable to accuse a group of people, wholesale, of really hideous crimes and intentions knowing full well quite a few people here fall into that group. Mention one by name, though, and suddenly some sacred meaningful line has been crossed.
If this were only about 'that's the rule, obey it' well that would be one thing. But when you try to pretend it's not somehow arbitrary, that the only real power behind the rule is that it's the rule, well then we're going to have a discussion about it.
So, just to be clear because you've yet to answer this question specifically, only in generalities: I am diminished just as much if I call a verbally bigoted bigot a bigot as I am if I call a violently bigoted bigot a bigot? Please, please, just for the sake of the discussion whether you think you've answered it or not, please answer it again, this particular variation of the question?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, God, this hill is full of zombies. It is a zombie-infested hill and it is horrible because it is boring.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote: Remember the Soviets already moved most if not all critical functions of Moscow to Gorky, a further 800 miles to the East, and were already preparing new railways behind Moscow; how do the Germans take Moscow before these are functional and the role of Moscow is duplicated a few dozen miles further East?
Was Stalin still in Moscow? Or had he moved already? The only thing I could see taking out the Soviets was killing Stalin and then the USSR collapses into infighting.
Stalin stayed in Moscow but short of encirclement there was unlikely any serious risk of him dying, his security was good.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, God, this hill is full of zombies. It is a zombie-infested hill and it is horrible because it is boring.
Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A comment about bigotry: What is meant by bigotry needs to be defined. It is normal and healthy for anyone to prefer the company of his own ethnic group.
Normal, sure. What about it is particularly "healthy"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh and yes...I fully admit that it can seem like a hall monitor (politeness police?) at times.
You are the George Zimmerman's neighborhood watch of forum politeness! Unappointed and unqualified but, thankfully, unarmed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ouch...
Maybe I'm more like Dahmer...and you just haven't checked my fridge yet
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A comment about bigotry: What is meant by bigotry needs to be defined. It is normal and healthy for anyone to prefer the company of his own ethnic group.
Normal, sure. What about it is particularly "healthy"?
I can't believe he said that, does Ron also believe it's A-OK for people in an effort to advance the interests of staying with your own "ethnic group" to leverage economic policy and zoning laws to keep the undesirables out?
Does Ron object to the forceful desegregation of the military and overall society?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Normal, sure. What about it is particularly "healthy"?
Well it's healthy from an evolutionary standpoint - preservation of kin genes etc. - though I suspect Ron is probably not making an evolutionary argument. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I'm not so sure, I mean, if we could breed with snakes and make half human-half snake hybrids, wouldn't that improve our genetic diversity?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What are you trying to produce Voldermolt?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You are the George Zimmerman's neighborhood watch of forum politeness! Unappointed and unqualified but, thankfully, unarmed.
Because asking people nicely to not call eachother names is just like murdering an unarmed child...ohhhh...right...no it's not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You are the George Zimmerman's neighborhood watch of forum politeness! Unappointed and unqualified but, thankfully, unarmed.
Because asking people nicely to not call eachother names is just like murdering an unarmed child...ohhhh...right...no it's not.
Ok, you can either criticize that calling a bigot a bigot is participating in the same mindset as an actual lyncher (and then later complain when lynching is brought into the question again), *or* you can complain kmbboots likened you to George Zimmerman, when it's clear she was referencing the whole 'bad at unasked for, unqualified policing' and not 'killing young men in enormously sketchy circumstances, at best'.
Doing both is pretty silly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And since you're clearly never going to address this directly, I'll just go where I was going with my question to illustrate the point.
Under your theory of courtesy and judging actions instead of people, if I called Ron Lambert a bigot, I would be diminished, as I was partaking of the urge to ostracize another human being and reject their fundamental humanity to make it easier to insult them. (We'll leave aside the fact that I don't at all think bigotry and humanity are mutually exclusive, or else I would have to simply reject most people who have ever existed as human beings, including some people I love).
Under your theory, and with your blanket condemnation as I guide, I would be equallu diminished if I were to label Lawrence Brewer a bigot, as well as a murderer. I was apparently not supposed to invoke a figure like that because it goes too far, this in spite of the fact that suggesting to accurately label someone a bigot partakes of the mindset of lynching.
To sum up: under your theory, it makes no difference at all whether one is completely accurate in their labeling, or unfair in their labeling. It engages in the same impulse to ostracize a human being as a lyncher experiences when someone unfairly labels another person a bigot...and that same impulse is active even if the label is totally accurate.
It's a pretty bold claim, to state that accuracy has no bearing on whether or not someone is dehumanizing someone else, as in the mindset of a lyncher. A claim that extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence, and merely repeating your fundamental argument-that judging a person negatively always engages in the same impulse to discriminate and lynch-isn't an argument. When you throw in the wild card that this theory of human interaction applies only to *bad* judgments of people, and has nothing at all to say about good judgments of people, well, the idea collapses.
It's an absolute rule, and earlier in this thread you appeared to recognize that absolutes are generally pretty bad whether they be harmful or simply inaccurate. That's a bit of wisdom I think it would probably be helpful to apply to this idea you have that judging people is always bad.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yea okay...I don't like being painted w the same brush as a murderer...just like you guys & lynchers.
I...see what you mean...
Her point (as mine) isn't that we are the same...but we share a mindset.
And the truth of it leaves a sour taste.
Too bad I could never do the same for y'all about your Zimmerman.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Her point was not that you shared the same mindset as Zimmerman, dude. Why do you think that? Of course she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think her point was that-after you referred to manners police-George Zimmerman was bad at community policing, and you're not so great at it either.
Which might be a stinging criticism or it might not, but if it has anything to do with killing people I'll be very surprised. Whereas you, early in the discussion, went straight to 'mentality of lynchers' and set it side-by-side with 'calling a bigot a bigot'. That's not the same thing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Accurate statements are observeably better than inaccurate ones, therefore calling a bigot a bigot is "better" than calling a non bigot one.
However, almost(?) everything one accoplishes by naming someone a bigot is still accomplished thru calling their views or actions bigoted.
It is better for the bigot bc they can separate from their beliefs & possibly change them. Also easier to hear bc it's less alienating.
For the bigot bequeather it is better for they are not condemning nor name calling, they are being a good example of the qualities they are advocating for, and not mudding the waters on who is treating folks wrong.
It's kinda like this...would you rather a police officer upon finding you drunk walking down the side of the road say for example, treat you with calm respect & dignity as they arrest you, or wag his finger and literally yell in your face.
Ron thinks you guys are evil...and the more you are unkind the easier it is for him to lie to himself & keep grouping us into a title that in his circle is one like bigot is here. Liberal. Not us. Other. Them. Outsider. Different. Weird.
[ June 01, 2016, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not worthy of respect. Alien. Deluded. Broken. Crazy. They EARNED this. It's true isn't it? If he was nice to everyone...if he deserves it...then we'll be nice. But if he's backward or silly or just plain wrong...well then two wrongs do make a right...because we aren't wholesale bigots...we pay retail. Ours is the lesser sin bc we are ostracizing w purpose! They deserve it! Did you hear what he thinks? He's a monster. Other. Outcast. Unclean one.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
You seem to believe that protecting the feelings of a bigot is more important than protecting the feelings of either the people who are being discriminated against or the feelings of people who are offended by bigotry. Why are the feelings of bigots so important to you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea okay...I don't like being painted w the same brush as a murderer...just like you guys & lynchers.
I...see what you mean...
Of course I don't think you are a murderer. I do thing, though, that you have a persona that you buy into that is wiser and stronger and more f***ing paladin-esque than real human beings are. Reading some of your posts I wonder if you imagine yourself saying them with a flag waving in the background.
Now. We all have our own version of ourselves in our heads and some of them are more or less close to reality. But being our own heroes can sometimes make us see the rest of the world as helpless townspeople. As the rest of us see ourselves as our own heroes, too, that tends to piss us off.
Now, don't go overboard with the humility thing either. I am reminded of the ad for the old TV series Kung Fu where the hero proclaims - oh so sincerely - that he is just a man like other men. We know that already. And remember that, while your instinct to help is good, we are not ignorant villagers who need you to rescue us from our foolish ways.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I appreciate the bottom line boots.
I don't see you as villagers...and myself as a hero.
I see us all as one big mixed "race" baby...crying & shitting & vomiting...and innocent & adorable & worthy of help & love.
Me too.
This is how I see humans. The "bad" ones are just lost children who have likely been hurt as much as they cause hurt.
You may think this is all...forumsplainin' or just my attempt at feeling good by phillisophically putting myself in a place of a teacher. Or whatever.
Change comes from within...pushing people to change before they are ready is detrimental to the outcome.
I feel strongly that the tactics used here are less effective...and dilute the message.
That's my opinion for what, it's worth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While I've never met a human being who is not in some way 'broken, from my experience it is also true that some humans are more broken than others. The dividing line between actions and speech, for example, can be a pretty clear boundary for that sort of thing. I really don't know the answer to the question of why that is, but it seems clear to me that it is.
I also disagree strongly that 'change comes from within' when, as you appear to be suggesting, this is the only means to achieve significant change. Change does not only come from within, and in fact some of the most significant changes for the better in American society in the past half century were rooted in efforts-sometimes explicitly-to make people uncomfortable. Advances in civil rights for minorities, women, and homosexuals-the movements to achieve what has been achieved in all of these endeavors did not happen because 'change comes from within'.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I see us all as one big mixed "race" baby...crying & shitting & vomiting...and innocent & adorable & worthy of help & love.
Yeah. Stop thinking of me that way. I am very few of those things and I find it annoying.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Um...no?
Is this a serious request?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not talking about those kind of changes Rakeesh...you can't change someone unless they are open to the change.
You can force changes...of course...heck a brick to the head is demonstration enough of that principal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Change comes from within...pushing people to change before they are ready is detrimental to the outcome.
I feel strongly that the tactics used here are less effective...and dilute the message.
That's my opinion for what, it's worth.
Thank you for offering your opinion. Collectively we have decided that your advice is not valuable to us and we will be disregarding it. Please stop pushing us to change in the way you desire, we Will change on out own if we choose.
You have stated that change comes from within and pushing people to change before they are ready is detrimental to the outcome.
Do take your own advice and stop pushing us to change. We dislike your philosophy and find it flawed and ignorant of a lot of factors. We will be ignoring it. Thank you in advance for ceasing your evangelizing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll tell you what, though: you get Ron to admit that he's wrong about something and I'll give your advice a second thought. Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Um...no?
Is this a serious request?
I know, right?
Hard to imagine someone getting offended at being told that they're thought of as a shitting crying baby.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Um...no?
Is this a serious request?
Yes. While I have no control over how you think of me, I can tell you that I find it offensive and obnoxious.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wonder where thread drift will take this facinating thread next?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'll tell you what, though: you get Ron to admit that he's wrong about something and I'll give your advice a second thought.
Same goes for me...if you guys can get Lyr or BB or CT to agree I'm wrong on any given subject, I'll clam right up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I see us all as one big mixed "race" baby...crying & shitting & vomiting...and innocent & adorable & worthy of help & love.
Yeah. Stop thinking of me that way. I am very few of those things and I find it annoying.
Others: "Ron is a bigot, for x, y, and z factual demonstrable reasons."
Stone_Wolf: "That is unkind, mean-spirited, and unhelpful."
--
Stone_Wolf: "I think we're all, including you, are mewling, incontinent infants, more or less. Fortunately I've got some wisdom you don't that can help."
Kmbboots: "That's offensive. Don't think of me like that."
Stone_Wolf: "Ummm, no. Are you serious?"
------------
Holy cow, man. Forumsplaining is the perfect word for this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'll tell you what, though: you get Ron to admit that he's wrong about something and I'll give your advice a second thought.
Same goes for me...if you guys can get Lyr or BB or CT to agree I'm wrong on any given subject, I'll clam right up.
That's happened before, you know. Whereas I challenge anyone to find any example of Ron admitting a mistake. Clever, though, to suggest each is as likely.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots....how would describe humanity as if to space aliens who had never met us?
Specifically, why humans kill other humans.
Notice that "Harmless." & "Mostly harmless" will not be accepted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're not a space alien. Neither is anyone else in this discussion. It's also an absurd example because imagining how we would speak about ourselves to any sort of other intelligence at all, much less extraterrestrial, is an exercise in total guesswork.
Let us also observe how very, very far into the rearview mirror the objection 'they will hear it as an attack, and be less likely to listen' has abruptly receded. You had decisive evidence in the form of her own words that she didn't take your remarks as fair or well intentioned or accurate, but you are not only willing to bulldoze past that, you were incredulous that she thought so.
Words such as 'ambiguous, poorly considered, and inconsistent' would seem to apply.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
one time i kind of got ron to kind of admit he was wrong about something
like just kind of sort of
he worded his defeat in the most contorted, obnoxious, pretentious way possible
but it was still there
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is why I will consider taking advice from you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the thing i like the most about that i had ron sort of admit to me that he was wrong about something makes it more entertaining when he comes in here like an idiot* and says idiot things like 'i have always been right and nobody has ever really legitimately succeeded in showing i have been wrong at anything'
because it shows me what he is refusing to process, mentally
*do note that I am saying that he comes in here like an (unspecified general sort of) idiot, and says idiot things, i am not calling anyone in specific an idiot just because they might always do idiot things always
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Which is why I will consider taking advice from you.
yessssssss
tom have you considered bitcoin it is the currency of the future. the end of fiat is upon us
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I see us all as one big mixed "race" baby...crying & shitting & vomiting...and innocent & adorable & worthy of help & love.
Yeah. Stop thinking of me that way. I am very few of those things and I find it annoying.
I'll second Boots (also, note I am not ClaudiaTherese nor is she me. Though I can only wish to be as awesome). I'm very few of the things you describe. And I find it very patronizing of you to describe me or anyone else like that.
I'd also say that some of the terms you use are more loaded than you think they are.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't think of individuals that way...just humanity in general.
Our life spans are just too short.
Rakeesh...oh yee of the unanswerable question...you don't decide which questions I can ask.
Now who is policing who?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also your objection is plain silly.
One can easily speculate what they would say TO an alien...
I didn't ask her to imagine a response.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Stone_Wolf,
I'm not telling you which questions you can ask. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in asking certain questions and making certain statements which directly contradict earlier claims you've made. You can ask the questions all you like. I can't stop you, nor would I if I could. But you look ridiculous when earlier you claim 'calling Ron a bigot is bad because it makes him less likely to listen' (as well as other reasons, some of which you eventually dropped), and then say to kmbboots, "We're all squealing incontinent infants," and then when hearing she finds that offensive, basically scoffing incredulously.
Do you see the inconsistency here? Quite a remarkable degree of catering to what someone such as Ron might find offensive, and offhand dismissal of what kmbboots and Risuena find offensive.
But hey, I guess this falls once again under the umbrella of 'I don't consciously feel like I have a bad intention, therefore there can't be a problem with my position' philosophy you often take.
As for aliens, it's a ridiculous question. If we're seriously going to talk about this absurd, irrelevant sidebar you've made to avoid simply saying, "Ok, I'll try not to or at least won't say so to you," when people said, "That's offensive,"...what kind of alien? Where is it from, what's it like, what are its intentions, Jesus I mean 'alien' yes of course you can imagine it, but the point is any imagining you or anyone comes up with will be total wild-ass guessing. And since unlike other speculations, there is absolutely no real-life analog to draw on to inform your speculation, it ain't worth much.
As for humanity in general...for pity's sake you're contradicting yourself *again*. Repeatedly in this thread you've said that we are all broken. And what on earth is the functional difference between 'humanity is comprised of squealing infants' versus 'individual human beings are squealing infants'? The first statement necessarily contains the second one!
And, again, this still stands at odds with the philosophy you set out earlier with respect to Ron, where claims that would be regarded as offensive and make the listener less likely to listen should be avoided both for politeness and ineffectiveness. Make up your goddamned mind.
Oh, and as for policing. I haven't whistled you. I haven't said you shouldn't be allowed to say your vague, contradictory arguments. I haven't said the rules should prohibit it. So... It's still you, George.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In a word...nope.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's the sort of thoughtfulxl, self-aware reply that's come to be expected from you, Stone_Wolf.
So just to be clear: no remarks at all on the contradiction between concern over Ron being offended and not listening when called a bigot, and the offhanded dismissal of kmbboots when she expressed offense at being thought of as an incontinent, crying infant?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
let's just assume stone wolf doesn't understand he has died on the hill, and the loudly and persistently ghost-infested hill is a terrible place to visit and has really low property values. it is a strange hill indeed, a silly place, let's not go there
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have trouble equating calling a single person a name...
And my personal view of humanity as a whole.
I'm having trouble taking you seriously.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can you not see the inherent hypocrisy of telling me (almost constantly) my questions/points are silly/irrelevant while hotly demanding I answer your silly/irrelevant questions?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not really. I've explained why your questions and stances are, sometimes, silly or irrelevant. The aliens thing was irrelevant, and I explained why. Complaining about being too offensive to Ron and then casually dismissing it when someone says you are being offensive to them is...
Well, actually 'silly' isn't really accurate, but I was moderating my remarks because you're frankly extremely sensitive and prone to ignoring direct questions in favor of responding emotionally to challenges. What it *actually* is, to insist on less offensiveness towards Ron and the dismiss it towards kmbboots, is lazy, arrogant, and entitled thinking. Initially I would've said just lazy, and perhaps not even that much, but it's been brought to your attention repeatedly and you continue to ignore it. So it's even 'sillier' now.
It's very easy to understand. 'Humanity in general' is a group that includes kmbboots. For some crazy reason, she regards such a remark as including her. Almost as though she considers herself a human being that was maligned by your judgment of...human beings. It's not magically a neutral statement if you say it about *everyone*.
And then of course there's the problem that implicit in your claim about humans in general is the idea that in this instance, you're not such a squealing infant as she is. Because after all, you've got the better idea for addressing humans. "We're all equally crappy" is a pretty, well, crappy stance to take if your next thought is, "here's how you can be a little less crappy."
So: aren't you glad I was saying 'silly'? Anyway, please continue to ignore the challenge to the contradiction in your stance about offensiveness when it's Ron versus when it's kmbboots. Please, make it about me or how I'm too mean, or maybe just reply with a one-liner. I appreciate this is a tricky position for you. In the words of Negasonic Teenage Warhead, I've got you in a box here.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes. You clearly win.
What have you won Rakeesh?
What do you get out of labeling me wrong?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh...and I was not being sarcastic w boots.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thanks for proving me right! Whatever you do, don't address the very relevant question about your contradiction. I'd appreciate it if you did one of two things, really: claim to have addressed it already, or refuse to engage because I'm too mean and stuff.
As for sarcastic, I don't believe I said sarcastic, but more than once I did remark that you casually dismissed her objection.
quote:"Um...no?
Is this a serious request?
Which as your post shows is not at all an unreasonable interpretation. As for what I 'get'...I don't know. When you try to do it, what do you get?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dog piled.
Zing!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Actually it's a question...and not a dismissal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It didn't read that way. Be honest. If you earnestly asked someone to do something and they replied, "umm, no. Seriously?" would you hear that as ' it a dismissal'?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Possible...but I'd check either way. But that's me & I talk a lot.
I promise on my AR15 that when I'm not being sincere I'll use [sarcasm]duh [/sarcasm]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You really think that babies should have rifles?
It's that kind of macho persona crap that is doubly annoying. I wonder if Zimmerman swore by his gun, too.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That was humor.
Bc if I said "I promise" it wouldn't mean much in this crowd...so what would you guys think I care about.
Eta That is the first & only time I've ever said that...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It isn't funny humor and it reveals more about you than you think.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I feel as if I have personally upset you boots.
And if so...I'm sorry, that was not my intention
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: let's just assume stone wolf doesn't understand he has died on the hill, and the loudly and persistently ghost-infested hill is a terrible place to visit and has really low property values. it is a strange hill indeed, a silly place, let's not go there
Not a grave nor a ghost...just a statue of a wolf with a plaque that reads simply "Kindness is its own reward."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: let's just assume stone wolf doesn't understand he has died on the hill, and the loudly and persistently ghost-infested hill is a terrible place to visit and has really low property values. it is a strange hill indeed, a silly place, let's not go there
Not a grave nor a ghost...just a statue of a wolf with a plaque that reads simply "Kindness is its own reward."
Which is another saying that is often true and true on the surface, but just a little examination reveals how problematic it actually is. There are scenarios in which kindness isn't a reward to anyone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For my part, I object to the suggestion that what we're describing here might be considered "kindness."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I feel as if I have personally upset you boots.
And if so...I'm sorry, that was not my intention
Yet you still hold to a description I told you was offensive.
Meh. It's obnoxious but I find it irritating not upsetting. I was just pointing out more macho posturing on your part. You've been posing for that statue on a hill for quite some time.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I ask you guys to follow the rules...and give good reasons for it...I'm the policing the board...
You don't like my personal view of humanity as a whole and expect me to change it on the fly?
Vert tha ferk?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Suggestion: if the events in your summary make no sense to you, perhaps you are not correctly summarizing events.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not a thorough summery...but accurate none less.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's see. You asked people to follow the rules (and then broke the very guidelines you were insisting others follow with respect to incontinent infants a day or two later). You gave what you claimed were good reasons for it, but when challenged about it proved reluctant to discuss it. Answers in anything other than generalities had to literally be dragged out of you. More than once you reverted to one-liners. You objected to supposedly having your views dismissed, and yet did so bluntly with respect to kmbboots.
Eh. I forgot, you had good intentions and so cannot really be wrong about any of that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But hey, what the hell, let's talk about this idea that all human beings are on the level of squalling babies with doody in their diapers.
This is another claim of yours that starts to wobble in a mild breeze. We could for example look to a man like Elon Musk, or a woman like Indra Nooryi and see that if they *do* share many characteristics with infants, there aren't many of them. Possibly the similarity is genetic. Then if we look at the bottom of the scale, we can easily find examples of people who can fairly be said to fail to have mastered or even amateured the practice of being a functional being. So...humanity in general as babies in need of help. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Now what I think you *meant*, correct me if I'm wrong, is that all human beings are in some measure broken and in need of help-and not necessarily from you, the help I mean. And not necessarily in sufficient need of help that the help should be thrust upon them, even by words. Maybe you meant something like that, and *that* is an idea I suspect Tom and kmbboots and just about anyone would agree with. But that's not what you said. You made a blanket generalization of all humans, and when called on it, you rejected the rebuttals more than once.
This doesn't even touch on what is, to me, the more problematic aspect of your 'humans as babies' philosophy. That problem is that by offering 'good reasons' to take your advice on niceness, it's implicit that you're setting yourself apart from the soiled infants of humanity in general. It's false humility, even if you don't intend it to be false humility.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SW, who asked you to enforce the rules? Everyone may, at some point, need help but that doesn't mean they need your help or that you are qualified to give it.
[ June 02, 2016, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But yours...is qualified & needful?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heya Rakeesh...out of respect for your time...you should kno I've started to merely skim your posts...and don't plan on answering (unless super brief) any more.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just fyi...I think...you guy's have convinced no one of anything.
I kno neither have I.
But at least I recognize that there were no victories here.
Maybe...one day someone will read our discussion & then this won't have been simply entertaining for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, that you're skimming is hardly news, Stone_Wolf. And as for not being convinced of anything, well jeepers. Not long ago you appeared convinced that it was probably unhelpful to likening calling a bigot a bigot to engaging in the same impulse as lynchers.
Change your mind back to thinking that's kosher, or is this just 'well time to pretend I'm above it all again' territory?
Anyway, see you later. Unfortunately probably not much later. Probably pretty soon, in fact, where you decide to take a little potshot here and there and have now preexcused yourself from even the appearance of actual discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But at least I recognize that there were no victories here.
Except me. I called your whole "dying on this hill" thing, like, a decade ago.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Incorrect...until I said so...so your second to last post I skimmed. Until then I read ever word you wrote. At least four times. Likely more since you tend to talk the most of, what I must admit, I have begun to think of you four to six guys as; the Hatrack Misenthropic Right. (Not calling y'all names (where are DB & Orin?)
I'll work on that. Clearly I'm no longer objective.
So...I'll be back...like a bad penny.
[ June 03, 2016, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But at least I recognize that there were no victories here.
Except me. I called your whole "dying on this hill" thing, like, a decade ago.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Suggestion: if the events in your summary make no sense to you, perhaps you are not correctly summarizing events.
I appreciate how you phrased this Tom. Thank you. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by dean: You seem to believe that protecting the feelings of a bigot is more important than protecting the feelings of either the people who are being discriminated against or the feelings of people who are offended by bigotry. Why are the feelings of bigots so important to you?
You kno...I missed this part...
" or the feelings of people who are offended by bigotry."
Now to the "more important" part...I've said nothing to support that.
As to why are the feelings of bigots important? Bc I think we are a bigoted species. & therefore if I didn't care I'd be a sociopath (or is it psychopath, potayto potahto)
People should be offended by bigotry!
It should be socially ostracized.
A point I learned here.
But, where I differ from the status quo is, there should be a separation from condemnation of ideas & actions and condemning people, by calling them bigots, especially to their face.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But hey, what the hell, let's talk about this idea that all human beings are on the level of squalling babies with doody in their diapers.
This is another claim of yours that starts to wobble in a mild breeze. We could for example look to a man like Elon Musk, or a woman like Indra Nooryi and see that if they *do* share many characteristics with infants, there aren't many of them. Possibly the similarity is genetic. Then if we look at the bottom of the scale, we can easily find examples of people who can fairly be said to fail to have mastered or even amateured the practice of being a functional being. So...humanity in general as babies in need of help. Doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Now what I think you *meant*, correct me if I'm wrong, is that all human beings are in some measure broken and in need of help-and not necessarily from you, the help I mean. And not necessarily in sufficient need of help that the help should be thrust upon them, even by words. Maybe you meant something like that, and *that* is an idea I suspect Tom and kmbboots and just about anyone would agree with. But that's not what you said. You made a blanket generalization of all humans, and when called on it, you rejected the rebuttals more than once.
This doesn't even touch on what is, to me, the more problematic aspect of your 'humans as babies' philosophy. That problem is that by offering 'good reasons' to take your advice on niceness, it's implicit that you're setting yourself apart from the soiled infants of humanity in general. It's false humility, even if you don't intend it to be false humility.
Man...I read the one above this one carefully & barely skimmed this one. Should have switched. Oh well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, look how right I was! It took you less than a quarter of a day to validate my 'skimming except to take shots and then duck out again' prediction. Not that I'm surprised, but my compliments on validating my 'he's gonna be a chickenshit' prediction so quickly.
Oh, and hey, 'you guys are misanthropes'-spelled correctly-not an example of name-calling at all. Where are you from, anyway, does this tissue-thin stuff actually *work* there?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Over half of the posts on this page so far are stone_wolf
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Not anymore.
Posted by Lorelei Feliz (Member # 13414) on :
I read this article a few weeks ago. It's a good read.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)