Actually, I've pointed out several successful alternatives which even include elements of capitalism, but you either ignore it or try to change the subject or bring up something totally irrelevant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Employment Guarantee
- Thread starter dust1n
- Start date
Actually, I've pointed out several successful alternatives which even include elements of capitalism, but you either ignore it or try to change the subject or bring up something totally irrelevant.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I do, but the pattern look all too familiar to me, so I was actually curious.
You start it with the "specious" comment, ramp it up big time, & now you complain about having your chops busted a little?
Just try playing nice, & see what happens.
When you have a meltdown over a little disagreement, the pattern re-emerges.
Many posters here disagree with me, & don't take it personally.
So it can be done.
No, in such cases I've made a major point that they employ capitalism because that supports my position..
You aren't remembering my posts well.
Instead of paraphrasing me based upon memory or inference, try cut & paste quotes for more accuracy.
Last edited:
I didn't start it with the "specious" comment, and in any case, it wasn't a personal remark or insulting at all. It's simply a comment on the quality of your argument, which is fair ball. It was a perfectly valid criticism.
But you admitted that you were just playing games all along. Now you're trying to say you were serious?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
sorry to jump the line of thought....
I stand corrected.....a rare event.
I suppose the Opel valley was noted in the documentary I saw ....for cause of that 'spotted owl'
and that valley has 3million acres....which is employment for 20yrs.
but maybe we should make paper out of hemp.
like they did when the declaration of independence was written.
"Specious" was just the beginning.
Tip.....
Instead of labeling someone's argument with a very negative term, just counter it with your own argument.
(Actually, my argument was cogent & evidenced. "Specious" was the wrong word.)
And as I said, you then ramped it up.
It would benefit you to remember this is just a disagreement....nothing to get angry about.
Moreover, even if you don't have respect for someone, tis better to not express this.
You're erring again.
I'd been quite tolerant until you lost it.
At that point, I'm entitled to some mischievous fun.
Last edited:
I'm OK with hemp.
And I had an unfair advantage because I actually travel to see forests.
I like trees. I don't hug'm, but I like'm....maybe too much, eh?
As far as I'm concerned, I did nothing wrong. I did not insult you or "ramp it up" in any way, shape, or form. You're reciting a complete fairy tale here which makes me wonder if you're even capable of a reasonable discussion.
And I'm not angry at all. I don't know what logic led you to that conclusion. You're the one who has "lost it," not me. You're the one who's taking his ball and going home, since you couldn't stand in the argument. You just wanted to pout and quit because I was being "hostile" and said that it wasn't conducive to discussion. And you criticize someone else for not being "manly"? Maybe you need to look in the mirror.
I wasn't being hostile at all. I was being perfectly fair, honest, and polite. You're the one who seems to have problems with arguing with people, not just with me but with others. So, maybe instead of presuming to offer "tips," you might consider what you yourself are doing if you're surrounded by all this supposed "hostility."
I'm likely not capable of meeting your standard of 'reasonable'.
Since you see nothing wrong with your conduct, I presume you'll continue the ad homs.
I avoid such conversations.
Note:
This post has been edited.
Last edited:
There were no ad hominems, except for those that exist in your own imagination.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
In the end, all we have here is an unfinished argument because you didn't have enough support for your view. If you want to concede the argument, that's fine, but the way you're acting now is that you seem to believe that I've injured you in some way, claiming that I've been hostile and full of ad hominems. If anything, I'm only guilty of getting into the spirit of the discussion, since you were throwing some buckshot at me. I thought I'd zing you back, but it was hardly anything serious. Just the crack about the library, but you seemed durable and thick-skinned enough to be able to handle it. I didn't think it would hurt your feelings.
You keep fishing for elaboration.
I just find that your posts have become rude & uninteresting.
Further discussion looks unproductive.
Last edited:
I'm not fishing for anything. My only intention here was to participate in the discussion. I'm not sure what the deal is with you. I honestly don't believe I've been all that rude to you, but if you find the topic uninteresting, why bother participating in it at all?
Your change in tone made it so, not the topic.
We're beating a dead horse here.
You see nothing wrong with your level of civility,
but I find it unacceptable. That's my "deal".
.
What are you talking about? You certainly have no room to talk when criticizing my level of civility. You're just using that as an excuse because you couldn't hang in the discussion and were looking for a way to bow out and still save face. But it's so transparent. I can't believe you think you're fooling anyone but yourself.
My level of civility was perfectly fine. On other boards I get compliments for my patience and civility. You're the only person on the entire internet who finds fault with my level of civility, and you're certainly no paragon of virtue yourself.
Last edited: