DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on April 30, 2010, 12:20:53 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-villaraigosa/boycott-arizona_b_557812.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-villaraigosa/boycott-arizona_b_557812.html)
It'll work because it worked when Arizona was boycotted for refusing to back Martin Luther King Day. What a bunch of bigoted racist ass-holes. Naturally they're too fucking dumb to know how this thing is going to backfire on them, but they'll find out soon enough.
-
More Brilliance....let's hurt the people financially, (those minorities & legal immigrants) in so many jobs that'd be hurt the most, that folks like Villaraigosa claim they wish to support
I think my wife and I are going to change our upcoming vacation from Utah to AZ now. At lease we can show that we care about them
-
crazy
I just now got a job offer in arizona.
still waiting for hawaii to open up.
just not fair
-
<<I just now got a job offer in arizona.>>
Sure hope you don't accept. And that you let those racist moron bigots know why. They'll get the message in canceled conventions soon enough. That's where the boycott really gets 'em.. In fact, they are so vulnerable there that an individual such as yourself probably has minimal effect on their thinking. So if you don't mind being stopped for frequent checks and verbally abused by racist police eager to make their monthly illegal immigrant quota, take the job.
-
uhm
arizona wasn`t a easy place to live in before that law was proposed.
what`s not mentioned in the news to the reason why the immigrant population was upset is because police haressment existed before the proposal.
lets just say the charge of racial profile was not simply made up.
I`m going by information of friends simply driving through.
friends with badges .
none of them was particulary charmed with the state.
I had no idea that some folks don`t care for caucasians with certain facial features .
-
Especially when you consider the law specifically outlaws racial proviling as well as stopping someone "just because they look hispanic". That rhetoric is the domain of the ignorant
-
the mexican LA mayor should just go home that would be at least 175 miles due south
-
not exactly talking profiling
just talking about certain caucasians getting shunned for having certain features.
lets just say southern italians may get problems.
-
if all the liberal & illegals groups "boycott" Arizona
if all of them get so mad they leave Arizona
then Arizona might become a nice place to live!
dont let the door hit ya in the ass!
-
The law applies just as equally to illegal Irish immigrants as it does Hispanic, Asian and other less pale peoples.
-
Precisely. The law is colorblind and is specific to illegal activity. The "racist" & "nazi" accusations are bred to those who wish to remain ignorant of both the facts and the law in question
-
The "racist" & "nazi" accusations are bred to those who wish to remain ignorant of both the facts and the law in question
Not only do those accusations call into question the knowledge of the accusers but their honesty as well.
-
absofrellinloutely. Careful though. Certain Canadian posters might take offense to your questioning their honesty ;)
-
oh
not me right
-
Are you Canadian? More importantly, are you a "certain Canadian? ;)
-
<<Not only do those accusations call into question the knowledge of the accusers but their honesty as well.>>
Yeah right. I'll give that post the only answer it deserves - - go fuck yourself. You're starting to sound like the one or two morons in this group I don't even bother to answer any more.
-
See Bt? Told you someone might get offended.
-
<<Not only do those accusations call into question the knowledge of the accusers but their honesty as well.>>
Yeah right. I'll give that post the only answer it deserves - - go fuck yourself. You're starting to sound like the one or two morons in this group I don't even bother to answer any more.
Mikey have you ever considered that you have the gift to drive people to the brink of moronic behavior?
-
It's apparently much easier, not to mention intellectually lazy, to simply call people moron, racist & nazi, vs actually debating specific inquires posed upon them. Funny how originally the issue with me & Prince was calling Tee out on 1 too many of his lies. Notice also how neither Prince or myself rarely do, because he doesn't do it very often. But when he does......God help you if you highlight it for all to see. He might start calling you a moron....or worse
-
<<Mikey have you ever considered that you have the gift to drive people to the brink of moronic behavior?>>
I don't drive anyone's behaviour, Kramer. I post what I post and how they choose to respond is 100% their personal decision. It's not up to me and I certainly don't have the right to tell them how to conduct themselves.
I try to treat the individuals with whom I correspond with a certain basic amount of respect and courtesy, even those whose ideas are simply idiotic. However, I don't enjoy being personally insulted and I don't feel that personal insults are, or should be, a normal part of a debate. It bothers me to admit that I find them hurtful, infuriating and/or somewhat depressing, and it's no comfort at all to think that a stronger or more secure personality might just find them amusing or contemptible. I'm not that person, and I don't enjoy either receiving or responding to, personal insults. And I've enjoyed this group a lot more than I did originally, ever since I realized that I didn't have to respond to every personal insult, or to any poster who routinely chooses to use them as a form of "debate."
Basically, I have decided to use this group as a debating forum with those against whom I wish to debate, and as for the others, I hope that they are able to find in this group whatever it is that they are looking for as well.
-
Remember when Hugo Chavez stepped up to the UN podium and said that it still smelled of sulfur from the previos speaker?
Even at the head of state level , there is a lot of making it personal, to wit; Ad Hominim.
I don't think our debateing here is done in the ideal way , which would provide a fact rich argument , persuasive with logic and rebuttals that would erase all sloppy thinking produceing an avesary of ideas and facts to insure that the ideas and facts known would acheive a high degree of examination and understanding of all sides of all questions would be advanced.
We seem to argue more like the real world argues , useing obfuscation to cover weaknesses and scateing fast over thin ice.
Attacking the honor or honesty of the person presenting a real arguement ought to be understood as a sort of an admission....
-
<<Remember when Hugo Chavez stepped up to the UN podium and said that it still smelled of sulfur from the previos speaker?
<<Even at the head of state level , there is a lot of making it personal, to wit; Ad Hominim.>>
I consider that not only one of Chavez' greatest moments, but also one of the General Assembly's greatest moments. There is nothing wrong with using metaphor to illustrate a point, in this case that Bush was one of the most evil men produced in modern world history, and that the country he represents is almost equally evil, and that despite the never-ending propaganda bullshit of the mightiest power on the face of the earth, it could do nothing to stop Chavez from stating those truths to the world. The U.S.A. or the evil bastards who control it may one day murder Chavez and destroy Venezuela as they have destroyed Iraq but nothing will take away that moment from the world when Hugo Chavez stood before the entire world and denounced Bush and his country for the evil that they had brought into the world.
That was not, incidentally, in the course of a debate. Nor would a debate in the UN's General Assembly be anything like a debate in a debating club. The GA is similar to a Parliament in that debate is under the control of a President, who can rule on whether or not a speaker has breached the rules of the debating assembly. Here in 3DHS we have to self-regulate, as there is effectively no President. There is no outside power that can stop a speaker who goes too far. (Unless the speaker commits some truly outrageous and horrific breach of the unwritten rules, such as spelling "America" with three K's.)
<<I don't think our debateing here is done in the ideal way , which would provide a fact rich argument , persuasive with logic and rebuttals that would erase all sloppy thinking produceing an avesary of ideas and facts to insure that the ideas and facts known would acheive a high degree of examination and understanding of all sides of all questions would be advanced.
<< We seem to argue more like the real world argues , useing obfuscation to cover weaknesses and scateing fast over thin ice.>>
IMHO, we don't adhere to the highest forms of debate, but we're not the worst either. We fall short.
<<Attacking the honor or honesty of the person presenting a real arguement ought to be understood as a sort of an admission....>>
Except that it's not. Those who have attacked the honour or honesty of another debater here generally reserve the right to disagree with his views at the same time. There is no real admission, just the gratuitous attack. You can't make it into something that it's not, plane.
-
There is no real admission, just the gratuitous attack. You can't make it into something that it's not, plane.
Can If I want to , and you can't stop me, you doody head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
LOL. Can't argue against that logic.
-
Oh for Pete's sake Mikey.
Either you are grossly uninformed about the contents of the Arizona law or you are deliberately misrepresenting that law to have racial content when it in fact does not.
Nothing gratuitous about that analysis. And I know you are familiar with gratuitous slurs as you often lead with them.
-
<<Either you are grossly uninformed about the contents of the Arizona law or you are deliberately misrepresenting that law to have racial content when it in fact does not.>>
You know, BT, you're full of shit. You deliberately twist my words - - I did not, for example, claim that the law had "racial content" - - and then you accuse me of lying because the law does not have racial content. That's pretty fucking dishonest in its own right.
The law studiously avoided racial content, while its makers knew God-damn well that it would inevitably be enforced on a strictly racial basis, that is, against Hispanics and not for example against Irish, against whom the legislators have absolutely no racist bias.
And while we're on the subject of gratuitous smears - - there is absolutely nothing gratuitous in labeling a racist attack on basic civil rights as Nazi or Nazi-inspired. There is a gratuitous smear involved when one falsifies what an opponent has said and then label him as a liar because the words that you have put in his mouth are not true. You want to question honesty, well question THAT. That's what I call totally dishonest.
-
What a bunch of bigoted racist ass-holes. Naturally they're too fucking dumb to know how this thing is going to backfire on them, but they'll find out soon enough.
Says Mikey.
-
<<"What a bunch of bigoted racist ass-holes. Naturally they're too fucking dumb to know how this thing is going to backfire on them, but they'll find out soon enough."
<<Says Mikey. >>
Well, at least you didn't even attempt to deny your own dishonesty in twisting my words. I see now you are objecting to a comment that I led with. Shocking eh? Why? Because the AZ legislature ISN'T bigoted? Because they AREN'T racist? Because they're NOT ass-holes?
BT there isn't one thing that I've said about the AZ legislature that isn't the God's own truth. I can appreciate how you don't like those opinions, but there is certainly no denying them. It is what it is. And believe me, those fucking morons will come to see the error of their ways, once the backlash sets in.
-
What prevents this law from operateing against Irish Illeagal Immagrants?
(Hereinafter known as the III)
I think it could also be used as a way to handle the Canadian Contraband Characters.
(Hereinafter known as the CCC)
Perhaps it would be a handy law to use if a policeman ran into a prohibited Polish personage?
(Hey, we got the whole alphabet here)
What about it, makes this law racially targeted? If the person enforceing the law is a bigot there is no safe way to forbid jaywalking. What is a legislature to do?
-
Well, at least you didn't even attempt to deny your own dishonesty in twisting my words. I see now you are objecting to a comment that I led with. Shocking eh? Why? Because the AZ legislature ISN'T bigoted? Because they AREN'T racist? Because they're NOT ass-holes?
How am I twisting your words. You call them racists and bigots because they wrote a law that bent over backwards to be racially and ethnically neutral. Either you didn't know what was in the law when you led with the slur or you deliberately mislead. Wear the hat that fits best.
-
<<Mikey have you ever considered that you have the gift to drive people to the brink of moronic behavior?>>
I don't drive anyone's behaviour, Kramer. I post what I post and how they choose to respond is 100% their personal decision. It's not up to me and I certainly don't have the right to tell them how to conduct themselves.
I try to treat the individuals with whom I correspond with a certain basic amount of respect and courtesy, even those whose ideas are simply idiotic. However, I don't enjoy being personally insulted and I don't feel that personal insults are, or should be, a normal part of a debate. It bothers me to admit that I find them hurtful, infuriating and/or somewhat depressing, and it's no comfort at all to think that a stronger or more secure personality might just find them amusing or contemptible. I'm not that person, and I don't enjoy either receiving or responding to, personal insults. And I've enjoyed this group a lot more than I did originally, ever since I realized that I didn't have to respond to every personal insult, or to any poster who routinely chooses to use them as a form of "debate."
Basically, I have decided to use this group as a debating forum with those against whom I wish to debate, and as for the others, I hope that they are able to find in this group whatever it is that they are looking for as well.
even though we disagree on most things you are a likable chap, none the less.
-
However, I don't enjoy being personally insulted and I don't feel that personal insults are, or should be, a normal part of a debate.
That is kinda funny coming from a guy who likes to insult people.
You know, BT, you're full of shit.
And believe me, those fucking morons will come to see the error of their ways, once the backlash sets in.
See?
-
<<You know, BT, you're full of shit.>>
a fitting response to anyone questioning my honesty. I do not throw the first insult and I really don't even like to throw back the response. This is what got me down regarding my "debates" with sirs. I was actually in the process of composing a really blistering response to something he wrote about me when I realized (a) I really DON'T enjoy flame wars, exchanging personal insult for personal insult and (b) the whole personal thing was taking up a huge amount of my time for someone who just enjoys debating the issues and (c) I really don't HAVE to respond to every fucking ass-hole in the group whose debating style is one fucking insult after another. Once I realized that it's not "discourteous" not to respond to certain kinds of posts or posters, I really did find my participation in this group to be much more enjoyable. At the same time, an occasional insult deserves an occasional response in kind. That's the "cut and thrust" of debate, and to some extent it's unavoidable. If I find it's occupying too large a percentage of my time, well, fuck it, then it's no longer enjoyable for me and it really isn't worth "debating" this person any longer. I still read your posts (and sirs' as well) and if I ever feel any of them merit a response, well, so be it. I don't give a shit - - you in particular often seem to have intelligent and knowledgeable contributions to make, although way too argumentative, often going into minute detail on relatively minor points which, however, still need to be refuted. In your case, it wasn't only the personal insults but the often excruciating detail required to rebut you that made debate with you a real chore - - when you decided to add personal insult into the mix, I just thought, fuck this, it ain't worth the effort. Personal insults weren't the major element in our debates, but they did become the last straw.
<<And believe me, those fucking morons will come to see the error of their ways, once the backlash sets in.>>
I don't see how insulting comments directed at public figures should annoy any member of a debating group, who is perfectly free to defend them. Look at all the insulting comments I've had to endure that were directed at my personal god and hero, Fidel Castro. If I returned a personal insult to every member of this group who insulted Fidel, this whole fucking newsgroup would be nothing but Flame City. Grow the fuck up.
-
Thanks, Kramer, I appreciate that. I like most of the members in the group, even though we obviously don't agree on a lot of things. As CU4 said once, we'd probably get along over a beer (even though I don't like beer much) or talking about other stuff. I also noted something that plane once said, we're all more alike in some ways than we care to admit. I think he was referring to a tendency to be more accepting of violence when it's performed by somebody we approve of against somebody we disapprove of, but I think it could probably be expanded to other areas as well. What you accept uncritically versus what I accept uncritically, etc. Ideology does tend to divide, even ideology that on its face seems intended to unite.
-
Michael, as far as personal insults go, I tend to push back only when pushed. As far as discussions with me having to do with details, I find often the structure of an argument has to do with details, often ones that are assumed rather than proven. I make no apologies for going after what I believe to be a fault in an argument, and I don't ask anyone to apologize for going after what they find as a fault with my arguments (so long as it is my argument they are attacking, not something that is not my argument).
Seemingly no one around here likes the way I debate, but I've stopped worrying about that. Granted, if no one responded to me, this place would be boring (to me). But I don't really feel I and this place are well served by letting other people determine what I should and should not say. I don't come here to reaffirm other people's preconceived notions. If that means I have to defend myself against them, well, then so be it. If I didn't find some benefit in being here, you'd probably never see me again.
-
<<You know, BT, you're full of shit.>>
a fitting response to anyone questioning my honesty. I do not throw the first insult and I really don't even like to throw back the response. This is what got me down regarding my "debates" with sirs. I was actually in the process of composing a really blistering response to something he wrote about me when I realized (a) I really DON'T enjoy flame wars, exchanging personal insult for personal insult and (b) the whole personal thing was taking up a huge amount of my time for someone who just enjoys debating the issues and (c) I really don't HAVE to respond to every fucking ass-hole in the group whose debating style is one fucking insult after another.
and you know....the sad thing here, is how this post so perfectly reinforces Bt's original inquiry of ignorance vs dishonesty, in this thread. As any frequent saloon patron would know, I rarely get into flame wars of any kind. I detest back and forth gutter namecalling, so I simply try to steer clear. But here you have Tee implying that's one of the main reasons he's taken to ignoring folks like myself
As for the infrequent visitors, our fine communist canadian Tee initially claimed I was simply calling him liar "all the time". Which again, for those steady reading patrons, have seen over the long haul, that's also not accurate, dare I say "dishonest" in claiming such. Tee simply got fed up with me calling him out on one of his latest lies, specifically demonstrating how it was a lie (which is also what Universeprince did, that put Prince on Tee's despised list). Nor will those same folks note that neither Prince nor myself have been calling Tee a "liar all the time" despite the plethora of posts we respond to of his.
But Tee didn't like how he was being shown to be a liar at those specific times in the past. So, we now have the concoction of "flame wars" and hurling of insults as the supposed reasons for such ignoring of current substantive inquiries
Ignorant? Dishonest? Other? You pick