Villaraigosa Calls for Boycott of Arizona

[Kramer]

<<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.

[Universe Prince]

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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Universe Prince]

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.

[sirs]

<<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