|
Post by Stephen on May 16, 2010 17:41:55 GMT -5
Okay, this one should be easy:
I have two guns... one for each of you.
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2010 19:08:08 GMT -5
It's the virtual spit on the gum on the shoe of Hades. I'm sorry did I say Hades, I meant hollywood. Avatar was IMHO a fine film, very well done and bearing a good message. I assume that your issue with the film was its portrayal of the US military as an oppressive tool by which foreign nations are forced into submission. In a way yes. I'm sick of the "I hate America" attitude of hollywood and the left. (or in your case the very far right.) But that wasn't my main problem. It was as Time reviewer Richard Corliss put it, "This is not only the most elaborate public-service commercial for those of the tree-hugger persuasion; it’s also a call to save what we’ve got, environmentally." The fact of how the belief of animism (Think about the song Paint with all the colors of the wind) is so proportioned in the movie is sickening. In other words - environment is god - that was my problem with the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 16, 2010 19:26:43 GMT -5
A) I'm not on the "very far right." That view of the world is linear... it sees only left and right. It is a limited paradigm that fails to look up or down, back or forwards. I believe "left" and "right," "liberal" and "conservative," "Demmican" and "Republicrat" (as if there's a difference) are obsolete political terms of the past. There are only two sides now... freedom and it's natural enemy, government.
B) Good point about environmentalism in Avatar. However, I did not consider it offensive in any way because the film did not portray mandated environmentalism at gunpoint by government decree.
Remember, it is not environmentalism that we oppose. Let's draw very clear battle lines here and make sure we are fighting the right enemy:
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with environmentalism, even environmentalism of the kookiest sort. I fully support a man's right to hug HIS OWN tree all he wants. You should, too. I fully support an environmentalist's right to save turtles and worship mother earth on HIS OWN LAND.
When the environmentalist decides that YOU must do it on YOUR LAND, that's where we part ways. The problem with the environmentalist movement has nothing to do with their beliefs. Lots of people have quacky beliefs and I support their right to have them.
The problem with the environmentalist movement is that they want to pass laws forcing everyone around them to adopt their practices under threat of government violence. That's the problem.
The real battle here is not between conservatives and environmentalists. It's between government and freedom.
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2010 19:35:14 GMT -5
Lots of people have quacky beliefs and I support their right to have them. So you support the wackjobs who think the solution is to kill everyone. "Oh, except the people who get it of course, such as myself."
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 17, 2010 10:00:10 GMT -5
So you support the wackjobs who think the solution is to kill everyone. "Oh, except the people who get it of course, such as myself." That sort of flippant response really doesn't advance the conversation, Michael. Let's conduct an intelligent conversation that is mutually beneficial and enjoyable. First, look at your grammar. Please note that you did not ask a question. Instead, you made an accusation in the form of a statement that is presented as absolute fact. However, you do not know for a fact that the statement is true, yet you made the statement anyway. That is intellectually dishonest and offensive to the person with whom you converse. You then assumed that those whom I (presumably) support must, by nature, be "wackjobs." This is not only an insult to the person with whom you're speaking, it is also an insult to anyone who holds a view of which you do not personally approve. Thirdly, you assume that people who do not hold your view must want "to kill everyone." That statement is unnecessarily broad to the point of being ludicrous. It is impossible for one person to kill every other human being on earth, not to mention totally counterproductive since no one wants to be the last living human. And you end your statement with a quote, which is vague and unexplained, but which apparently is meant to represent my views. This, of course, presumes that you are more capable of representing the views of others than they themselves are, which is a rather bold assumption and is understandably offensive to others. In order to persuade, we must be able to communicate. In order to communicate, we must develop an ability to sustain conversation. Sustained conversation is best maintained by creating an environment in which your counterpart feels as if his or her opinion is welcomed, rather than waiting for the next insult, assumption or demeaning statement. The question of who is right or wrong cannot be addressed, let alone settled, until you elevate the manner in which you speak to others and refine your ability to communicate, seek truth, and openly exchange ideas. Until then, the only thing you'll be able to effectively participate in are shouting matches, in which I have little interest. www.truthtree.com/debates.shtmlwww.ehow.com/how_2148934_effectively-debate-political-view.htmlwww.resistnet.com/forum/topics/how-to-debate-effectively
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2010 11:14:51 GMT -5
So you support the wackjobs who think the solution is to kill everyone. "Oh, except the people who get it of course, such as myself." That sort of flippant response really doesn't advance the conversation, Michael. Neither does changing the topic of the conversation either. I'm not getting in to this. I have more important things to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 17, 2010 18:32:12 GMT -5
Neither does changing the topic of the conversation either. Your response was so presumptive, incoherent and poorly presented that there was no reasonable alternative but to begin by suggesting some basic debate disciplines. In order to debate an issue, one must first be able to conduct a conversation based on what your counterpart actually says, not on assumptions and extrapolation. Sorry, but there was simply no other way to continue. If you don't intend to finish a conversation, I would recommend not starting one. This conversation began with your strongly stated opinion about the film "Avatar." So you're already "into this," not through anything I've said or done, but by your own choice. Leaving the conversation now is the intellectual equivalent of shouting your opinion at a group of people and then plugging your ears and running out of the room. Learn to debate, Michael. Learn to make the debate enjoyable and profitable for others as well. It is a pragmatic skill that will serve you for years to come. It is also your only hope of ever persuading anyone to your position because even if your beliefs are correct, it is impossible to convey them to anyone else without conversational skills.
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on May 18, 2010 6:34:58 GMT -5
2 guns...one for each of you? Doc Holliday, Tombstone. My personal favorite portrayal .
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on May 18, 2010 9:43:10 GMT -5
Learn to debate, Michael. Learn to make the debate enjoyable and profitable for others as well. It is a pragmatic skill that will serve you for years to come. It is also your only hope of ever persuading anyone to your position because even if your beliefs are correct, it is impossible to convey them to anyone else without conversational skills. And therein lies the problem. This is never going to be true debate, simply because of the fact that neither of us will be persuaded. We have a sixteen page testament to that. So when the element of persuasion go out the window debate turns into a thoughtless argumentative shouting match, which to me is not enjoyable. This is one of the reasons why I'm now going to stop arguing with you.
|
|
Angie
Infantry Sergeant
We'll shoot you down!
Posts: 45
|
Post by Angie on May 18, 2010 10:05:23 GMT -5
Technically since Garrett got that one wrong, I shall guess Avatar! Ooooohhh, I'am right! What a shocker! So the new line is: Shoot! What? Rollers. Naw. Ya. Shoot! The blues bro. [glow=red,2,300]Angie[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 18, 2010 10:11:58 GMT -5
This is never going to be true debate, simply because of the fact that neither of us will be persuaded. 1) Another presumptive statement. You do not know whether I will be persuaded or not. It is critically important in debate that you not attempt to make decisions on behalf of your counterpart. They are capable of speaking for themselves. 2) Debate is not defined as persuasion. Persuasion is defined as persuasion. Debate occurs when sustained conversation takes place discussing two or more sides of an issue in an intelligent, mutually agreeable manner. That is the skill that I am encouraging you to obtain. If you want to be in something other than a thoughtless shouting match, you should not write things like you did in Reply #33. This thread is where it is right now because of your presumptive statement, incoherent reply, name-calling and ill-advised attempts to speak on behalf of your counterpart. Further, if you intend to state your personal opinions as strongly as you did in Reply #24, you owe it to those with whom you converse to study, understand and respect the basic rules of debate. Otherwise, you are reduced to the level of one who strongly asserts their own personal opinion, addresses any response with name-calling and presumptive statements, then quickly leaves while righteously claiming that the conversation has somehow become "a thoughtless, argumentative shouting match," completely oblivious to the fact that it was your own inability to debate which created the "shouting match" that you now want to escape. I suggest that whatever is demanding your time right now is not as important as developing the life skill of intelligent, sustained conversation and open exchange of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on May 18, 2010 10:14:58 GMT -5
2 guns...one for each of you? Doc Holliday, Tombstone. My personal favorite portrayal . The "Wyatt Earp" film has some merit, but it has the misfortune of coming out at about the same time as "Tombstone." And Tombstone was perhaps one of the most quotable films of all time. One of my long-standing favorites. BTW, we hope to go to Tombstone on vacation this year! The Birdcage Theater is still standing and you can tour it. Remember the theatrical scene in the film? ("Prettiest man I ever saw!") That was in the Birdcage.
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on May 18, 2010 10:38:54 GMT -5
This is never going to be true debate, simply because of the fact that neither of us will be persuaded. 1) Another presumptive statement. You do not know whether I will be persuaded or not. It is critically important in debate that you not attempt to make decisions on behalf of your counterpart. They are capable of speaking for themselves. Which is why I provided evidence for my statement which you seemed to have ignored: This is never going to be true debate, simply because of the fact that neither of us will be persuaded. We have a sixteen page testament to that.If you have forgotten I was referring to the Michael and the Underwear Bomber thread. Sixteen pages of you trying to get me to question reality until you decided to lock it for a reason that still eludes me.
|
|
garrett
Lieutenant
Were just amature lovers!
Posts: 160
|
Post by garrett on May 18, 2010 12:27:08 GMT -5
1) Another presumptive statement. You do not know whether I will be persuaded or not. It is critically important in debate that you not attempt to make decisions on behalf of your counterpart. They are capable of speaking for themselves. Which is why I provided evidence for my statement which you seemed to have ignored: This is never going to be true debate, simply because of the fact that neither of us will be persuaded. We have a sixteen page testament to that.If you have forgotten I was referring to the Michael and the Underwear Bomber thread. Sixteen pages of you trying to get me to question reality until you decided to lock it for a reason that still eludes me. hey hey hey, Please dont get in a debate on this thread.
|
|
garrett
Lieutenant
Were just amature lovers!
Posts: 160
|
Post by garrett on May 18, 2010 12:28:22 GMT -5
lol, heres a funny movie quote:
"I see a rainbow ponie."
|
|