Hillary and Trump

[Karl]

It seems to me his is stating more than just an opinion, but sees his worldview as fact. If he would state it as an opinion of a personal nature as opposed to making others wrong, that is fine. But, his responses are generally stated that anyone who  disagrees with him is wrong.

 

 

"That in no way creates a friendly atmosphere of discussion".

Oh look it Ralis's Kangaroo court. I think you are probably circling pretty close to the edge of the forum rule book at this point. If I was a mod you would now be on a warning.

[Karl]

There you go again.

I disagree completely. ;-)

[Karl]

The question is supposed to be:

 

"Do you still beat your wife?"

 

Any answer is an affirmation.

Yes I know. I nearly didn't bother to answer that post so it was half hearted.

[Karl]

If I agreed with Karl I´d call his self-assurance certitude; since I don´t I´ll go with narrow-mindedness.

 

(PS Let´s rename this thread Hillary, Trump and Karl.)

Narrow mindedness suits me fine. ;-)

 

Does no one find it interesting that you all hold opinions, but seem threatened by mine ? Its just another opinion, so, here I ask, is this because you aren't confident of your opinion ?

[ralis]

Oh look it Ralis's Kangaroo court. I think you are probably circling pretty close to the edge of the forum rule book at this point. If I was a mod you would now be on a warning.

 

Quite honestly, the discussions here with you are not always friendly. Would you expect me to say otherwise? Or, perhaps I should state that I am in Randian supreme bliss.

[Brian]

It seems to me his is stating more than just an opinion, but sees his worldview as fact. If he would state it as an opinion of a personal nature as opposed to making others wrong, that is fine. But, his responses are generally stated that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. That in no way creates a friendly atmosphere of discussion.

And that's why I sometimes yank his chain.

[Brian]

Yeah, you got there in the end :-) I had a little chuckle at the stepping stone of thoughts. We all have an opinion and if someone's opinion means anything then it's a strong, consistent and well reasoned one. That's the point of a forum, to aire our views, seek other views to test our own view and modify/re examine our own opinions if needed.

Ummm... Nnnnooooooo... You haven't been waiting for me to get there because this is the point I've been pummeling you on for over a year and you've consistently insisted I was in denial of reality.

 

<shrug>

[Karl]

Quite honestly, the discussions here with you are not always friendly. Would you expect me to say otherwise? Or, perhaps I should state that I am in Randian supreme bliss.

I'm not your friend Ralis. We don't need to agree.

[ralis]

I'm not your friend Ralis. We don't need to agree.

 

If I were, then we would always be in agreement?

Edited September 8, 2016 by ralis

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.  Like a snowballs chance in hell.

[Karl]

Ummm... Nnnnooooooo... You haven't been waiting for me to get there because this is the point I've been pummeling you on for over a year and you've consistently insisted I was in denial of reality.

<shrug>

What ? You have been pummelling me for over a year to tell me I have an opinion and you have an opinion ? Are you sure ?

 

I thought your last line summed it up very well. We don't need to state that it is an opinion because it is implicit.

 

I don't really know why I even have to explain this on a forum. It's like explaining why there is writing in the pages of a book.

[Karl]

If I were, then we would always be in agreement?

They aren't concurrent statements.

[Karl]

And that's why I sometimes yank his chain.

I never yank yours, be assured of that.

[ralis]

They aren't concurrent statements.

 

What are you trying to say?

[Karl]

What are you trying to say?

There is no requirement for 'friendly' discussions because we aren't friends. We can be civil, but we needn't be polite, nor weak.

 

Resorting to psychologising on a forum by picking on a specific member is not discussing anything, it is a direct attack and is not part of the ongoing discussion. As I understand it, that behaviour is unacceptable. If I had been modding here- as liberal as I was-you would have received a warning. I don't need the mods to enforce the rules, I prefer to do that face to face and ask you very nicely to desist.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Karl

[liminal_luke]

Narrow mindedness suits me fine. ;-)

 

Does no one find it interesting that you all hold opinions, but seem threatened by mine ? Its just another opinion, so, here I ask, is this because you aren't confident of your opinion ?

 

Yes, I find that interesting and I´m trying to figure it out.  That´s one reason I listened to an hour and a half of videos about NLP and double-binds.  

 

We all have opinions and I often disagree with people.  Disagreement never gives me warm fuzzies exactly, but usually I can go about differences of opinion without feeling majorly irked.  Take Brian, for instance.  We disagree, I think, about many social issues.  The one that sticks out in my memory now is about planned parenthood and the selling of fetal tissue.  I´m generally more aligned with Ralis politically, but we have disagreements as well.  Just recently, Ralis thought JoeBlast should of been sanctioned by the moderators for making violent comments (in this very thread, I believe) against Hillary.  I disagreed saying that JB was just using colorful language.

 

So what is it about disagreements with you that feel different to me than disagreements with Brian or Ralis?  I do wonder about that.  Here´s what I think it is: when we disagree they don´t attack my character.  Maybe Ralis is right and it´s the double-bind thing.  Take the example from the post I quote.  (I bolded the part that contains the insult/ double-bind twist.)  You imply that if someone "feels threatened" by you then they have a problem, a lack of confidence in their opinions. Either I´m OK with you (which I´m not) or I´m lacking in confidence (which doesn´t feel good either).  So there you have it, a classic choice between two unwanted outcomes.  Either way, I lose.    

[ralis]

Yes, I find that interesting and I´m trying to figure it out.  That´s one reason I listened to an hour and a half of videos about NLP and double-binds.  

 

We all have opinions and I often disagree with people.  Disagreement never gives me warm fuzzies exactly, but usually I can go about differences of opinion without feeling majorly irked.  Take Brian, for instance.  We disagree, I think, about many social issues.  The one that sticks out in my memory now is about planned parenthood and the selling of fetal tissue.  I´m generally more aligned with Ralis politically, but we have disagreements as well.  Just recently, Ralis thought JoeBlast should of been sanctioned by the moderators for making violent comments (in this very thread, I believe) against Hillary.  I disagreed saying that JB was just using colorful language.

 

So what is it about disagreements with you that feel different to me than disagreements with Brian or Ralis?  I do wonder about that.  Here´s what I think it is: when we disagree they don´t attack my character.  Maybe Ralis is right and it´s the double-bind thing.  Take the example from the post I quote.  (I bolded the part that contains the insult/ double-bind twist.)  You imply that if someone "feels threatened" by you then they have a problem, a lack of confidence in their opinions. Either I´m OK with you (which I´m not) or I´m lacking in confidence (which doesn´t feel good either).  So there you have it, a classic choice between two unwanted outcomes.  Either way, I lose.    

 

That was very well said!

[ralis]

There is no requirement for 'friendly' discussions because we aren't friends. We can be civil, but we needn't be polite, nor weak.

 

Resorting to psychologising on a forum by picking on a specific member is not discussing anything, it is a direct attack and is not part of the ongoing discussion. As I understand it, that behaviour is unacceptable. If I had been modding here- as liberal as I was-you would have received a warning. I don't need the mods to enforce the rules, I prefer to do that face to face and ask you very nicely to desist.

 

I am pointing out your communication style in which I stated reasons for. Further, I have openly criticized others narratives here on this forum and you are not an exception.

 

I am not in anyway resorting to psychology, but pointing out a communication problem here.

Edited September 9, 2016 by ralis

[Karl]

I am pointing out your communication style in which I stated reasons for. Further, I have openly criticized others narratives here on this forum and you are not an exception.

 

I am not in anyway resorting to psychology, but pointing out a communication problem here.

You find it intimidating ? Isnt that my problem and not yours ? If I have an opinion then I orate it in my own style. Some will like it and some won't. I'm not trying to win friends. People can just apply the ignore function, or ignore my posts. I wonder why you don't ?

[Marblehead]

People can just apply the ignore function, or ignore my posts. I wonder why you don't ?

Hey!  I might try that.  Life without Karl!  Not utopia but still ...

[Karl]

Yes, I find that interesting and I´m trying to figure it out.  That´s one reason I listened to an hour and a half of videos about NLP and double-binds.  

 

We all have opinions and I often disagree with people.  Disagreement never gives me warm fuzzies exactly, but usually I can go about differences of opinion without feeling majorly irked.  Take Brian, for instance.  We disagree, I think, about many social issues.  The one that sticks out in my memory now is about planned parenthood and the selling of fetal tissue.  I´m generally more aligned with Ralis politically, but we have disagreements as well.  Just recently, Ralis thought JoeBlast should of been sanctioned by the moderators for making violent comments (in this very thread, I believe) against Hillary.  I disagreed saying that JB was just using colorful language.

 

So what is it about disagreements with you that feel different to me than disagreements with Brian or Ralis?  I do wonder about that.  Here´s what I think it is: when we disagree they don´t attack my character.  Maybe Ralis is right and it´s the double-bind thing.  Take the example from the post I quote.  (I bolded the part that contains the insult/ double-bind twist.)  You imply that if someone "feels threatened" by you then they have a problem, a lack of confidence in their opinions. Either I´m OK with you (which I´m not) or I´m lacking in confidence (which doesn´t feel good either).  So there you have it, a classic choice between two unwanted outcomes.  Either way, I lose.

 

It wasn't a double bind, you created one. There was no implicit, nor explicit alternate answer 'I'm ok with you'.

 

That you don't like my style, tone, opinion is irrelevant to me, I only care about the argument itself.

 

I don't like being insulted though, I take great exception to it, I try not to insult others. When I ask 'is it confidence' ? this isn't an insult but a genuine inquiry because the argument is getting bogged down in personal emotional issues and petty concerns over tone. Each time the argument falters it becomes 'Karl's fault' for being such a monstrous thread hogger, being narrow minded, bigoted and all manner of horrors, but this is not used within the context of the discussion itself which is fine-I can refute it and do so through argument. Instead it is an ad hominem aside.

 

I get accused like the man at the card table that's winning the hands. It just has to be a trick, I'm cheating, there are cards up my sleeve, I must have a calculator, I'm hypnotising the players or intimidating them with an evil stare, casting spells, I've got voodoo dolls and pins, I'm devoid of emotion, I'm too passionate...the list grows daily. :-) Here's a really horrible thought, it might be because I'm right and you have been unable to disprove or dislodge that truth and that it is true what they say 'the truth hurts'. So, instead, I get the crucifixion treatment, stoned to death for being a heretic, for daring to speak what it is forbidden to speak.

[Karl]

Hey!  I might try that.  Life without Karl!  Not utopia but still ...

If only they left that ignore button pressed. I have a sneaking suspicion that they have an overwhelming need to peek from behind the cushions just to see what unpleasant thing is happening on the screen. Ive put people on pause and they don't get switched back to play. I decide they have nothing worthy of reading or replying to so click and they are disappeared.

[Brian]

What ? You have been pummelling me for over a year to tell me I have an opinion and you have an opinion ? Are you sure ?

 

I thought your last line summed it up very well. We don't need to state that it is an opinion because it is implicit.

 

I don't really know why I even have to explain this on a forum. It's like explaining why there is writing in the pages of a book.

Yes, Karl -- I am absolutely sure that I am really not sure about anything. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

Thing is, I recognize this.

[Karl]

Yes, Karl -- I am absolutely sure that I am really not sure about anything. Haven't you been paying attention?Thing is, I recognize this.

I'm absolutely sure I am not sure what you are saying ;-)

 

However I am absolutely sure about what I am absolutely sure about.

 

And as I'm not relegating you to the ignore list you can be sure that I do read what you write, even though I don't always agree with it I do find your arguments interesting- except when you say you are 'yanking my chain' as you put it. That's boring and stupid, but I can forgive those lapses of reason ;-)

Edited September 9, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

I'm absolutely sure I am not sure what you are saying ;-)

 

However I am absolutely sure about what I am absolutely sure about.

And you are quite free to believe that if it makes you comfortable.

 

Tiger got to hunt,

Bird got to fly;

Man got to sit and wonder, “Why, why, why?”

 

Tiger got to sleep,

Bird got to land;

Man got to tell himself he understand.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Brian