Juan_Bottom wrote:Well look, you came into this thread already on one side of the argument, and you tripped all over yourself in the first three posts. "There are varying degrees of severity in these situations" was exactly the point I made, but you argued against that point by agreeing with me. Then you just mixed it up all over the place. "Juan has to answer for what he said" - you'd say, twice more, after I already answered you a second time,... as you ignored these 400 year-old philosophical arguments of intellect - By debating yourself about society's rules like you were born yesterday.
And I don't care if a body has never heard of these arguments by Voltaire or Einstein or anyone else. I'm not appealing to Voltaire, just pointing out that society has been in agreement about this for hundreds of years - even before these United States were dreamed of.
It's a sign of intelligence to think upon an idea, without having to accept the idea as true. But you fail to even think upon the idea... let alone accept/understand that Society has already decided. Your arguments were, as I said at the beginning of this thread, ripped straight out of your company's HR handbook. And it's fine if you can't articulate your belief in the employee code of conduct perfectly, but then don't point the finger at me and say I'm the bad guy for attacking pedophilia like it's exactly the same as attacking the Holocaust. And if your going to walk away from a discussion or ignore an argument someone hands you in good faith, at least have the courage to say "I was wrong" or "f*ck you." Don't just say to yourself "well I can't beat that, so I'll just troll." I mean, I don't mind trolls, or dumb people, or even dumb troll people, but keep your character straight. You'll make any argument you ever post again seem like a troll post. It happened to phatscotty and it will happen to you.
So since you found a percieved contradiction between the beginning of this thread and the end by myself, any argument I ever post in again will seem like a troll post? That would require quite a bit of bull-headedness juan, are you sure you really want to go down that road? There comes a point where you realize that something that is glaringly obvious will never be met by the person you are conversing with(juan) due to their sheer stubbornness.
I got your point about Voltaire, etc., but I don't think they apply to your personal situation here since you dish out just as much vileness/tastelessness as you plead is being served. I still don't believe in your personal interpretation of "things deemed by society" anyway as it's such a broad statement it's automatically useless to the conversation and your modern evidence is along the lines of what comedians use as joke material. Come on.
I'm pointing the finger of hypocrisy jaun, none other. I'm sorry if my character changes during the course of an argument instead of staunchly defending till the death my original thoughts but that's just how I do things. Try it, you might like it.
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:09 am
Please elaborate. How can they be minimall bending but with a more bending capacity?