Flat Earthers and other regressions

[Annoyed]

Since when am I a liberal? For your information I do read Fox News (I just don't care much for their abundant opinion pieces). I also read the National Review and National Interest, both being right wing sources, among others. I have never rejected Fox News as a source and if you are thinking about that stupid white supremacist (anti)immigration group then even then you are mistaken as I never just discarded that information. I actually read it and pointed out where in the methodology they have erred and provided a libertarian source (CATO, as in not liberal/left wing) to counter illustrate my concerns.

I don't watch MSNBC, don't care for it and much what they say and I am not an avid CNN viewer (Don't care for many of their opinion sources). I am basically what you would consider "big foot", the thing you either can't or refuse to see or otherwise don't realize exists. I am a moderate (right of center in many cases).

That said, I don't like arguing with people who operate only in strawman arguments. If you have something to say to other people, quote their posts and respond to their arguments and don't pretend that their arguments are mine. If you quote me, respond to me. I am not going to defend what you think I am versus what I actually am. That is the difference between good faith and bad faith arguments. And yours is one done in bad faith. If you want me to discuss the link and information you posted, make a new post and actually speak to me, based on what I believe, and arguments I have made and drop the strawman arguments and I'll respond. Until then, I'm not responding to the information you posted. Let the liberals here do that since that is who you made that post to.

I WAS responding directly to your post.

In essence, your opposition to public sector unions is based on purely theoretical grounds.

My response was to list several facts, not theories as to why I oppose public sector unions.

I then followed up with a link to a piece that detailed some of the problems with those unions that I had just happened to read earlier in the morning.

This was in direct response to your post. But since the piece was Fox, you refuse to look at it.

[aretood2]

I WAS responding directly to your post.



My response was to list several facts, not theories as to why I oppose public sector unions.

I then followed up with a link to a piece that detailed some of the problems with those unions that I had just happened to read earlier in the morning.

This was in direct response to your post. But since the piece was Fox, you refuse to look at it.

When did I refuse to look at it?

[Annoyed]

When did I refuse to look at it?

Right here.

If you want me to discuss the link and information you posted, make a new post and actually speak to me, based on what I believe, and arguments I have made and drop the strawman arguments and I'll respond. Until then, I'm not responding to the information you posted. Let the liberals here do that since that is who you made that post to.

[aretood2]

Right here.

Let's replay events in chronological order here.

On 8:06AM Eastern Time you posted this:

Yes, I know, you will disregard this, as it's from Fox, rather than some leftie site. That doesn't change the information.

When I asked you to show me where I have done such a thing you provided a post that I made today at 1:04 PM today. So how is it that a post that was made at 1:04 PM justifies your accusation that I don't read Foxnews or whatever when that accusation was made at 8:06 AM? More on that latter.

Then at 12:58 PM I said the following:

That said, I don't like arguing with people who operate only in strawman arguments. If you have something to say to other people, quote their posts and respond to their arguments and don't pretend that their arguments are mine. If you quote me, respond to me. I am not going to defend what you think I am versus what I actually am. That is the difference between good faith and bad faith arguments. And yours is one done in bad faith. If you want me to discuss the link and information you posted, make a new post and actually speak to me, based on what I believe, and arguments I have made and drop the strawman arguments and I'll respond. Until then, I'm not responding to the information you posted. Let the liberals here do that since that is who you made that post to.

Notice the bolded (Emphasis added in this response not in the original post). As you can see (as anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can see) I am more than willing to read and accept that link as a source as long as you don't come at me with strawman arguments which amount to nothing more than ingenious attacks.

Then later at 1:09 PM you responded to my post at 1:06 PM by accusing me of having said in the past that I don't read or won't accept Fox News...read below.

I WAS responding directly to your post.






My response was to list several facts, not theories as to why I oppose public sector unions.


I then followed up with a link to a piece that detailed some of the problems with those unions that I had just happened to read earlier in the morning.


This was in direct response to your post. But since the piece was Fox, you refuse to look at it.

Yet at no time did I ever say I "refuse to look at it". The underlined sentence says that your argument was in response to my post. So where in that post or previous posts had I ever said that I'd refuse to look at it? The answer is nowhere for I have never said that. But yet you are playing off a post made at 1:06 PM claiming that your post made at 8:06 AM was a direct response to a post made later? What???

The actual post you were responding to only said the following on the subject. One sentence. At 8:51 PM Yesterday.

In essence, your opposition to public sector unions is based on purely theoretical grounds.

Nowhere here did I refuse to read Fox News, nor did I demand liberal sources (and I have never done so). Nor have I ever been liberal...yet somehow you say I will only accept liberal sources?

Let me get this straight. You called me a leftie and accused me of not wanting to read a Fox News source based on a post I hadn't made when you initially said that? And then you used that post to justify what you said before I made that post? And on top of that you ignored the part where I said that I would read and accept the Fox News source as long as you dropped the strawmen attacks?

How does any of that make sense? The way I see it these are the only possible explinations as to how you can even begin to justify what you are saying:

A: You are drunk/high and can't keep track of anything.
B: You have poor reading comprehension skills and you have deficiencies in logical thinking
C: You are telling bold faced lies because that's all you have left to save face.
D: You don't actually read what people post and screwed up.
E: You can tell the future and thus saw my response to you before I even made it and that's why you quoted it as justification for an older post...but still didn't bother to see cared what the future post actually said.
F: A combination of any or all of the above.

So drop the crap and tell me when have I ever said that I don't accept Fox News as a source? Because I never said that not even in the post you quoted claiming that that was when I said it.

[jelgate]

What about G. His dementia and senility is getting worse

[Annoyed]

Let's replay events in chronological order here.

On 8:06AM Eastern Time you posted this:



When I asked you to show me where I have done such a thing you provided a post that I made today at 1:04 PM today. So how is it that a post that was made at 1:04 PM justifies your accusation that I don't read Foxnews or whatever when that accusation was made at 8:06 AM? More on that latter.

Then at 12:58 PM I said the following:



Notice the bolded (Emphasis added in this response not in the original post). As you can see (as anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension can see) I am more than willing to read and accept that link as a source as long as you don't come at me with strawman arguments which amount to nothing more than ingenious attacks.

Then later at 1:09 PM you responded to my post at 1:06 PM by accusing me of having said in the past that I don't read or won't accept Fox News...read below.



Yet at no time did I ever say I "refuse to look at it". The underlined sentence says that your argument was in response to my post. So where in that post or previous posts had I ever said that I'd refuse to look at it? The answer is nowhere for I have never said that. But yet you are playing off a post made at 1:06 PM claiming that your post made at 8:06 AM was a direct response to a post made later? What???

The actual post you were responding to only said the following on the subject. One sentence. At 8:51 PM Yesterday.




Nowhere here did I refuse to read Fox News, nor did I demand liberal sources (and I have never done so). Nor have I ever been liberal...yet somehow you say I will only accept liberal sources?

Let me get this straight. You called me a leftie and accused me of not wanting to read a Fox News source based on a post I hadn't made when you initially said that? And then you used that post to justify what you said before I made that post? And on top of that you ignored the part where I said that I would read and accept the Fox News source as long as you dropped the strawmen attacks?

How does any of that make sense? The way I see it these are the only possible explinations as to how you can even begin to justify what you are saying:

A: You are drunk/high and can't keep track of anything.
B: You have poor reading comprehension skills and you have deficiencies in logical thinking
C: You are telling bold faced lies because that's all you have left to save face.
D: You don't actually read what people post and screwed up.
E: You can tell the future and thus saw my response to you before I even made it and that's why you quoted it as justification for an older post...but still didn't bother to see cared what the future post actually said.
F: A combination of any or all of the above.

So drop the crap and tell me when have I ever said that I don't accept Fox News as a source? Because I never said that not even in the post you quoted claiming that that was when I said it.

I'll take choice E. Based upon your history, (yes, yours, you've rejected sites that I've posted before), it wasn't too had to predict that you wouldn't give much if any credence to the Fox piece.

[Gatefan1976]

You take choice E because it makes you look less of a dick, nothing more.
Tood is a right winger, just a moderate, same as Jel when you dig past the bacon. The fact you cannot see that speaks to your failure of understanding people. You are actually B, C and D.

I told you what you say says more about you than me, but you want to deny that.
You demand women must have kids, but if they come over from some line, they are not your problem, they can die, be put in Jail, have no rights and be a "pain in the ass" until they just stop being your problem. As for the kids, well they are not an issue at all for you

[Falcon Horus]

Oh and don't mess with the Weaver's Guild seriously.

Appropriately motivated they are a force to be reckoned with.

[Annoyed]

You take choice E because it makes you look less of a dick, nothing more.
Tood is a right winger, just a moderate, same as Jel when you dig past the bacon. The fact you cannot see that speaks to your failure of understanding people. You are actually B, C and D.

I told you what you say says more about you than me, but you want to deny that.
You demand women must have kids, but if they come over from some line, they are not your problem, they can die, be put in Jail, have no rights and be a "pain in the ass" until they just stop being your problem. As for the kids, well they are not an issue at all for you

At what point have I ever said "women must have kids" ??

I am absolutely pro-choice. Aside from rape/etc., every woman on the face of the earth has (or should have, some places have crazy laws) the right to choose to keep her pants on. 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

And as far as "some line", the solution is to prevent them from crossing that line, period. Their own society is responsible for them, not ours.

So, responsible behavior when it comes to pregnancy, responsible behavior by their native country.. Do you get the common thread here? Responsibility?

[Falcon Horus]

I am absolutely pro-choice. Aside from rape/etc., every woman on the face of the earth has (or should have, some places have crazy laws) the right to choose to keep her pants on. 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

In a perfect world this would be ... err... perfect, but we don't live in a perfect world, so perhaps it's time to up the healthcare system and make sure that every woman has access to reproductive healthcare such as items to prevent pregnancy, ranging from pills in any form, to sex education.

If sex can only be used to make babies... we're in for a rough time.
I guess, those can't conceive, and same-sex relationships are off the hook here. Good luck!

****

Crazy article, I came across this morning, a woman in Alabama is being charged for manslaughter after she was shot in the abdomen and miscarried. What ****ed up thinking is that?

[DigiFluid]

Crazy article, I came across this morning, a woman in Alabama is being charged for manslaughter after she was shot in the abdomen and miscarried. What ****ed up thinking is that?

Silly FH, women aren’t people. Where did you get a daft idea like that?

[Chaka-Z0]

It's her fault for not defending herself the first time around.

That's why the 2nd amendment prevents such a situation because not just criminals have guns! Oh wait..

[aretood2]

I'll take choice E. Based upon your history, (yes, yours, you've rejected sites that I've posted before), it wasn't too had to predict that you wouldn't give much if any credence to the Fox piece.

No, no I haven't.

[Annoyed]

No, no I haven't.

I clearly recall you rejecting some information from an anti-illegal immigration site, said the owner was a member of the KKK or some such.

[magi877]

i've been reading history, since about age 13

took classes whenever could through HS

continued the subject in the army with college classes and CLEP tests

after the army i earned two under grad degrees from the univ of pittsburgh

1 in social sciences, concentrating on history/ political science, the other in social psychology

i also have a masters but it is not in history

(hey, i had to get my money's worth--or rather the amount of New gi bill money the VA had in my name)


but on the subject of feudalism and its origins, it is not clear cut

we only have about an estimated 1/3 of written roman records and, many of those non romans who practiced it on the early middle ages were not literate or, wrote about other issues- like god.

but there are two main 'ancestors' of feudalism-the late roman 'protection racket' scheme in between roman land owners and german immigrants, and then the later german tribal system of over lordship