παραλία
Well then, let me state myself plainly and get out from behind this cloud of mystery in which I had been veiled.
I do not think the U.S. government is at all times 100% honest with its citizens and I think that is bad.
Whew! You are right. It feels so much better to get that off of my chest in such a straightforward manner.
E=I*R
Well, duh...
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
Well, see, nobody said that the government is 100% honest. That's what I'm taking issue with. You jump into the thread to state your belief that the government isn't 100% honest, which nobody said otherwise, and in doing that, you accused me of saying something that I did not - that we should trust the government. That's why I took issue with what you were saying. You put words into my mouth, took my statement out of context, and twisted it to mean something it wasn't, and there was no purpose in doing so.Originally Posted by filihok
παραλία
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
providing information directly from our own government.Show me the "accusation".Because, yeah, EVERYTHING the government says is completely and totally to be taken without any salt grains. Mmm...government info is delicious as is.
Dickay's sources were being called into question. Then the above statement was made. And I called it into question. I didn't say anything like "Houston believes that the government always tells the truth". I just said (in a sarcastic way) that the government does not always tell the truth. How that is an inflamatory statement or an indirect put down, I fail to see.
As I've stated before my problem wasn't with HoustonGM or OHMs or anybody, it was with the BUSINESS of our government
o
Your comment very blatantly implied that you thought that I was intending to say that everything the government says is true. Perhaps it was because you made your statement in a sarcastic way. Either way, whatever. No big deal.
παραλία
No. No it didn't. And thank you for again presuming that you know more about myself and my motivations than I do.
And if this little deal, or maybe-medium deal, took over 4 pages of the thread, I shudder to wonder what would have happened if it were a big deal.
But, I suppose that although I "don't know" Houston I need to realize that his statements should not be taken "exactly literally" and that he will read things into other people's statements that were not there. So, when these things come up I guess I have two choices: One-I'll just chalk it up to "Houston being Houston" or Two-change my entire way of communicating so it better fits into his line of thinking.
o
"providing information directly from our own government. "....
"Because, yeah, EVERYTHING the government says is completely and totally to be taken without any salt grains. Mmm...government info is delicious as is."
If that wasn't meant as a reply to what I said, and instead just meant as a general statement, seperate from anything anybody else said, you did a damn good job of not making it seem so.
Sorry man, but when you quote somebody, and cut out half of that person's statement, and then sarcastically reply to the out-of-context statement you quoted, that does imply that you either a) thought they meant something they didn't or b) are making it seem as though they meant or said something that they didn't.
And looking back, it had nothing to do with you taking my statement to be perfectly literal, as I originally said, because my statement, even taken literally, meant one thing and one thing only - ohms provided many sources, dickay didn't. And yes, your reply did leave the implication that you thought it meant more than that.
παραλία
Yes. YOU made the statement that I responded to. As I've said any hostility-for lack of a better word-I had was toward the problems with the government and not towards you. As many times as I read those two statements I don't see it referring to you in anyway. Perhaps that's just a difference in our perceptions.
o
Id wager that a large portion of people who provide all sorts of stats for why drinking age should be lowered are currently between 17 and 20.
i just love the argument regarding how it will reduce binge drinking in teens.
yeah sure , lowering the age might reduce binge drinking in 19 year olds.
but then the 19 year olds will buy booze for the 15 year olds ....and pretty soon we'll be hearing how we should lower the legal age to 17 to reduce binge drinking in 15 year olds .... and then the 17 year olds will but it for the 13 yr olds so we should lower it to 15 ...
point being it doesnt matter where you draw the line or even what the SUBJECT is.
the people just below any minimum will always clamor that tey are being treated unfairly.
and i know this because of the ruckus i made when the legal age in jersey went from 18 to 21 AND i had to sign up for the draft
E=I*R
They don't seem to have problems with drinking in Europe...
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
παραλία
That's not necessarily because of a lower drinking age. There are a lot of differences in society between Americans and Europe.
It's chicken and egg
Do europeans have less problems with alcohol because of their laws or do europeans have less laws regarding alcohol because of their attitudes towards alcohol. (not as parallel as I wanted but...)
E=I*R
Both?Do europeans have less problems with alcohol because of their laws or do europeans have less laws regarding alcohol because of their attitudes towards alcohol. (not as parallel as I wanted but...)
Those sorts of things tend to feed on each other (laws <-> attitudes)
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
Very, Very True!
Certifiable
Yes, I've bandied about that word quite a bit in this thread.
Here's Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary's definition of arrogance.
Arrogance: a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims.
I can't help but think that ANY human being that believes he (or she) has the superior knowledge or wisdom to tell another adult human being what he (or she) should do in his (or her) private life is BY DEFINITION arrogance, since it presumes a superiority of judgement based on presumptuous claims (such as drugs are wrong, period... which of course ignores the other "legal" drugs such as caffeine which is "pushed" every morning in stores accross America).
In fact, I think, these beliefs are, by DEFINITION, arrogant. So, if you don't like arrogance and hypocrisy (I could make another post explaining that, but I'll wait) and the fact that I point it out, then by all means place me on ignore. But I'm NOT gonna stop pointing it out. And since I've self banned based on guilt before, I'm not gonna anymore, so for the mods out there, go ahead and ban me too. I won't argue.
But, arrogance is arrogance. And hypocrisy is hypocrisy. Period. I'll argue it till I die. (Which probably won't be long anyway).
Reply With Quote
