| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2007 11:47:10 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Louis:
It's one thing to call someone adolescent, it's quite another to counter with "pig". |
No, no, no. You were not just being called a pig, you were being called an "amoral pig", which is a creature very different than all the moral pigs out there. |
And quite a step up from being an 'immoral' pig. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 01:12:15 PM · #202 |
Amoral: having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
I called Louis an amoral pig in response to this reprehensible statement:
"I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars?"
It was certainly indicative of having no moral standards, restraints, or principles to project that kind of belief on me.
I neither said, nor implied, nor have EVER indicated the kind of moral caliber on any level to justify that kind of unprovoked attack on my character.
I also explained, pretty much in detail, my political stance in an earlier post, at *Louis' request*, and I certainly did not speak out in favor of war on any level.
So where did that comment come from if not to be abusive?
I always kind of thought it wa in bad form to make insulting, abusive, untrue statements and/or comments here, but obviously that is not the case.
My comment stands.
Perhaps someone could explain why that was out of line.......other than the basic attack on the character of a pig.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 01:35:54 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I always kind of thought it wa in bad form to make insulting, abusive, untrue statements and/or comments here, but obviously that is not the case. |
So you are saying we are all amoral pigs! :)
(Just kidding, couldn't resist)
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 02:08:10 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I called Louis an amoral pig in response to this reprehensible statement:
"I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars?"
...Perhaps someone could explain why that was out of line.......other than the basic attack on the character of a pig. |
I think that it is out of line for some very basic and obvious reasons.
Louis pointed out that Bush's lies have been far more costly than Clinton's lies. You responded to say that Clinton was just lucky that his lies didn't cause the loss of a bunch of lives or money:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That his lying and general lack of integrity didn't cost us a bunch of money or lives was merely dumb luck on his part. |
To come up with that statement, your premise must be that Clinton was lucky, whereas Bush was unlucky. Your statement assumes that the lies of Clinton and Bush had equal status, and it was "mere dumb luck" that Clinton didn't cause exactly the same result.
It is a completely rational, normal and reasonable thing to point out that your statement is absurd: Clinton's lies about his marriage are of a different order of magnitude to those told by Bush because of the subject matter and consequences. There is no meaningful comparison to be made.
If Louis made you look absurd, it is because your statement was absurd.
You also make yourself look foolish by treating a question (Louis: "So you think... ?") as a statement of fact (NikonJeb: "unprovoked attack on my character").
Rather than resorting to childish name calling, you would have saved your reputation and advanced your position far more effectively by correcting your statement to properly reflect your views (if you mispoke), or acknowledging that your initial statement was wrong, or (if you cannot do either of these) by staying completely silent on the subject.
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 14:13:34.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 02:32:40 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Clinton's lies about his marriage are of a different order of magnitude to those told by Bush because of the subject matter and consequences. There is no meaningful comparison to be made. |
So since there is no proof that Bush lied, are you just assuming he lied and calling him guilty? I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty? Or do you assume to be better informed then congress who has not even started impeachment trials for accusations of such a horrible crime?
And, are you saying it is okay to lie about cheating on your wife?
This is a fun method of arguing!
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 03:35:52 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Amoral: having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.
I called Louis an amoral pig in response to this reprehensible statement:
"I see. So you think the moral lapse of having an extra-marital affair while in public office is exactly the same kind of moral lapse as lying to the American public to execute a war that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayers' dollars?"
It was certainly indicative of having no moral standards, restraints, or principles to project that kind of belief on me.
I neither said, nor implied, nor have EVER indicated the kind of moral caliber on any level to justify that kind of unprovoked attack on my character.
I also explained, pretty much in detail, my political stance in an earlier post, at *Louis' request*, and I certainly did not speak out in favor of war on any level.
So where did that comment come from if not to be abusive?
I always kind of thought it wa in bad form to make insulting, abusive, untrue statements and/or comments here, but obviously that is not the case.
My comment stands.
Perhaps someone could explain why that was out of line.......other than the basic attack on the character of a pig. |
I see nothing wrong with Louis' question, it gets at the central question of the discussion regarding lying: Are all lies equally bad or do lies have there degrees of wrong based on the severity of the lie? |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 03:38:40 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Clinton's lies about his marriage are of a different order of magnitude to those told by Bush because of the subject matter and consequences. There is no meaningful comparison to be made. |
So since there is no proof that Bush lied, are you just assuming he lied and calling him guilty? I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty? Or do you assume to be better informed then congress who has not even started impeachment trials for accusations of such a horrible crime?
And, are you saying it is okay to lie about cheating on your wife?
This is a fun method of arguing! |
If he wasn't lying, where are the WMD's? Where are the mobile WMD labs? Why aren't the troops home?, Why weren't the US troops greeted as liberators? |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 03:40:20 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I see nothing wrong with Louis' question, it gets at the central question of the discussion regarding lying: Are all lies equally bad or do lies have there degrees of wrong based on the severity of the lie? |
Lying under oath versus unproven lies, if we are saying that there are severity levels then lying under oath would be worse.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 03:45:15 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I see nothing wrong with Louis' question, it gets at the central question of the discussion regarding lying: Are all lies equally bad or do lies have there degrees of wrong based on the severity of the lie? |
Lying under oath versus unproven lies, if we are saying that there are severity levels then lying under oath would be worse. |
Even the mere spectre of the president of the United States having potentially lied in order to prosecute a war is beyond heinous. Nothing else compares. And the evidence of a coverup at the top echelons of the government is disturbing, even by your own admission, where you suggested Powell resigned because he was made to advance false reasons for an unjust war. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 03:51:46 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by ryand:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I see nothing wrong with Louis' question, it gets at the central question of the discussion regarding lying: Are all lies equally bad or do lies have there degrees of wrong based on the severity of the lie? |
Lying under oath versus unproven lies, if we are saying that there are severity levels then lying under oath would be worse. |
Are you serious?!?!?!
Lying, even under oath, about an extramarital affair totally pales in comparison to the president lying in order to prosecute a war that has cost tens, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, injured many more, displaced countless families from their homes, and disrupted the lives of many more.
It's not even close. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 03:56:21 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If he wasn't lying, where are the WMD's? Where are the mobile WMD labs? Why aren't the troops home?, Why weren't the US troops greeted as liberators? |
As I said before and as the factcheck link I posted ealier said, prove he knew it. Repeating bad information given to you is not a lie unless you know it was bad. Being wrong is not a lie.
If there was proof he lied, I'd be first in line calling for impeachment of him and Cheany. If he truly lied to go to war with Iraq for personal gain as the conspiracy people say, no punishment would be too soft, as long as they had their day in court. I tend to think innocent until proven guilty, and this is a pretty horrible thing to accuse someone of without sufficent evidence, so I'm really thinking innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 04:35:02 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If he wasn't lying, where are the WMD's? Where are the mobile WMD labs? Why aren't the troops home?, Why weren't the US troops greeted as liberators? |
As I said before and as the factcheck link I posted ealier said, prove he knew it. Repeating bad information given to you is not a lie unless you know it was bad. Being wrong is not a lie.
If there was proof he lied, I'd be first in line calling for impeachment of him and Cheany. If he truly lied to go to war with Iraq for personal gain as the conspiracy people say, no punishment would be too soft, as long as they had their day in court. I tend to think innocent until proven guilty, and this is a pretty horrible thing to accuse someone of without sufficent evidence, so I'm really thinking innocent until proven guilty. |
The one thing this administration is good at is hiding evidence. They repeatedly ignore subpoenas(from the DOJ and Congress), FOIA requests etc., simply covering it up with the mask of "National Security" or denying it exists and destroying it later.
If he didn't lie, why hide the evidence that the administration was misinformed? Why leak a covert agent's name to the press and ruin her career? If I were the president and truly innocent of such things, I'd do what I could to show the truth, not hide behind a wall of "National Security" and simple denials.
I'm not the court system. I can't mete out punishment. I don't have to subscribe to the rigorous standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and has feathers, I can say it's a duck. I don't have to prove it with genetic tests.
The court couldn't prove that OJ murdered Nicole, but I'm sure he did it, so is the majority of the country. Maybe you don't?
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 16:50:53. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 04:47:42 PM · #213 |
| so its gone from what does 'is' mean to what does 'lie' mean. Well at least that's been some progress. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:14:00 PM · #214 |
I̢۪m sure Hillary was only going off the best intel she had available when she said there was no doubt Saddam was making WMD̢۪s and voted to go to war. And when Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 because he thought Saddam had WMD̢۪s, I̢۪m sure he based it on the intel that he had, and was not just dropping bombs on innocent people to take attention away from the intern he did not have sex with. It̢۪s unfair to call them liars just because it turns out they were both wrong, since we do not have the same info they had when they made the decisions and our hindsight is 20/20.
And by the way, Algore is still a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:19:45 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And by the way, Algore is still a hypocrite. |
And that still doesn't detract from the science of global warming or your responsibility to act. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:26:08 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And, are you saying it is okay to lie about cheating on your wife?
|
A good example of a lie saving lives! |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:37:55 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I think that it is out of line for some very basic and obvious reasons.
Louis pointed out that Bush's lies have been far more costly than Clinton's lies. You responded to say that Clinton was just lucky that his lies didn't cause the loss of a bunch of lives or money: . |
Well, that was truly sort of a rhetorical comment.......it's seems to me that this thread has turned more into how to twist everyone's words around more than the issue.
My point was that his lying about who he was sleeping with was more about lying over a lesser issue, and that he probably would have lied for any reason that suited him, just that it was about not keeping his pants on. The fact remains, he lied, flagrantly, knowingly, willingly, and with no remorse. My luck comment was based on it being about sex instead of war.
Personally, I think a conscienceless liar is a bad thing no matter what he's lying about.
Of course the war and the obfuscation as to what's going on is worse for the country at large, THAT SHOULD BE A GIVEN ANYWHERE BUT HERE, and my comment was that Clinton's lies were just not of the same magnitude, not that Clinton sleeping with someone was going to cost lives. JEEZ!!!
Originally posted by Matthew:
To come up with that statement, your premise must be that Clinton was lucky, whereas Bush was unlucky. Your statement assumes that the lies of Clinton and Bush had equal status, and it was "mere dumb luck" that Clinton didn't cause exactly the same result. |
No, YOUR premise, and YOUR assumption can twist it around, I know both what I meant and what I said, and it was nothing of the kind.
Originally posted by Matthew:
It is a completely rational, normal and reasonable thing to point out that your statement is absurd: Clinton's lies about his marriage are of a different order of magnitude to those told by Bush because of the subject matter and consequences. There is no meaningful comparison to be made.. |
Duh! That's why it should be patently obvious that it's not what I meant.
Originally posted by Matthew:
If Louis made you look absurd, it is because your statement was absurd. |
Again, my statement was not absurd in the context you describe, because the statement was NOT in the context you describe.
It really wasn't that difficult if you go back and read the initial exchange not to read all this into it, but if it makes you happy to try and twist things around to be antagonistic and try and make people look and/or feel foolish, clueless, or stupid, have fun.
I just don't get my jollies that way.
Originally posted by Matthew:
You also make yourself look foolish by treating a question (Louis: "So you think... ?") as a statement of fact (NikonJeb: "unprovoked attack on my character"). |
Maybe in your mind, but I have to remember that I don't care what people like you who want to try and be pedantic and twist words around think of me.
I'm just stupid, PollyAnna of a person who just assumes that people don't get their rocks off by resorting to making fundamentally ignorant and provocative statements to and/or about their points of view.
I forget, and then become appalled again and again because I will just never get used to how hurtful and mean-spirited people will be for no good reason.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Rather than resorting to childish name calling, you would have saved your reputation and advanced your position far more effectively by correcting your statement to properly reflect your views (if you mispoke), or acknowledging that your initial statement was wrong, or (if you cannot do either of these) by staying completely silent on the subject. |
s far as my reputation goes, that was kicked to the curb when Louis said that I think that Bush's actions are comparable with Clinton's, so how do you figure it's salvageable? Oh, and don't forget that I'm a childish name-caller, but Louis is just discussing things, right? So it's perfectly okay for him to be ignorant, but I'm a name-caller if I lash out in return for an uncalled for statement.
Yeah....I sure care what you think! Give me a break!
And I certainly won't be taking any tips on communication from you as I'm not one of those people who try and come up with some backhanded interpretation of what is said just to provoke a fight.
You MUST be a lawyer!
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:38:18 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And by the way, Algore is still a hypocrite. |
And that still doesn't detract from the science of global warming or your responsibility to act. |
If someone is a lying hypocrite, and they are telling me something, i'm much more likely do disagree with it, its only natural. Also, have you really looked into global warming? or are you just taking what the media is telling you and assuming its correct. If you look into it, it's an extremely over exaggerated situation.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:41:01 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Are you serious?!?!?!
Lying, even under oath, about an extramarital affair totally pales in comparison to the president lying in order to prosecute a war that has cost tens, or even hundreds of thousands of lives, injured many more, displaced countless families from their homes, and disrupted the lives of many more.
It's not even close. |
No one has proven that he lied, its all liberal speculation anyways, there is absolutely 0 proof that he lied.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:46:00 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by ryand:
If you look into it, it's an extremely over exaggerated situation. |
Based on who's explanation of it? Again this is about bias and believing the other side is wrong. Unless you are a scientist actually doing the research and formulating a true hypothesis, it is all in who you choose to believe.
It is best to conserve because it is the right thing to do not because you believe the right or left on this issue.
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 17:46:24. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:55:22 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by ryand:
If you look into it, it's an extremely over exaggerated situation. |
Based on who's explanation of it? Again this is about bias and believing the other side is wrong. Unless you are a scientist actually doing the research and formulating a true hypothesis, it is all in who you choose to believe.
It is best to conserve because it is the right thing to do not because you believe the right or left on this issue. |
exactly, most people are choosing to believe al gore without even considering the other side, I've seen both and i think that global warming is way out of proportions.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 05:56:35 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
It is best to conserve because it is the right thing to do not because you believe the right or left on this issue. |
This has *NEVER* been a part of the dispute.
PLEASE give one iota of evidence to the contrary, or for goodness sake let this dead horse go.
The point is really about why this man who is a political grandstander, NOT a scientist, but knows where to hitch his wagon, got a Nobel Peace Prize.
I just don't get it. He is NOT doing anything that he's not getting something out of in return.
I don't believe for one second that he has any altruistic motives.
Nobody has ever said that we shouldn't take care of the planet, it's just that there are ways for us little folks to do things that make a difference where we live, and we don't need Gore to do it.....and many of us have been doing things for far longer than Gore's been a player.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 06:01:41 PM · #223 |
nevermind
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 18:02:19.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 06:32:29 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by ryand:
or are you just taking what the media is telling you and assuming its correct. |
Might I remind you of a post I made that seemed to imply you may be doing the same thing (regarding the polar bears drowning) |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 06:38:48 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Might I remind you of a post I made that seemed to imply you may be doing the same thing (regarding the polar bears drowning) |
Originally posted by ryand:
I've seen both and i think that global warming is way out of proportions. |
I remember you implying that, but I was saying that I am not doing the same thing, I heard from the mainstream media, and i heard from other sources, I took the other sources because theres seemed more reliable.
|
|
