|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 23 2018 09:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 09:05 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. I'm getting the impression that you don't notice Igne is usually making fun of you even when he's 'agreeing' with you. I don't like Igne because he agrees with me. He and I disagree on almost everything. I like Igne because he's an intelligent poster who reliably demonstrates comprehension of my posts (and others') before responding to them. His wit and "charm" are added bonuses. Fair enough, but I also mean he's insulting your argument, he's just usually insulting the arguments against yours as well. More often than not it's something along the lines "You guys don't understand why his position is dysfunctional, this is why it's dysfunctional" in a highfalutin way then you usually saying something to the effect "finally someone gets it!" Without really noticing what it was he said that undermined your point (or apparently noticing and just not addressing it). I enjoy Igne's posts too and now that I'm further left than I was a few years ago I miss the old Igne that reflected the spirit of his sig in his posts more frequently. But I get the impression that while a lot of liberals distort your often vague positions, you don't realize that often your arguments are still badly formed and lack a cohesion to reality and/or history. It's not a partisan thing or even personal, meaning it happens to the best of us, you, like the liberals you disdain, just seem to refuse to engage with it when it's legitimately pointed out. That's not to say you never form coherent arguments, just that you're as bad as anyone when it comes to tucking in your shell and waiting for stuff to pass when you screw up.
I let arguments go and stop responding for any number of reasons, the most seldom of which is I feel like I am losing the argument. Usually it’s just time for bed, and I don’t bother derailing whatever the current discussion is the next time that I post. As I have made clearly previously, I don’t feel the need to have the last word.
I also find this charge that my arguments are “vague” to be amusing in that certain posters never seem to have trouble understanding exactly what I am saying whereas others seem to chronically struggle. I’ll be the first to admit that my posting is often terse, but it is not difficult to digest with an honest reading.
|
On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic. Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory.
I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe.
|
On February 23 2018 10:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 09:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 09:05 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. I'm getting the impression that you don't notice Igne is usually making fun of you even when he's 'agreeing' with you. I don't like Igne because he agrees with me. He and I disagree on almost everything. I like Igne because he's an intelligent poster who reliably demonstrates comprehension of my posts (and others') before responding to them. His wit and "charm" are added bonuses. Fair enough, but I also mean he's insulting your argument, he's just usually insulting the arguments against yours as well. More often than not it's something along the lines "You guys don't understand why his position is dysfunctional, this is why it's dysfunctional" in a highfalutin way then you usually saying something to the effect "finally someone gets it!" Without really noticing what it was he said that undermined your point (or apparently noticing and just not addressing it). I enjoy Igne's posts too and now that I'm further left than I was a few years ago I miss the old Igne that reflected the spirit of his sig in his posts more frequently. But I get the impression that while a lot of liberals distort your often vague positions, you don't realize that often your arguments are still badly formed and lack a cohesion to reality and/or history. It's not a partisan thing or even personal, meaning it happens to the best of us, you, like the liberals you disdain, just seem to refuse to engage with it when it's legitimately pointed out. That's not to say you never form coherent arguments, just that you're as bad as anyone when it comes to tucking in your shell and waiting for stuff to pass when you screw up. I let arguments go and stop responding for any number of reasons, the most seldom of which is I feel like I am losing the argument. Usually it’s just time for bed, and I don’t bother derailing whatever the current discussion is the next time that I post. As I have made clearly previously, I don’t feel the need to have the last word. I also find this charge that my arguments are “vague” to be amusing in that certain posters never seem to have trouble understanding exactly what I am saying whereas others seem to chronically struggle. I’ll be the first to admit that my posting is often terse, but it is not difficult to digest with an honest reading.
It's not letting it go if you just wait a while to try to bring it back without ever addressing the post that totally wasn't you getting made to look silly and sent you into hiding.
This cop out only works if you're willing to not bring up the argument again.
|
On February 23 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 10:01 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 09:32 A3th3r wrote:the US needs to have a more coherent policy with regards to the middle east. I think that there is too much uncertainty & unrest in the region & that is playing into nationalist sentiments of extremist groups that exist in those places. Trying to contain Iran is a good step to prevent more disturbances from occurring. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/22/c_136989751.htm Feels weird to me to think that the US should have more influence around Iran and Russia than Iran and Russia. I mean I get they are problematic countries but we are too. Perhaps not in the same ways, but we kill a lot of civilians every year, we've replaced democratically elected leaders with favorable dictators, and have military bases surrounding Iran and to a lesser degree Russia. I wouldn't want to live under Putin, but it's not like the US gives a shit about the Russian people, if Putin was pro-America they'd turn a blind eye to all the stuff they dislike about him, same for Iran. We need look no further than Saudi Arabia. Putin isn't going to become pro-America any time soon. And it has nothing to do with us being aggressive towards him. He is facing what appears to be a growing opposition movement in Russia and anger over corruption. On top of all the other reasons for trying to influence elections, Putin and his oligarchs want be able to point to the dysfunction of multiparty democracy. He needs the appearance of an outside influence "attacking" Russia to keep his grip of the nation's wealth and power. And we and NATO/the EU serve that role for him right now. I don't think you understand my point? It was that the US wouldn't be halfway around the world to stop them from influencing a sea they have coastline of if he was pro-American and an even worse leader. Our opposition to Russia and Iran aren't that we don't like their political structure (again see Saudi Arabia) our problem is that they aren't subservient enough to US interests. Ironically (though not really) our actions are actually emboldening him rather than weakening him as you say it's giving him exactly what he needs.
And you missed my point. Putin doesn't care about the US specifically. Or the EU. He wants to make sure that democracy looks bad so he can make the argument that his rule is a better alternative. The reason he doubled down is because congress and the EU sanctioned Russia(specifically the oligarchs and their wealth) because they tortured a couple opposition members to death. And those were the folks we knew about. Putin's fight is with his own people and like all great oppressors, he points to outside forces to say they are the enemy.
|
On February 23 2018 10:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 10:01 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 09:32 A3th3r wrote:the US needs to have a more coherent policy with regards to the middle east. I think that there is too much uncertainty & unrest in the region & that is playing into nationalist sentiments of extremist groups that exist in those places. Trying to contain Iran is a good step to prevent more disturbances from occurring. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/22/c_136989751.htm Feels weird to me to think that the US should have more influence around Iran and Russia than Iran and Russia. I mean I get they are problematic countries but we are too. Perhaps not in the same ways, but we kill a lot of civilians every year, we've replaced democratically elected leaders with favorable dictators, and have military bases surrounding Iran and to a lesser degree Russia. I wouldn't want to live under Putin, but it's not like the US gives a shit about the Russian people, if Putin was pro-America they'd turn a blind eye to all the stuff they dislike about him, same for Iran. We need look no further than Saudi Arabia. Putin isn't going to become pro-America any time soon. And it has nothing to do with us being aggressive towards him. He is facing what appears to be a growing opposition movement in Russia and anger over corruption. On top of all the other reasons for trying to influence elections, Putin and his oligarchs want be able to point to the dysfunction of multiparty democracy. He needs the appearance of an outside influence "attacking" Russia to keep his grip of the nation's wealth and power. And we and NATO/the EU serve that role for him right now. I don't think you understand my point? It was that the US wouldn't be halfway around the world to stop them from influencing a sea they have coastline of if he was pro-American and an even worse leader. Our opposition to Russia and Iran aren't that we don't like their political structure (again see Saudi Arabia) our problem is that they aren't subservient enough to US interests. Ironically (though not really) our actions are actually emboldening him rather than weakening him as you say it's giving him exactly what he needs. And you missed my point. Putin doesn't care about the US specifically. Or the EU. He wants to make sure that democracy looks bad so he can make the argument that his rule is a better alternative. The reason he doubled down is because congress and the EU sanctioned Russia(specifically the oligarchs and their wealth) because they tortured a couple opposition members to death. And those were the folks we knew about. Putin's fight is with his own people and like all great oppressors, he points to outside forces to say they are the enemy.
So is that confirmation that you didn't get my point or just that you were raising an unrelated point (to mine) and think I didn't understand it or that I significantly disagree with it?
|
On February 23 2018 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 10:19 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 10:01 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 09:32 A3th3r wrote:the US needs to have a more coherent policy with regards to the middle east. I think that there is too much uncertainty & unrest in the region & that is playing into nationalist sentiments of extremist groups that exist in those places. Trying to contain Iran is a good step to prevent more disturbances from occurring. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/22/c_136989751.htm Feels weird to me to think that the US should have more influence around Iran and Russia than Iran and Russia. I mean I get they are problematic countries but we are too. Perhaps not in the same ways, but we kill a lot of civilians every year, we've replaced democratically elected leaders with favorable dictators, and have military bases surrounding Iran and to a lesser degree Russia. I wouldn't want to live under Putin, but it's not like the US gives a shit about the Russian people, if Putin was pro-America they'd turn a blind eye to all the stuff they dislike about him, same for Iran. We need look no further than Saudi Arabia. Putin isn't going to become pro-America any time soon. And it has nothing to do with us being aggressive towards him. He is facing what appears to be a growing opposition movement in Russia and anger over corruption. On top of all the other reasons for trying to influence elections, Putin and his oligarchs want be able to point to the dysfunction of multiparty democracy. He needs the appearance of an outside influence "attacking" Russia to keep his grip of the nation's wealth and power. And we and NATO/the EU serve that role for him right now. I don't think you understand my point? It was that the US wouldn't be halfway around the world to stop them from influencing a sea they have coastline of if he was pro-American and an even worse leader. Our opposition to Russia and Iran aren't that we don't like their political structure (again see Saudi Arabia) our problem is that they aren't subservient enough to US interests. Ironically (though not really) our actions are actually emboldening him rather than weakening him as you say it's giving him exactly what he needs. And you missed my point. Putin doesn't care about the US specifically. Or the EU. He wants to make sure that democracy looks bad so he can make the argument that his rule is a better alternative. The reason he doubled down is because congress and the EU sanctioned Russia(specifically the oligarchs and their wealth) because they tortured a couple opposition members to death. And those were the folks we knew about. Putin's fight is with his own people and like all great oppressors, he points to outside forces to say they are the enemy. So is that confirmation that you didn't get my point or just that you were raising an unrelated point (to mine) and think I didn't understand it or that I significantly disagree with it?
I like your idea and it would be nice to have another ally in the region. I would prefer not to be in conflict with Russia. I think our idea would have merit, but I don't believe it is possible. I am attempting to explain to you why I don't believe it is possible. We tried to be re-set Russian relations in 2008-2012 and it failed. Putin has been pissed at us and others since the as far back as 2012 because of the Magnitsky Act, when we stopped a lot of his buddies from doing buisness outside of Russia. And leading up to that he had already seized most of Russia's wealth and picked his following of oligarchs. And unlike the dictatorships in the Middle East, Russia boarders a lot of democratic nations and the repression of anti-corruption movements is a lot harder for them. The only way for Putin and his rich buddies to remain in power is to pick a fight.
|
On February 23 2018 10:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 10:19 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 10:01 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 09:32 A3th3r wrote:the US needs to have a more coherent policy with regards to the middle east. I think that there is too much uncertainty & unrest in the region & that is playing into nationalist sentiments of extremist groups that exist in those places. Trying to contain Iran is a good step to prevent more disturbances from occurring. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/22/c_136989751.htm Feels weird to me to think that the US should have more influence around Iran and Russia than Iran and Russia. I mean I get they are problematic countries but we are too. Perhaps not in the same ways, but we kill a lot of civilians every year, we've replaced democratically elected leaders with favorable dictators, and have military bases surrounding Iran and to a lesser degree Russia. I wouldn't want to live under Putin, but it's not like the US gives a shit about the Russian people, if Putin was pro-America they'd turn a blind eye to all the stuff they dislike about him, same for Iran. We need look no further than Saudi Arabia. Putin isn't going to become pro-America any time soon. And it has nothing to do with us being aggressive towards him. He is facing what appears to be a growing opposition movement in Russia and anger over corruption. On top of all the other reasons for trying to influence elections, Putin and his oligarchs want be able to point to the dysfunction of multiparty democracy. He needs the appearance of an outside influence "attacking" Russia to keep his grip of the nation's wealth and power. And we and NATO/the EU serve that role for him right now. I don't think you understand my point? It was that the US wouldn't be halfway around the world to stop them from influencing a sea they have coastline of if he was pro-American and an even worse leader. Our opposition to Russia and Iran aren't that we don't like their political structure (again see Saudi Arabia) our problem is that they aren't subservient enough to US interests. Ironically (though not really) our actions are actually emboldening him rather than weakening him as you say it's giving him exactly what he needs. And you missed my point. Putin doesn't care about the US specifically. Or the EU. He wants to make sure that democracy looks bad so he can make the argument that his rule is a better alternative. The reason he doubled down is because congress and the EU sanctioned Russia(specifically the oligarchs and their wealth) because they tortured a couple opposition members to death. And those were the folks we knew about. Putin's fight is with his own people and like all great oppressors, he points to outside forces to say they are the enemy. So is that confirmation that you didn't get my point or just that you were raising an unrelated point (to mine) and think I didn't understand it or that I significantly disagree with it? I like your idea and it would be nice to have another allying in the region. I would prefer not to be in conflict with Russia. I think our idea would have merit, but I don't believe it is possible. I am attempting to explain to you why I don't believe it is possible. We tried to be re-set Russian relations in 2008-2012 and it failed. Putin has been pissed at us and others since the as far back as 2012 because of the Magnitsky Act, when we stopped a lot of his buddies from doing buisness outside of Russia. And leading up to that he had already seized most of Russia's wealth and picked his following of oligarchs. And unlike the dictatorships in the Middle East, Russia boarders a lot of democratic nations and the repression of anti-corruption movements is a lot harder for them. The only way for Putin and his rich buddies to remain in power is to pick a fight.
Wouldn't the prudent thing then be not to let him have it?
This feels like an extension of the "have you seen the other guys!?" strategy. One reason why Democrats and the US struggle so much against people like Republicans and Putin respectively is because it's too easy to be right about what is wrong with them (Dems/US) and their refusals to own up to them.
While certainly different in many ways, what laypeople see is two groups full of shit and blaming people on the other side of the planet for their problems. Except in Russia's case they can look at a map and see the ratio of US bases near Russia and Russian bases near the US and conclude one of these countries is a much bigger threat to the other.
|
They are a sovereign nation and are we. We have fixed boarders, interest and allies. We can’t “walk away”. There is no place to go. We tried to reset relations after Bush, assuming that Putin’s dislike for us was based on the sure hawk members of that administration. That turned out to not be the case.
But we could withdraw from Syria and the Middle East. In the short term that might cool tensions. But in a few years, Putin will need a new conflict. Or he won’t even wait that long and see how much more of the Ukraine he can take.
|
On February 23 2018 11:17 Plansix wrote:
They are a sovereign nation and are we. We have fixed boarders, interest and allies. We can’t “walk away”. There is no place to go. We tried to reset relations after Bush, assuming that Putin’s dislike for us was based on the sure hawk members of that administration. That turned out to not be the case.
But we could withdraw from Syria and the Middle East. In the short term that might cool tensions. But in a few years, Putin will need a new conflict. Or he won’t even wait that long and see how much more of the Ukraine he can take.
The Ukraine seems like an entirely different situation than Syria and in a different way Yemen. If Putin is invading a sovereign nation that we consider an ally (or a potential partner in NATO) while I still have my issues, I'd be more receptive to your position, but that's also quite different than what's happening in Syria. For instance, Syria isn't trying to join NATO with US support.
To get back to my point, the idea that the US has no choice but to be militarily involved around the globe doesn't seem accurate unless we can envision a world where we would permit ourselves not to be the global police. If we wouldn't submit to such rule, we can't realistically expect others to. Particularly when we aren't some sort of benevolent arbitrator of global affairs but a ragingly selfish asshole among flamingly raging selfish assholes.
If the US was pitching that being subservient to US interests and having a mostly nominal democracy is better than living under Putin (I'd argue it mostly is better) then the Russian people would be a hellova lot more receptive to their argument than trying to propagandize them with the righteousness of our electoral system when anyone with 2 senses left can tell it's bullshit.
|
Putin is going to push the limit and see what he can get away with. The next Ukraine will be a nation you only marginally care about and are reluctant to go to bat for.
|
|
|
On February 23 2018 11:50 Plansix wrote:
Putin is going to push the limit and see what he can get away with. The next Ukraine will be a nation you only marginally care about and are reluctant to go to bat for.
One significant difference between me and the US military-industrial complex (and their political puppets) is that I'll actually care about the people of this mystery country, not just the profit I can make off the conflict.
If Putin taking over a country made them more favorable to US economic interests we'd support Putin in the conflict. Even if people in the US can't see it, people around the world are hip to our game.
|
On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic. Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe.
I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the people here.
What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you.
You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style.
|
I remember people calling out LL pretty harshly for referring to Ukraine as the Ukraine due to its desoverignizeing aspect referring to it as the region instead of the country.
Don't be a dick about some people not wanting to respond to specific posters in the thread. its far better then the shit that goes on with zeflin and the posters he should refuse to respond to.
|
On February 23 2018 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic. Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe. I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the conservatives here. What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you. You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style.
I don't feel like I deserved a name drop in there. Considering the last few dozen pages, I can think of a few people who better exemplify that pattern. I only remember doing that one or two times (though I don't remember the topics) and I'd cop to em if anyone else remembered.
|
On February 23 2018 12:39 Sermokala wrote:
I remember people calling out LL pretty harshly for referring to Ukraine as the Ukraine due to its desoverignizeing aspect referring to it as the region instead of the country.
I called it the Ukraine. The italics is a pretty important part of the presentation, don't go omitting it all of the sudden!
|
Apparently Google is/was a sponsor of CPAC.
|
On February 23 2018 12:39 Sermokala wrote:
I remember people calling out LL pretty harshly for referring to Ukraine as the Ukraine due to its desoverignizeing aspect referring to it as the region instead of the country.
Don't be a dick about some people not wanting to respond to specific posters in the thread. its far better then the shit that goes on with zeflin and the posters he should refuse to respond to.
I did not notice the The Ukraine drop. I’m going to assume it is unintentional. And not responding to specific posters related the few esquires we have in the thread.
|
On February 23 2018 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic. Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe. I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the conservatives here. What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you. You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style. I don't feel like I deserved a name drop in there. Considering the last few dozen pages, I can think of a few people who better exemplify that pattern. I only remember doing that one or two times (though I don't remember the topics) and I'd cop to em if anyone else remembered.
To the contrary I think you could learn how to drop a topic sooner. Refusing to continue a conversation isn't a dodge and I'm not sure how many times I need links to whatever it was Plansix was apparently wrong about.
|
On February 23 2018 12:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic. Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe. I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the conservatives here. What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you. You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style. I don't feel like I deserved a name drop in there. Considering the last few dozen pages, I can think of a few people who better exemplify that pattern. I only remember doing that one or two times (though I don't remember the topics) and I'd cop to em if anyone else remembered. To the contrary I think you could learn how to drop a topic sooner. Refusing to continue a conversation isn't a dodge and I'm not sure how many times I need links to whatever it was Plansix was apparently wrong about.
That I would admit to in general, I would however disagree about that particular instance as it's about a much larger issue and the same kinda thing/larger issue looks to be happening on this very page.
You use this more as a venting board than actually engaging in discussions about what it is you post though, so I wouldn't expect you to relate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
