| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cool_chick
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 20457
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Heinz wrote: Quote: Sure you did. You tried to claim to know what I think.
Where?
The first one:
Heinz wrote: You seem to be "ok" with genocide as long as he hasn't done it recently.
You couldnt' be more wrong. Like I said, you suck at mindreading.
Strawman arguments are unwinnable bud.
Quote: Quote: The only thing I said was you suck at mindreading....was said when you were acting like you knew what I think. You made it ad hominem starting with women's bodily functions and continuing on....
You cried foul at the first "light" that you saw. You called me names andsaid I s*cked at certain things I never attempted. You basically came off the completely wrong way to begin a conversation. I certainly hope you don't introduce yourself by stating that the other person s*cks at anything.
No, I pointed out that you suck at mindreading, which you tried to do on me and failed.
Quote: Quote: How am I "relying" on emotionalism? I'm NOT. I'm too analytical for that.
Hmm.....
Quote: Ahhhh the strawman. You guys can't don't have the ability to even talk without them, can you?
LOL
Maybe it's YOU who doesn't "seem" to know what the hell other's think. Give up the psychic job, you suck at it.
This type of analytical behavior?
Yep. Completely accurate quote.
Quote: Quote: All I said is you suck at mindreading, when you were trying to claim to know what I think. That's all I said about you, and it wasn't ad hominem, it was telling you that you suck at mindreading .
Yet you have never shown any of us where I tried to do such a thing.
Heinz wrote: You seem to be "ok" with genocide as long as he hasn't done it recently.
And there's more, I don't feel like digging right now, but who knows, maybe I will later..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Heinz
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1636
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: You couldnt' be more wrong. Like I said, you suck at mindreading.
"OK"
Do you know what quotations mean?
Quote: No, I pointed out that you suck at mindreading, which you tried to do on me and failed.
Nope...read above. Still an ad hominem.
Quote: Yep. Completely accurate quote.
Nice way to admire your own trolling escapades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cool_chick
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 20457
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Heinz wrote: Quote: You couldnt' be more wrong. Like I said, you suck at mindreading.
"OK"
Do you know what quotations mean?
Means you were trying to assign a false position to me..... How else would you think you know what a complete stranger on the internet is "ok" with if unless you thought you could read the mind.
Additionally, why you would even remotely think I or anyone here would be "ok" with genocide is beyond me....
Quote: Quote: No, I pointed out that you suck at mindreading, which you tried to do on me and failed.
Nope...read above. Still an ad hominem.
It's a fact. No one can read minds.
Quote: Quote: Yep. Completely accurate quote.
Nice way to admire your own trolling escapades.
Me trolling? :rotf:
Isn't it about time for you to call me more names now? You've used women's bodily functions, tried to claim I'm simply being emotional, I"m on drugs, I'm a child, you even called me a conniving b****. Maybe you can pull the C word out now to complete your day...
:lol: |
|
| Back to top |
|
Heinz
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1636
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: Isn't it about time for you to call me more names now?
No I'll let you call me a little boy instead....oops did you forget about that one?
Quote: Means you were trying to assign a false position to me..... How else would you think you know what a complete stranger on the internet is "ok" with if unless you thought you could read the mind.
" " - Quotations......
Try again.
Quote: It's a fact. No one can read minds.
It may be fact, but the context in which you used it mas demeaning and an ad hominem as it had nothing at all to do with the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cool_chick
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 20457
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heinz wrote: Quote: Isn't it about time for you to call me more names now? You've used women's bodily functions, tried to claim I'm simply being emotional, I"m on drugs, I'm a child, you even called me a conniving b****. Maybe you can pull the C word out now to complete your day...
:lol:
No I'll let you call me a little boy instead....oops did you forget about that one?
I never called you a little boy. I don't know if you're a little boy....... :lol: I said posting pictures of a medication that aids with a woman's bodily function is protraying yourself as such....as everyone knows silly bodily function jokes is indicative of children's behavior.
Quote: Quote: Means you were trying to assign a false position to me..... How else would you think you know what a complete stranger on the internet is "ok" with if unless you thought you could read the mind.
" " - Quotations.....
Try again.
Same conclusion. Means you were trying to assign a false position to me..... How else would you think you know what a complete stranger on the internet is "ok" with if unless you thought you could read the mind.
Quote: Quote: It's a fact. No one can read minds.
It may be fact, but the context in which you used it mas demeaning and an ad hominem as it had nothing at all to do with the thread.
What was and has been demeaning is every one of your comments from female bodily functions to me, beginning with the one that made the ludicrous claim that I thought genocide was "ok." Maybe it's time you learn to think about what you're saying before you say it, before you act like you know what others think and before you assign false and erroneous positions on another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tetracide
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 4449
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lighten it up boys and girls. We're all adults here, and we can act like them.
Either get a room, or I'll lock the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Heinz
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1636
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: I never called you a little boy. I don't know if you're a little boy....... I said posting pictures of a medication that aids with a woman's bodily function is protraying yourself as such....as everyone knows silly bodily function jokes is indicative of children's behavior.
I never called you a ***** neither since I said you portrayed yourself that way in this thread by your actions towards people who did nothing to you. And you reported me for it.
Quote: And I guess you portray that of a coniving b**** who takes out emotions on others who did nothing to them......Someone strawmanned you in
Quote: What was and has been demeaning is every one of your comments from female bodily functions to me, beginning with the one that made the ludicrous claim that I thought genocide was "ok." Maybe it's time you learn to think about what you're saying before you say it, before you act like you know what others think and before you assign false and erroneous positions on another.
Never did....
Quote: Same conclusion. Means you were trying to assign a false position to me..... How else would you think you know what a complete stranger on the internet is "ok" with if unless you thought you could read the mind.
Nope. :lol: |
|
| Back to top |
|
cool_chick
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 20457
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heinz wrote: Quote: I never called you a little boy. I don't know if you're a little boy....... I said posting pictures of a medication that aids with a woman's bodily function is protraying yourself as such....as everyone knows silly bodily function jokes is indicative of children's behavior.
I never called you a ***** neither since I said you portrayed yourself that way in this thread by your actions towards people who did nothing to you. And you reported me for it.
No, you said conniving b**** :lol:. You also used women's bodily functions, tried to claim I'm simply being emotional, I"m on drugs, and of course a child.
Quote: And I guess you portray that of a coniving b**** who takes out emotions on others who did nothing to them......Someone strawmanned you in
How does one "portray" being a conniving b****? What is a b****? What is conniving??? I already pointed out silly bodily function jokes is indicative of children behavior. What is indicitave of conniving? What is indicitive of b****, and how is this "portrayed?" What Am I also portraying taking out my emotions on others? :lol: How does one "portray" that? LOL Takes my emotions out on others? Don't I need emotions first?
Quote: Quote: What was and has been demeaning is every one of your comments from female bodily functions to me, beginning with the one that made the ludicrous claim that I thought genocide was "ok." Maybe it's time you learn to think about what you're saying before you say it, before you act like you know what others think and before you assign false and erroneous positions on another.
Never did....
Heinz said:
You seem to be "ok" with genocide as long as he hasn't done it recently.
Quote: Quote: Same conclusion. Means you were trying to assign a false position to me..... How else would you think you know what a complete stranger on the internet is "ok" with if unless you thought you could read the mind.
Nope. :lol:
Heinz said:
You seem to be "ok" with genocide as long as he hasn't done it recently.
Nothing could be further than the truth and nothing I said indicated as such...which means you were trying to assign a false position to me..... How else would you think you know what a complete stranger on the internet is "ok" with if unless you thought you could read the mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cool_chick
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 20457
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, sorry tetracide, back on track now....
The American wrote:
The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy. It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own. If democracy fails, you are more than likely to see domination and destruction on a level not imaginable.
Trig, I don't think it's a fight against democracy. It's a fight for land and power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Newb
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 2668
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cool_chick wrote: Ok, sorry tetracide, back on track now....
The American wrote:
The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy. It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own. If democracy fails, you are more than likely to see domination and destruction on a level not imaginable.
Trig, I don't think it's a fight against democracy. It's a fight for land and power.
this we can agree on chick ( frame this one its rare we agree :lol: ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Heinz
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1636
Location: Philadelphia
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: No, you said conniving b**** . You also used women's bodily functions, tried to claim I'm simply being emotional, I"m on drugs, and of course a child.
I said portray just like you did....Nice double standard..welcome to the ignore list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cool_chick
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 20457
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heinz wrote: Quote: No, you said conniving b**** . You also used women's bodily functions, tried to claim I'm simply being emotional, I"m on drugs, and of course a child.
I said portray just like you did....Nice double standard..welcome to the ignore list.
You didn't say "portray" of all that. Said and do are two different things... You said a whole lot more than simply "portray."
:hi: See ya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Thrilla
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 21915
Location: Sin City
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cool_chick wrote: Ok, sorry tetracide, back on track now....
The American wrote:
The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy. It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own. If democracy fails, you are more than likely to see domination and destruction on a level not imaginable.
Trig, I don't think it's a fight against democracy. It's a fight for land and power. I think its alot of both personally.... and here is where I run away before CC gets me into her clutches and somehow bludgeons me with my own arguement :lol:
lets play nice now... big hugs all around... ( except i dont want no hugs from you guys.. CC only)...think puppy dogs and little kittens.. warm and fuzzy thoughts.. warm and fuzzy thoughts....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
cool_chick
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 20457
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thrilla wrote: cool_chick wrote: Ok, sorry tetracide, back on track now....
The American wrote:
The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy. It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own. If democracy fails, you are more than likely to see domination and destruction on a level not imaginable.
Trig, I don't think it's a fight against democracy. It's a fight for land and power. I think its alot of both personally.... and here is where I run away before CC gets me into her clutches and somehow bludgeons me with my own arguement :lol:
lets play nice now... big hugs all around... ( except i dont want no hugs from you guys.. CC only)...think puppy dogs and little kittens.. warm and fuzzy thoughts.. warm and fuzzy thoughts.......
Both? How?
Imagine this.....I'm an Shia Iraqi...I'm pissed off at the Sunnis, they killed my grandmother.....but I'm also against....the white-knight shining bright star in the sky....da da da da....DEMOCRACY!
Seriously, what does that mean? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Thrilla
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 21915
Location: Sin City
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
cool_chick wrote: Thrilla wrote: cool_chick wrote: Ok, sorry tetracide, back on track now....
The American wrote:
The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy. It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own. If democracy fails, you are more than likely to see domination and destruction on a level not imaginable.
Trig, I don't think it's a fight against democracy. It's a fight for land and power. I think its alot of both personally.... and here is where I run away before CC gets me into her clutches and somehow bludgeons me with my own arguement :lol:
lets play nice now... big hugs all around... ( except i dont want no hugs from you guys.. CC only)...think puppy dogs and little kittens.. warm and fuzzy thoughts.. warm and fuzzy thoughts.......
Both? How?
Imagine this.....I'm an Shia Iraqi...I'm pissed off at the Sunnis, they killed my grandmother.....but I'm also against....the white-knight shining bright star in the sky....da da da da....DEMOCRACY!
Seriously, what does that mean? I believe there are sects.. mainly wahabbis, baathists, and saddam supporters, that are fighting against democracy..as it doesnt fit their agenda for governance and their style of authoritarianism... and I believe we are fueling anti-democracy sentiment by not providing security to Iraqi citizens..I mean.. why would they believe democracy is "all that and a bag of chips" when we arent giving them a good example of it in action..Democracy is more than simple getting to vote.. its an all encompassing governence style .. and we arent showing them what its made of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cool_chick
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 20457
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thrilla wrote: cool_chick wrote: Thrilla wrote: cool_chick wrote: Ok, sorry tetracide, back on track now....
The American wrote:
The civil war you see in Iraq boils down to the fight against democracy. It may be religiously backed, but it's base is they same. Slavery in the U.S does not have anything to do with Iraq, but the fight against a concept, unless the seeds of democracy are not protected until it is strong enough to stand on its own. If democracy fails, you are more than likely to see domination and destruction on a level not imaginable.
Trig, I don't think it's a fight against democracy. It's a fight for land and power. I think its alot of both personally.... and here is where I run away before CC gets me into her clutches and somehow bludgeons me with my own arguement :lol:
lets play nice now... big hugs all around... ( except i dont want no hugs from you guys.. CC only)...think puppy dogs and little kittens.. warm and fuzzy thoughts.. warm and fuzzy thoughts.......
Both? How?
Imagine this.....I'm an Shia Iraqi...I'm pissed off at the Sunnis, they killed my grandmother.....but I'm also against....the white-knight shining bright star in the sky....da da da da....DEMOCRACY!
Seriously, what does that mean? I believe there are sects.. mainly wahabbis, baathists, and saddam supporters, that are fighting against democracy..as it doesnt fit their agenda for governance and their style of authoritarianism... and I believe we are fueling anti-democracy sentiment by not providing security to Iraqi citizens..I mean.. why would they believe democracy is "all that and a bag of chips" when we arent giving them a good example of it in action..Democracy is more than simple getting to vote.. its an all encompassing governence style .. and we arent showing them what its made of.
Completely agree. If what they're living right now is supposed to be a "democracy"....I'd be running scared too. :lol:
But there are plenty examples of democratic governments in the ME....Jordan, Iran, Palestine..... I don't think they're "against" democracy as much as they are "for" power and land......and probably a lot of revenge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Timmytour
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 6863
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The American wrote: Timmytour wrote: The American wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: point out sucking at reading minds is not ad hominem. It's a fact.
It is an ad hominem and most certainly would qualify as something that breaks the rules of this forum. It's also discussing the poster. You think I suck at reading minds, but I never attempted to read anyone's.
Quote: I didn't, you did. You claimed to know what I was thinking
Where? You living in a dream world? Who's your dealer?
Quote: You're not making sense again. You're trying to evoke emotion by declaring there was a "genocide" going on, trying to act like it was Darfur, when there wasn't. There was no genocide going on when we invaded.
When did I ever compare it to Darfur? Never......Get it through your head. You did.....I also never said that it was going on when we invaded...Either find where I said it was or remove yourself.
Quote: Wrong again. First of all, 400,000 people? Where did you pull that "figure" out of...your butt? Certainly wasn't my mind.
My butt? Such little girl talk isn't neccessary. As far as the number, it's the estimated amount of people who have been killed in Darfur. Shows how much you know.
Quote: You were trying to claim the genocide that is happening is why there was no violence in Iraq in 2003.
Again...never said it was happening in 2003. It happened previously, and you have admitted this with your "decade" comment, and it still has an impact on what took place up until our invasion. That's what I said.
Quote: I'm simply saying your comments are invalid and inaccurate.
So just because you say it's invalid...it's invalid? Who the heck are you? You already admitted that genocide did take place in Iraq. Tell me..when do you consider the killing of a specific group for the mere fact that they are a certain race/religion/sex genocide? How many have to die to meet your standard?
Quote: Like I've said 20 times before, it's easy to not have any competition when you are killing them via genocide.
Easy.......no competition...YOU ARE KILLING THEM VIA GENOCIDE
You have no attention to detail....Where did I say, in that sentence, that it was happening in 2003?
Since it's Thanksgiving weekend I wanted you to feel thankful for at least one thing:
As much as chick's and my opinion's differ, there is no call for that. You should apologize.
:shock:
Always nice to see a classy post from someone I consider to be generally on the other side of the political spectrum to me.
:clap:
Feministic remarks do not inspire debate. The freedom of speaking your mind in forum should not include attacks on a persons bodily functions (If applicable). A simple "I disagree" would be good enough. An opology would detour thread lock. Women should not encounter such attacks in this manner, in forum regardless of their opinions. I stand pat on that principle to anyone including those of different opinion.
Trig.
I'm not totally sure you weren't reading some irony into my reply which wasn't there and had doubts about my response.
Just to clarify, I thought the original comments to which I first responded were spot on and I agree 110% with what you went on to say above :tu: |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
