Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (14875)	5/29/2001 6:38:18 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You have to understand the concept of lese- majeste: Main Entry: lèse-ma·jes·té Variant(s): or lese maj·es·ty /"lAz-'ma-j&-stE, "lez-, "lEz-/ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French lese majesté, from Latin laesa majestas, literally, injured majesty Date: 1536 1 a : a crime (as treason) committed against a sovereign power b : an offense violating the dignity of a ruler as the representative of a sovereign power 2 : a detraction from or affront to dignity or importance britannica.com

To: one_less who wrote (14875)	5/29/2001 6:44:33 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You used something that was not personal and gave it a personal and adversarial tone That is an outright lie, but I did not expect you to be a man about your behaviour. I argue ideas. An argument is not about attacking people. The reason people sometimes make personal attacks against me is because they sometimes choose the wrong side of an argument, and do not have the character to adopt a new position which corresponds to the facts. You, in fact, have demonstrated this in your discussions with me. Now I understand that religous people, such as yourself, have a natural inability (in general) to grow or learn or to compromise (as relates to arguments which confront their religious beliefs), for the reason that their belief is generally dictated by a supernatural agency, and therefore does not admit to any challenge--and also that their whole world view and meaning is tied into that absolute belief structure. So, of course I expect that only very mature religious people will be able to refrain from switching to personal attack when their ideas are being torn apart by solid argument and scripture. Indeed, my experience has proven this to be the case time and again. When I am attacked personally by someone who is unable to counter with ideas, then, yes--I will use sarcasm, parody, and the like, as a necessary defense. But even then--NOW LISTEN CLOSE__even then--I relate my remarks to what they have said or expressed. I do not make stuff up in order to sidetrack the argument into a contest of spitting Now contrast this with your comment, "you are a person with a messiah complex, who needs followers and is threatened by opposing ideas. I could be wrong. Its not as much of an accusation as question."--this is dishonest, immoral, and immature. Perhaps you are worthy of the comment. You decide. Now I must go out. BYE.