Noam Chomsky: America is accelerating the apocalypse

polaris_x

JimmyV wrote:

Listen, you want to claim it was not a snide remark, that is fine. Know that I don't believe you. Just one more thing we can disagree on.

It was pointed out yesterday that this is making us sound like an old married couple. I tend to agree and have no desire to be part of that dynamic, so I really have no more to say on this particular part of the argument. You say it wasn't, I say it was. So be it.

you're right ... normally i wouldn't engage in this futility but i find your post disingenuous and feel compelled to respond ... you're quick at accusing people of things but the evidence is in the text ... i could walk away but i'm simply not going to allow you to play victim and me bully when it's simply not the case ... you've called me a lot of things on here - all of which are false and that's definitely playing a role in me responding to your accusations ...

edit: it's really simple here ... did you or did you not provide any reasoning or rationale? ... it's pretty clear you did not ...

JonnyPistachio

JimmyV wrote:

It was pointed out yesterday that this is making us sound like an old married couple.

oh thats too damned funny. Who does the cooking?

JimmyV

polaris_x wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Listen, you want to claim it was not a snide remark, that is fine. Know that I don't believe you. Just one more thing we can disagree on.

It was pointed out yesterday that this is making us sound like an old married couple. I tend to agree and have no desire to be part of that dynamic, so I really have no more to say on this particular part of the argument. You say it wasn't, I say it was. So be it.

you're right ... normally i wouldn't engage in this futility but i find your post disingenuous and feel compelled to respond ... you're quick at accusing people of things but the evidence is in the text ... i could walk away but i'm simply not going to allow you to play victim and me bully when it's simply not the case ... you've called me a lot of things on here - all of which are false and that's definitely playing a role in me responding to your accusations ...

edit: it's really simple here ... did you or did you not provide any reasoning or rationale? ... it's pretty clear you did not ...

Do you see the post above where you claimed I had never mentioned benevolence or history in my arguments and I pointed out quite clearly that I had? I see you are ignoring that to continue this.

I am not playing any victim and do not feel victimized. I feel you made a snide comment, one to which I responded with an eye roll and a whatever. My post was not disingenuous. What you wrote was snide. Had you said "No, I don't think you answered my question" I would not have called it snide because it would not have been. What you did, telling me that I don't have a rationale for my beliefs because I don't agree with yours, was snide. Plain and simple. And I do believe that you meant it to be. Not playing the victim - just stating what I believe.

Had I actually felt victimized my response would have been much longer-winded than a whatever and a shrug.

polaris_x

JimmyV wrote:

Do you see the post above where you claimed I had never mentioned benevolence or history in my arguments and I pointed out quite clearly that I had? I see you are ignoring that to continue this.

I am not playing any victim and do not feel victimized. I feel you made a snide comment, one to which I responded with an eye roll and a whatever. My post was not disingenuous. What you wrote was snide. Had you said "No, I don't think you answered my question" I would not have called it snide because it would not have been. What you did, telling me that I don't have a rationale for my beliefs because I don't agree with yours, was snide. Plain and simple. And I do believe that you meant it to be. Not playing the victim - just stating what I believe.

Had I actually felt victimized my response would have been much longer-winded than a whatever and a shrug.

i missed that post originally as i read from the bottom up ...

ok ... so you did mention historical benevolence although i'm not sure that really constitutes a rationale or reason ... but for the sake of our discussion - i will say it does ...

you could have said that was your reason when you were asked for one multiple times leading up to that ... instead i got what you posted which, indicates that you did not demonstrate a reasoning ... and then subsequently are now saying that i should have told you that you didn't answer the question ... which i suppose is an admittance that you did not ...

so ... i guess in the end - i can't control how you are gonna interpret stuff here ... for both our sakes - i will try and refrain from engaging with you in a discussion in the future as we can clearly show - it disintegrates quite fast ...