North American Union Protests coming up in the next few days

godpt3

angelica wrote:

Each time you resort to an insult, you reveal to us that you do not have an intelligent argument.

The truth is NEVER an insult.

angelica

godpt3 wrote:

The truth is NEVER an insult.

right...so insulting Roland is "the truth"...... it certainly points to a truth...that you don't have a reasonable argument. Afterall, we don't save our best arguments for a "rainy day".

know1

floyd1975 wrote:

Why in the hell would you willingly move to a prison populated almost entirely by Australians and Canadians? You can't be as insane as the majority of this board know1.

You're right! That was a weak moment for me and I wasn't thinking straight. Obviously Australia wouldn't be nearly as desirable with all those Canadians there!

godpt3

angelica wrote:

right...so insulting Roland is "the truth"...... it certainly points to a truth...that you don't have a reasonable argument. Afterall, we don't save our best arguments for a "rainy day".

You know, I've debated some of the top debating minds in the country in my day. Your friend is what we used to call a "squirrel." Someone whose beliefs were so screwy, so off the wall, that the only defense was to point out the painfully obvious.

angelica

godpt3 wrote:

You know, I've debated some of the top debating minds in the country in my day. Your friend is what we used to call a "squirrel." Someone whose beliefs were so screwy, so off the wall, that the only defense was to point out the painfully obvious.

If you cannot understand the point of view of another, that is about you. The defense you use--the insult, again, as I said--lies fully in your lack of a reasoned response. You define your own behaviour. No one else does.

surferdude

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The heart of it is really there in my signature.

choose the pill: peace v.s. war....ying v.s. yang.... love v.s. hate

Since the dawn of time.. it's decision we all have to make.

Why has all this loss of sovereign countries not happened in the EU? England is still England, France has not gone away, even the smaller countries have maintained their uniqueness.

You've mentioned that EU was the first experiment fo rthis 50 years ago. Yet they don't get embroiled in the ongoing wars in the middle east. I wonder why you think they can stay out but Canada would not be able to. I think you do a disservice to just about everyone by seemingly acting as if we are Jews happily going to the gas chambers. I get the impression that you think if someone does not react to the news in the same manner as you that they either uneducated on the subject, don't care or are stupid. Sorry but I find that insulting.

The NAU is inevitable. It's the UN on a more limited scope. NATO for trade purposes. Yes, it will mean change but I don't see the change as near perpetual war. A world with less borders is a good thing.

godpt3

angelica wrote:

If you cannot understand the point of view of another, that is about you. The defense you use--the insult, again, as I said--lies fully in your lack of a reasoned response. You define your own behaviour. No one else does.

The problem arises when the other individual does not have a valid, logical point of view. Should I simply accept someone who says the sky is green, when I can clearly see that it is blue and understand the science behind why it is blue?

angelica

surferdude wrote:

The NAU is inevitable.

Would you like this inevitable happening to happen on the terms of a few politicians, or on the terms of the majority, as in a true democracy?

surferdude

know1 wrote:

You're right! That was a weak moment for me and I wasn't thinking straight. Obviously Australia wouldn't be nearly as desirable with all those Canadians there!

Good beer, good surfing, and the accents some of those ladies have are three mighty fine reasons to me.

angelica

godpt3 wrote:

The problem arises when the other individual does not have a valid, logical point of view. Should I simply accept someone who says the sky is green, when I can clearly see that it is blue and understand the science behind why it is blue?

I completely understand if what Roland says completely rubs you the wrong way and opposes what you see and believe. I support that 100%. That means you have two different points of view. Can you accept an opposing viewpoint? Can you debate that fairly, in an above board manner?

godpt3

angelica wrote:

I completely understand if what Roland says completely rubs you the wrong way and opposes what you see and believe. I support that 100%. That means you have two different points of view. Can you accept an opposing viewpoint? Can you debate that fairly, in an above board manner?

I'm quite willing to see a different point of view, but I reserve the right to call anyone who claims the sky is green an idiot

surferdude

angelica wrote:

Would you like this inevitable happening to happen on the terms of a few politicians, or on the terms of the majority, as in a true democracy?

On the best terms possible given according to my benefit. I won't presume that anything I'm doing is for the benefit of the people, my ego's just not that big.

My radar goes off when I hear mention of 'terms of the majority' given that just about every country has a Bill of Rights type document to save people from the 'terms of the majority', including Canada.

I think the NAU and changes it will bring will all be quite boring. We live in a country where one province has not signed our constitution but we are still a country. We live in a country that willfully turns a blind eye to a one province denying people their basic rights of language. But still our country goes on. Should the NAU turn out badly I have full faith that we will once again turn a blind eye and our country will still go on.

Sorry but it's hard to get me riled up about possible future injustices when we refuse to address current injustices. Look at Quebec, look at Darfur, look at the continent of Africa. If the NAU goes sideways it's just a bit of karma from my point of view.

godpt3

Let's talk burden of proof: If Roland is going to claim the NWO (or any one of the other fanatical claims), I would expect some concrete evidence besides, "the guy next door to me at the asylum says it's true." But until he produces that...

angelica

godpt3 wrote:

I'm quite willing to see a different point of view, but I reserve the right to call anyone who claims the sky is green an idiot

Therein lies the flaw.

If you think you are better than someone, or more "right", and you are skipping the stage of proving it, and then you go on and justify demeaning them....you are demeaning a human being.

How can you excuse that? You can't. You cannot even prove they are wrong because you do not have a reasoned argument. All you are proving is that you disagree and that you are unable to prove that you are accurate.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

you know, I keep expecting you to spontaneously burst into flames while running away screaming.

Sorry to disappoint you...do try to have something to say other than utter uselessness.

angelica

surferdude wrote:

My radar goes off when I hear mention of 'terms of the majority'

Do you realize this union stuff is happening outside of the political scope? It is happening on the outside of "Canada" technically agreeing. Therefore it is happening outside any democratic process.

godpt3

angelica wrote:

You cannot even prove they are wrong because you do not have a reasoned argument.

See, that's the beauty of the burden. I don't have to prove they're wrong. They have to prove they're right.

angelica

godpt3 wrote:

See, that's the beauty of the burden. I don't have to prove they're wrong. They have to prove they're right.

You've made numerous assertions that you cannot prove: ie: Roland's idiocy, craziness, etc. You don't have the power to prove your own point, so you are trying to make the other guy small so you appear bigger. It doesn't work, except in your own mind.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

You know, I've debated some of the top debating minds in the country in my day. Your friend is what we used to call a "squirrel." Someone whose beliefs were so screwy, so off the wall, that the only defense was to point out the painfully obvious.

Well all I see are repetitive and pithy jerk off comments that 10 year old could make, so I highly doubt the "Oh I'm the top of the game big world talker.."

No offense, but gmab...what utter bullshit.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

surferdude wrote:

Good beer, good surfing, and the accents some of those ladies have are three mighty fine reasons to me.

topic integrity please...thanks.This site has PM