[Ratmagiclady]

Ginge is a pretty reprehensible human being, huh?

Well, I think he's kind of a barbarian: he can pick up or parrot an idea if it serves him, but it's just a stick to get what he wants and to defend his sense of 'superiority.'

His arrogant claims to demand the world be seen as he says.

'Yes, idiots read Nietzche, they just don't understand it.'

No, Ginge, claiming to 'know everyone's positive and negatives'... through stereotypes *you* define, ...doesn't make you smarter or more correct or able to say 'That's just reality:' ...Cause it's clearly not. You arrogantly keep making claims based on the *wrong* presumptions, even in your defense of prejudice: then compound it by claiming that the opposition is saying that people are supposed to be all the *same.* (One can celebrate diversity and appreciate other cultures without insisting that everything you see must fit a preconceived idea, no matter how 'right' or 'deserved' you think a label is. The point, as I said, is the *refusal to see any different.* You arrogate to yourself the right to define others, and then try and insist reality fit. )

All you are doing is trying to worsen 'confirmation bias' and deceive about what others actually say and believe, as part of your agenda to get what you want for yourself.

Of course, you claim that someone's 'incomprehensible' when they call you out on it, yeah, yeah. Maybe the 'incomprehension' is on your side of the keyboard.

As you've just demonstrated, it's willful and unapologetic.

Just because neither I, nor my religion, have any problem with evolutionary science ...doesn't make what you claimed I would say *true.* Because I take a side in an *argument,* you insistently label me as saying things *you* made up to say about who you consider the 'enemy.'

Perhaps if you don't *comprehend* something, it has to do with an inability to assimilate information you didn't generate in your own head. Or get spoon-fed from your own select sources.

That's certainly no way to run an economy: claiming that Wall Street constitutes a 'free market' when in fact it's anything but.

It shows *your* weakness. Arrogant blindness. Dressing it up with a 'My Dear' doesn't make it civilized. You're just picking up a mockery of manners and swinging it.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 07-11-2010 at 01:43 PM.

[GingeM]

So you want to defy natural law and claim that everyone is equal?

Might I suggest that is naive, inaccurate and, since it flies in the face of the evidence that slaps you in the face every time you step out of your front door, (you do get out a bit, don't you?), quite fanciful to do so.

RML:

No, Ginge, claiming to 'know everyone's positive and negatives'.

Please read what I said...

[Ratmagiclady]

So you want to defy natural law and claim that everyone is equal?

I defy your assertion that your bigotries have anything to *do* with any 'natural law,' never mind any facility to apply such a concept.

'Natural Law' in such contexts is really just a BS rationalization of bigotry and 'Social Darwinism,' or religious bigotries that would be otherwise indefensible, anyway.

Might I suggest that is naive, inaccurate and, since it flies in the face of the evidence that slaps you in the face every time you step out of your front door, (you do get out a bit, don't you?), quite fanciful to do so.

Actually, you applied your own prejudices, said everyone who disagrees with you is saying something you made up, calling *that* naive and inaccurate, while not even seeming to be *curious* when I told you you were wrong on three counts about my religion and the conclusions your prejudices led to.

You're still insisting those conclusions are the reality, even now, when they're *wrong.*
From the premises.
You think that qualifies you to tell us to follow your *management* ideology?

Seriously?

I think *that's* naive and inaccurrate.

RML:



Please read what I said...

I did, actually, it was so full of false premises we already covered that I didn't quote it, is all.

One thing you never hear from these 'Free market' types and every-man-for-himself types is an admission of some presumptive inferiority on their own part when they *lose.* Even when they do the same thing over and over, it gets worse and worse, and they want bailouts.

You'd think that'd figure in to that 'realistic worldview' somewhere, eh?

[justinr]

Justin:

If you don't understand the principles of nationality then everything else is of no use discussing.


Pardon me for saying so but that is something of a cop out. But anyway, I met a fellow in France recently who was French, I think. Not too sure as he did his national service in the Belgium army and was brought up in the Netherlands although his father was from France and his mother Belgium. Given the choice of army's in which to serve he chose the Belgium one because he could keep his bike in the barracks. A little thing I know but it decided upon whose side he might have to fight and which flag he could find himself dying for. How does this fit in with your principles of nationality?

BTW, this sort of mix up is quite common throughout Europe especially in the post war generation as masses of people were displaced and dispersed during the conflict and in the Balkans the process is still ongoing as it has been for thousands of years.

[gokenin]

heck one could argue in this day and age the only thing Europe treats as any kind of nationality is football(soccer to us Americans). Put a Englishmen on the Italian side of a German on the Dutch side and see what happens to them. I know its a gross exaggeration of how important nationality is in Europe but hey a little levity is need in a thread that is rapidly becoming personal and heading towards a shut down

[Parallax]

Another personal slapfest closed. Do some of you just not get it? CLOSED