That is an only good strategy when another mocks any intelligent discussion. Again, the bully dirties everyone else in the room who came for intelligent conversation. One need only see the circus call Republican debates. When only the bullies - Cruz and Trump - survived by being belligerent - not cerebral.

tw,

Don't know if you're criticizin' me, Trump, Clinton, Republicans, Cellar-folk, or some-one or -thing else entirely.

All of the above, it's his style.

Why assume criticism? Stated are facts and ironies. It keeps xoxoxoBruce in line. Ok. Back to relevance.

Nobody is the subject. Subject is what happens when cheapshot artists subvert discussion. Either a wacko extremist must be attacked with similar insults - so that the emotional remain confused.

Or a cheapshot artist is permitted to entangle himself when confronted with smarmy and smirky. That latter strategy worked. The Donald eventually became confused, kept interrupting, talked in circles, would not stop talking, admitted he does not pay taxes, admitted to demeaning women by calling them fat (when he is quite portly), and eventually blamed the microphone.

A bully dirties everyone in the room. You nor all Republicans nor Democrats nor Putin were listed. Listed was how Trump, Cruz, Hitler, and Berlusconi types so pervert honest discussion.

Bullies, throughout mankind's history, dirty everyone in the room. Hitler so successfully obtained power using that technique - as delineated in a book to teach his followers. Also defined is how some confront bullies.

Every listener, to be informed, must define which one started 'dirtying' the room and only blame him. Most of us only blame everyone rather than rightly attack the few who make informed discussion impossible.

Now, you want names? In Republican debates, Cruz and Trump constantly dirtied the room. Even Christie, who is also a bully, could not keep up. Other and superior politicians were driven from the running by voters who only understand slurs and abuse.

Numerous intelligent Republicans (ie Snow, Romney, Dole, et al) have stated their disgust with the party's choice. And rightly so. They are shocked to discover large numbers in their party only see demeaning insults and cheapshots - do not hear intelligent discussion. They were shocked to learn how The Donald found so many lesser educated Republicans who think like him. Mainstream Republicans who are more intelligent are now finding themselves an alienated minority by others who use disparagement to obtain power. A violation of Reagan principles.

Persons are not criticized. Criticized is the philosophy and why it works. So many foolishly believe the antagonist. Noted from history are people brought to power only by mockery, insults, and other low brow soundbytes. Those people 'dirty' all honest discussion. Then too many among us blame all participants - not the instigator.

'Persons' are irrelevant here. The philosophy - what 'people' do - is contrasted. Person and people are completely different in this context.

"Why assume criticism?"

Cuz that's what it is.

Then you are not reading the intent - what is being defines - and a philosophy used to be uncivil. For example, where is one sentence that criticized you?

"Then you are not reading the intent"

Cuz your intent is unclear, as is your explanation of your intent.

#

"where is one sentence that criticized you?"

Where did I say you were critical of 'me'? All I know: you 'are' criticizin'. What I (still) don't know (or get): who or what you're bein' critical of.

Meh...chalk it up to my being dumb (cuz, obviously, it has nuthin' to do with you bein' a crappy writer..cuz you're not...a crappy writer, I mean...any one who thinks 'that' is just wrong and wrong-headed...right?).

That last bit (the crappy writer schtick) was unkind and uncalled for...sorry about that.

Or read the relevant sentences. ie. " 'Persons' are irrelevant here. The philosophy - what 'people' do - is contrasted. "

Sometimes people make this mistake. They assume criticism of a philosophy, concept, proposal, or theory is personal criticism. The concept becomes its own entity - independent of the person who spawned it.

*shrug*

Still got no friggin' idea what your point is.

You seem to say '*hate the sin, love (or be indifferent to) the sinner' but I'm just guessin'.









*a horse manure position to take...the sin only 'is' cuz of the sinner, so -- yeah -- hate the friggin' sinner.

But, but, what if you agree with the "sinner" that what they're doing is not a sin?

As in, if the "sin" is stopping people keeping slaves, even though the Bible endorses it, do you lovie the man who buys and sells people like cattle, but also love the man who tries to stop it?

Or alternatively, if you believe homosexuality is a sin, how do you separate the person from their desires?

Paedophiles can be put in a prison indefinitely to keep them from harming the public, which makes some sense. But the conditions they are kept in are similar to those who deliberately chose and planned to kill another person.

You may as well ask, "What is justice and how do we perceive it?"
It can't be Biblical, as the Old Testament was supplanted by the New.
In this country we hanged people for petty theft, even children. Did it work? Are we theft-free now? Nope.

Sorry, wanderings of a bemused mind and in no way connected to Trump.

Sounds like you're exploring the idea of letting homosexuals have pedophiles as slaves until one of the group steals something then hang them all.

I suppose that kind of peer pressure might work.

Your suggestion that Sundae has a peer is absurd.