The absurd debate

[henry quirk]

tw,

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

All of the above, it's his style.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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

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.

[henry quirk]

"Why assume criticism?"

Cuz that's what it is.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"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?

[henry quirk]

"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?).

[henry quirk]

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

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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?).

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.

[henry quirk]

*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.