CapeXit 2

[lexity]

Those words are insultive, surely a more civil yet still descriptive alternative is available?
People can still believe what they want - you do still support that notion, right?

I know you believe in it being fair game to sling mud within public debating, but is it always an extreme must? Some still believe in being gentlemen. British parliament sometimes gets close to being a good example.

I treat people's openly stated beliefs(*) as a liability warning.... a precursor to the violent actions.

Anyone can change their mind from committing the violence their stated beliefs betray.... but where they demonstrate their unwillingness to be subject to discourse(the strongest argument), as opposed to deferring to authority(experts by decree).... they need to be called out as criminally-minded.

If you ever encounter someone like this keeping your mouth shut is not the ideal response. I understand your job might be in jeopardy and that there is an appropriate time and place. I'm just saying this problem will grow unless confronted (which, in itself, is a peaceful process).

I confront criminally-minded people all the time on this very forum. There has been no violence at all from me, towards them..

* beliefs that demonstrate their intractability to discourse/argumentation.

 

[vigras rojara]

I treat people's openly stated beliefs(*) as a liability warning.... a precursor to the violent actions.

Anyone can change their mind from committing the violence their stated beliefs betray.... but where they demonstrate their unwillingness to be subject to discourse(the strongest argument), as opposed to deferring to authority(experts by decree).... they need to be called out as criminally-minded.

If you ever encounter someone like this keeping your mouth shut is not the ideal response. I understand your job might be in jeopardy and that there is an appropriate time and place. I'm just saying this problem will grow unless confronted (which, in itself, is a peaceful process).

I confront criminally-minded people all the time on this very forum. There has been no violence at all from me, towards them..

* beliefs that demonstrate their intractability to discourse/argumentation.

 

[Brian_G]

I'm just saying this problem will grow unless confronted (which, in itself, is a peaceful process).

No-one is suggesting a lack of confrontation, that's largely what this forum is all about. But being insultive is not peaceful, it's antagonistic.

I confront criminally-minded people all the time on this very forum. There has been no violence at all from me, towards them..

Verbal violence is a thing. Some certainly see it that way.

 

[lexity]

No-one is suggesting a lack of confrontation, that's largely what this forum is all about. But being insultive is not peaceful, it's antagonistic.

Hang-on.... let's just clear something up....

You don't have to be polite.... to the willfully ignorant, criminally-minded.

That's just some serious social conditioning, right there.

Verbal violence is a thing. Some certainly see it that way.

Ha ha.

Well, we are back at defining aggression, and that is perfectly respectable topic for debate.

ESPECIALLY on a topic that involves withdrawing from a rule-set that is bad (if 32 years of election results are anything to go by), and deciding on a new rule-set, for the new nation.

At least we came back to the nub of the entire discussion, Brian_G.

God knows we've had this exact discussion before, but I'm very happy to revisit it.

 

[lexity]

The concept of 'verbal violence' has traditionally been limited, in the West and elsewhere, to imminent, credible threats of violence.

Name-calling is not - under our tradition, which goes back centuries - an act of aggression.

If you prefer it to be, then that is a great example of an incompatible core value.... which signals a jurisdictional separation.

 

[Brian_G]

Hang-on.... let's just clear something up....

You don't have to be polite.... to the willfully ignorant, criminally-minded.

That's just some serious social conditioning, right there.

"willfully ignorant" - who are we to make such judgements. Perhaps sticking to their guns may often be more appropriate.

"criminally-minded" - highly unlikely you'll ever be able to practically pin that on anyone here, so why not rather be the benefit of the doubt type.
It's not a weakness, if anything being civil catches people off guard ;- )

At least we came back to the nub of the entire discussion, Brian_G.

God knows we've had this exact discussion before, but I'm very happy to revisit it.

Nah. Always fresh in my mind

 

[lexity]

If you have to reach for an instrument of violence to silence someone who calls you a nasty name, I'd suggest you are the one that needs some self-reflection.

Otherwise .... a jurisdictional separation is in order.... that's the only thing that will keep the peace.

We have plenty of abuses at the hands of Blue-vs-Red contention over who should have right of way in forcing their core values on the other.... that has led us to the Epstein Class.

Can't you see how destructive it is to house 2 incompatible rule-sets under one contrived political union?

 

[Brian_G]

The concept of 'verbal violence' has traditionally been limited, in the West and elsewhere, to imminent, credible threats of violence.

Name-calling is not - under our tradition, which goes back centuries - an act of aggression.

If you prefer it to be, then that is a great example of an incompatible core value.... which signals a jurisdictional separation.

Sure, we could see it that way... but my thinking here is not related to these recent freedom of speech related manipulations in the guise of "protecting the sensitive".

I'm talking about choice. About respect for other concepts, foreign as they may be.

 

[lexity]

Hang-on.... let's just clear something up....

You don't have to be polite.... to the willfully ignorant, criminally-minded.

That's just some serious social conditioning, right there.

"willfully ignorant" - who are we to make such judgements. Perhaps sticking to their guns may often be more appropriate.

Geez... you must be joking.

'sticking to their guns' is literally to the case... where you are not allowed to stick to your literal guns.

The State's modus operandi is not reasoned discourse. It is force.

You don't select the most competent market goods or service provider by leaving it up to the State.

Are you mad?

 

[Brian_G]

If you have to reach for an instrument of violence to silence someone who calls you a nasty name, I'd suggest you are the one that needs some self-reflection.

Otherwise .... a jurisdictional separation is in order.... that's the only thing that will keep the peace.

We have plenty of abuses at the hands of Blue-vs-Red contention over who should have right of way in forcing their core values on the other.... that has led us to the Epstein Class.

Can't you see how destructive it is to house 2 incompatible rule-sets under one contrived political union?

Very opportunistic post my friend, good for you ;- )

 

[Cray]

To the contrary, that you can't see the strength of my argument on the specifics of market-cornering, is why the labels of pinko, cuck, knuckle-dragging, hen-pecking are completely justified.

And you will probably be completely mystified when you get banned again.

 

[Brian_G]

Geez... you must be joking.

'sticking to their guns' is literally to the case... where you are not allowed to stick to your literal guns.

The State's modus operandi is not reasoned discourse. It is force.

You don't select the most competent market goods or service provider by leaving it up to the State.

Are you mad?

Huh? We're talking about a forum and its (presumed) common public citizens' involvement. This isn't a govt. organisation...

 

[lexity]

"criminally-minded" - highly unlikely you'll ever be able to practically pin that on anyone here, so why not rather be the benefit of the doubt type.
It's not a weakness, if anything being civil catches people off guard ;- )

That's hilarious, Brian_G.

If someone indicates they habitually turn to the State to settle debates.... they are criminally-minded, who... by their own estimate are incapable of having their minded changed.

Be honest, if you thought that you could only learn at the rate of evolutionary biology, and you saw your fellow citizens(who don't share that self-imposed limitation) racing ahead of you, in terms of ability and awareness..... are you telling me that you would not reach for the legal privilege/shelter(from having to be right) that the State offers?

 

[Cray]

The concept of 'verbal violence' has traditionally been limited, in the West and elsewhere, to imminent, credible threats of violence.

Name-calling is not - under our tradition, which goes back centuries - an act of aggression.

Lexie, you are using a private forum to post your thoughts. Name calling is generally regarded as against the rules. By choosing to use this free forum, you agree to abide by those rules. If you dont like it, you are free to associate on another forum or make your own.

Just letting you know for the next time you get sent to the naughty corner.

 

[Brian_G]

That's hilarious, Brian_G.

If someone indicates they habitually turn to the State to settle debates.... they are criminally-minded, who... by their own estimate are incapable of having their minded changed.

Be honest, if you thought that you could only learn at the rate of evolutionary biology, and you saw your fellow citizens(who don't share that self-imposed limitation) racing ahead of you, in terms of ability and awareness..... are you telling me that you would not reach for the legal privilege/shelter(from having to be right) that the State offers?

Lex, in their minds they're just doing the ordinary. Also in their minds - people like us (anti-establishment) are considered loons, etc.

Who's fault is that.
Don't stone them for being in the dark.
At least be civil.

 

[lexity]

Sure, we could see it that way... but my thinking here is not related to these recent freedom of speech related manipulations in the guise of "protecting the sensitive".

I'm talking about choice. About respect for other concepts, foreign as they may be.

That's a bunch of BS, dude.



You should know better than most, the lengths I go to to engage people peacefully.

If you insist on the violence of the State to do your 'thinking' for you, you are a thug.

Plain and simple.

 

[Brian_G]

That's a bunch of BS, dude.



You should know better than most, the lengths I go to to engage people peacefully.

In many other ways, yes.

If you insist on the violence of the State to do your 'thinking' for you, you are a thug.

Plain and simple.

So now you're judge and jury?

It's seldom one can make such a determination in this kind of environment. More likely they just follow the herd.

 

[lexity]

Lex, in their minds they're just doing the ordinary. Also in their minds - people like us (anti-establishment) are considered loons, etc.

Who's fault is that.
Don't stone them for being in the dark.
At least be civil.

Being in the dark is one thing.....

... imposing your darkness onto others, is quite another.

And watch out.... if you hang-out with the criminally-minded too long, you know what will happen.



Wake up Brian_G, don't be such a soft target..

 

[ToxicBunny]

That's a bunch of BS, dude.



You should know better than most, the lengths I go to to engage people peacefully.

If you insist on the violence of the State to do your 'thinking' for you, you are a thug.

Plain and simple.

Peacefully whilst throwing pejoratives around like they're candy at Halloween.

 

[Brian_G]

Being in the dark is one thing.....

... imposing your darkness onto others, is quite another.

Ok, that happens on occasion. You can still be the better, civil dude about it.

And watch out.... if you hang-out with the criminally-minded too long, you know what will happen.



Wake up Brian_G, don't be such a soft target..

Hmm... as if I haven't lived long enough to know this, and learn from it.

But you forget - everyone has some value, there are no complete absolutes. Sure, tread very carefully though.


Anyway, it's a suggestion, ignore if you must.