The be-all end-all evidence, non-admissable in court but definitely admissable in relation to human response, that someone silently agrees with someone, but will always refuse to accept that fact, is the deliberate moving of focus onto something that all in all is totally irrelevant with what is really being said. For example, things can go along at the usual pace, some things go your way, some things go the other guy's way, and we understand that's a fact of life. But when a certain someone is mentioning uncomfortable truisms which no sane character can ever hope to argue against, then things get a bit too uncomfortable. And when the realization of that sinks in, the discomfort turns into animosity. But there's no ill blame here since it's what I call a normal human response to something which makes us a touch fearful. When things get too logical, and we ALL have the natural instinct to see things as logical, what one holds dear, a person't deepest beliefs, are at risk of being shifted. So the normal human response is to try deflect the content of what is being said into something which it is not, usually trying to debunk the truisms with not counter facts or counter logic, but a slur on a person's race, creed, religion, and mostly politics. So when someone asks someone who is diehard for the illegal Iraq war why the US went to war in Iraq illegally, the response is never the acknowledging of universal understanding that the UN is the only accepted way to invade another country legally, but rather it's how the UN is lame and wimpy and has lost direction, or people like Reiki have a hard on for the US and lets antiamerican hate blur his focus. All normal human responses to an intellectual threat. Of course these armchair hawks know the simple concept which the US had promoted from the UN's creation until 2002, that a UN Resolution had to be voted on to make any military action internationally legal under the laws even the US signed on to. But that must get ignored so you can continue with the insane belief that somehow logic and reality is movable and shiftable to suit your needs. Of course you can't say that about yourself, and anyways once things get too uncomfortable and too impossible to argue in favor of, you have to shift focus onto irelevancies. There's no time for you to think rationally when you're beliefs are under the gun. And that's unfortunate.
I have not said anything which is not true, and anything you may take irrational offence to are nothing more than simple questions which I think should merit an answer, no matter the variety. My record of content is acceptable.
Liking Me? Don't Like Me? Whatever!
I do not see this blog site as a popularity contest, and I do nothing more than feed you all truisms and realities which you all seem to ignore or evade. I am a conscience here and do not care a whit whether you like me or not. It is not relevant to me and if you tell me you like me I'll say thanks. If you say you don't like me I'll say uh ok thanks. Nothing matters to me except the truth, and you all know the truth is uncomfortable sometimes.
One funny thing is why this person's contrary thread would appear after my thread which was full of nothing more than exact moral and logic comparisons which are so elementary a grade one student would know the answers. And that to me is evidence that the biggest threat to some people is the total and complete simple and elementary logic which cannot be argued. You can argue weapons, killing, death etc...but you can't argue why you would attack area G if you were beaten up by people from area A. You can't argue elementary logic. You can't argue that you think any American citizen who would help an US-invading army to find American insurgents shouldn't be stopped.
So change the subject to save face.
going for lunch...