truth that angers
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...

Comments
on Jul 15, 2005

Ever heard of a paragraph, Todd?  It'd make wading through your delusional ramblings a lot easier.

You say that you haven't said anything that wasn't true....well, your 'truth' and everyone else's are obviously 2 different things.  

on Jul 15, 2005
Yes, there are greater truths that can not be absolutely confirmed through evidence or experience. Killing in cold blood is bad, you can't prove it or back it up with real evidence, it's just something we "Know".

Unfortunately what you most often argue has absolutely nothing to do with greater truths. Unprovable truths are abstract ideas and concepts. You say things about US soldiers kidnapping children and wives, about intentional slaughter of civilians when there is no military value, you talk about the Nazis didn't actually do the things history says. You are arguing specific points about specific events and actions. Those require proof. Those require confirmation and evidence. Without support, specific accusations are rumors and can not be used to prove or support an argument.

Unprovable Statements:
There is/is not a God
God created the Earth/Universe
Love Thy Neighbor
and so on and so on...

Provable Statements:
I ate an apple for lunch yesterday
A soldier shot a child in the street
The holocaust never really happened
Prisoners in Gitmo are being held against the Geneva Convention
and so on and so on...

What you have to realize is that just because you say so, doesn't make it true. You go on and on about the Illegal War in Iraq. Well, it's a moot point now. The war part is over, this is the mop-up and secure phase. We went in (justified or not) and took out the Govt and the military. Now we're trying to piece it back together as best we can. Your wailing and gnashing of teeth is several years too late.

You can NOT make very specific and targeted claims without providing proof. If you fail to provide proof, your argument holds no merit. It becomes an opinion piece and not something to be taken as seriously.

Learn the rules of debate and argument. Learn them well, and maybe you'll eventually be able to hold your own against the least capable of debators on this site.
on Jul 15, 2005
but you can't argue why you would attack area G if you were beaten up by people from area A.


Sure you can ... Your mother is attacked and brutally killed by a man from avenue A. You know that the perpetrator is hiding in a house on avenue G. You know this because the person harboring him is has sworn to protect this sort of person and you have seen this killer looking out the window. The police do nothing about it because they say they don't have grounds for a search warrant. A year passes and this man still stands at the window and taunts you. The police still refuse to do anything. You can't stand by any longer and wait for resolution. You must act to prevent this killer from doing this again. So you act. Your actions are not viewed as popular but you do it anyway. You must. While there you fire your gun at the killer and miss. The bullet goes through the wall and kills a little old lady and her grandchild while they sleep in her favorite chair in the apartment next door. The man who has been harboring this criminal begins to fight with you and you shoot him. You still have a job to do. You must stop this killer before he strikes again. You must or your fate may be the same as that of your dead mother. You continue to hunt the killer until you have wiped him from the face of the earth because you have tried everything to deal with him and the police refuse to help you. Now you must help yourself.
on Jul 15, 2005
RH you need to read UN Resolution 1483, It states that the UN sees the US and Britian and others as LEGAL occupying forces. SO whats up with that??

QUOTE from UN Resolution 1483

"Noting the letter of 8 May 2003 from the Permanent Representatives of the
United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/538) and recognizing the
specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international
law of these states as occupying powers under unified command (the “Authority”),"

HELLO!! If its illeagal why does the UN say they are "recognizing" us as occupying powers under unified command. Oppsss. Guess your wrong. There it is in black and white. No lets see if you follow your own advice and accept things when presented with FACTS.

Here it is:
Link
on Jul 15, 2005
Whatever you have to tell yourself Reiki House. Enjoying the images of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as if it were porn may get you through the day, but it is also evidence that you are one sick, inhuman waste of human flesh. True, you never admitted to such hedonism, but (as you point out in your rant) sometimes the truth is blatant, even when their is no open admission.

on Jul 16, 2005
Oh dear....
on Jul 18, 2005
The war in Iraq was not illegal. This has been shown to you many times.


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.


You have said many things that are not true, then you "disappear" when asked to provide real facts.
on Jul 20, 2005
You all are right he has abandon the thread again, I guess he can't defend his positions, so I guess hes not worth even answering anymore. Now I know why hes on my blacklist.
on Jul 20, 2005
I don't think he's ever once actually responded back to anyone who didn't 100% agree with him with anything aside from "well... you're wrong dummie-head!"

The weak-minded are fun to play with.