what's really going on in the USA?
Comments
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
R. Stone is not God. No moral law was broken. Nothing was done wrong. Stone got arrested big deal. He will get his days in court. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The "trickster" got some of his own medicine. Boo!Thanks, Bill for an attempt to explain to those who will not see. Really, how can one explain nonsense? America has bigger problems than Stone's arrest. You have children who were taken away from their parents and will never see them again. Where is the justice in this?
Show some real compassion for a real situation, the children! CM
Why do you have so much faith in Bill? He is wrong on most things.
Reformed,
Your response to my post is a sad distraction from what I put forth. You appear to be unwilling or unable to address my post. Bill was not the issue and you know it.What about the children the US Government snatched from the bosom of the mothers at the Southern borders who will never see a parent again? This is Societal Kidnapping. What's the difference of taking a child from the mother's breasts or just outside of the mother's womb? This familial abortion is inhumane and stinks to the high heavens. The Government is no doctor and doesn't know what best for the child, the family, the life of the child and the health of the mother. Man-up and deal with this post and the US Child Traffickers, in uniform on America's payroll.
R. Stone doesn't have a leg to stand on. He's a showman and will fold like an old accordion with dissonance sound before Mueller. Don't waste e-ink on trying to defend him.
Bill speaks for himself. Again, man-up and address your concerns with him directly. Be a peacemaker and not a confusion-maker. Frankly, I don't think you want the truth. When the truth is given, you appear to be unable to handle the truth. CM
-
@reformed said:
Why do you have so much faith in Bill? He is wrong on most things.The above is an example of an ad hominem argument
and an unsubstantiated claim.It, in my opinion, would have been better had you simply stated that you do not personally agree with Bill's arguments. I often do not agree with bill's arguments, but I
do respect the amount of work he puts into his posts (making them coherent) even if I do not find the arguments convincing. -
Don't really care.
-
From the guidelines:
“You may wish to voice a contradictory opinion. That’s fine, but remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
Name-calling
Ad hominem attacks
Reacting to a post’s tone rather than responding to its content”
Perhaps if more of us took the CD guidelines seriously CD would attract more members? -
@Mitchell said:
The above is an example of an ad hominem argument
and an unsubstantiated claim.It, in my opinion, would have been better had you simply stated that you do not personally agree with Bill's arguments. I often do not agree with bill's arguments, but I
do respect the amount of work he puts into his posts (making them coherent) even if I do not find the arguments convincing.I think you offer a succinct and spot-on vision of "Christian discourse." Thanks.
Engaging points of view different from ours is not more complicated than what you propose: "I disagree with your point of view, and here's why." Discussions defined by such phrasing cannot turn personal, or descend to the gutters of personal dismissal or juvenile name calling.
That's why I'm such a fan of the expectation of this and the previous edition of the CD forums, which wisely counsels us to "criticize ideas, not people." Disagreements litigated through that axiom can be informative, enlightening, challenging, even pointed, yet at their cores still respectful. Disagreements litigated through the dinge of dismissal and name calling have no hope of such an outcome, as far too many of our threads regularly demonstrate.
-
@Mitchell said:
From the guidelines:
“You may wish to voice a contradictory opinion. That’s fine, but remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:
Name-calling
Ad hominem attacks
Reacting to a post’s tone rather than responding to its content”
Perhaps if more of us took the CD guidelines seriously CD would attract more members?I love how you and @Bill_Coley regularly champion this and point this out while simultaneously breaking another expectation.
If You See a Problem, Flag It
It’s everyone’s job to make this forum a healthy, happy place for discourse. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. A reply consumes energy and draws more attention to the offending post. Just flag it. When enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by a moderator.Guess you don't follow the guidelines either.
-
@reformed said:
I love how you and @Bill_Coley regularly champion this and point this out while simultaneously breaking another expectation.If You See a Problem, Flag It
It’s everyone’s job to make this forum a healthy, happy place for discourse. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. A reply consumes energy and draws more attention to the offending post. Just flag it. When enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by a moderator.Guess you don't follow the guidelines either.
So in your view, your practice of calling other posters names such as "pig" and "idiot" is no worse than our practice of calling you out on your practice of calling other posters names such as "pig" and "idiot"?
Also, please note that the moderator HAS intervened as to your practice of calling other posters names, and on more than one occasion - the latest being just a couple of weeks ago. In that post, Jan re-posted a pyramid depiction of various forms of arguments, from the most appropriate ("refuting the central point" and "refutation") to the least appropriate ("ad hominem" and "name-calling")
In response to the moderator's post you defended your practice this way...
"Once an argument has been torn down and their insanity continues to repeat itself the lower levels become necessary."
Given that you've continued your practice of calling other posters names despite the fact that the moderator has at least twice advised you against it, on what basis are we to believe that you would give up your practice were we to stop calling you out on it?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I love how you and @Bill_Coley regularly champion this and point this out while simultaneously breaking another expectation.If You See a Problem, Flag It
It’s everyone’s job to make this forum a healthy, happy place for discourse. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. A reply consumes energy and draws more attention to the offending post. Just flag it. When enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by a moderator.Guess you don't follow the guidelines either.
So in your view, your practice of calling other posters names such as "pig" and "idiot" is no worse than our practice of calling you out on your practice of calling other posters names such as "pig" and "idiot"?
Also, please note that the moderator HAS intervened as to your practice of calling other posters names, and on more than one occasion - the latest being just a couple of weeks ago. In that post, Jan re-posted a pyramid depiction of various forms of arguments, from the most appropriate ("refuting the central point" and "refutation") to the least appropriate ("ad hominem" and "name-calling")
In response to the moderator's post you defended your practice this way...
"Once an argument has been torn down and their insanity continues to repeat itself the lower levels become necessary."
Given that you've continued your practice of calling other posters names despite the fact that the moderator has at least twice advised you against it, on what basis are we to believe that you would give up your practice were we to stop calling you out on it?
I never said I would stop, I was simply calling out your hypocrisy. And honestly, since you are not a moderator, every time you attack my use of ad hominem and name-calling you are engaging in the exact same behavior because you are focusing on me and not the topic. So you are also guilty as charged.
And yes, your hypocrisy is the same level as what I do. But then again, I guess hypocrisy is kind of a staple for liberal hacks.
-
@reformed said:
I never said I would stop, I was simply calling out your hypocrisy. And honestly, since you are not a moderator, every time you attack my use of ad hominem and name-calling you are engaging in the exact same behavior because you are focusing on me and not the topic. So you are also guilty as charged.
No. When I call out your practice of name-calling, I am focusing on your practice of name-calling, not on you. If you don't want your practice of name-calling to be called out, then don't engage in a practice of name-calling.
In your earlier post, you commended to us as the appropriate response to your practice of name-calling the CD forum guideline of flagging offending posts to the moderator's attention. But now you openly acknowledge that you intend to continue your practice of name-calling despite the moderator's posts which presented clear guidance against it. Given that moderator intervention has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend for us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
Here's the bottom line, reformed: Were you to stick to the guideline "Criticize ideas, not people," these recurring sidebars we have on name-calling would instantly and forever vanish, and every one of our exchanges would be strictly issue-based. We'd disagree, probably on everything (!) but we'd never again have to debate whether you should call other posters names when you disagree with them, or whether my posting sins are as bad as yours.
Instantly and forever. If that's the bargain, why NOT stop your practice of name-calling?
p.s. Don't believe my prediction? Give up your practice, stick to issues, and let's find out.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I never said I would stop, I was simply calling out your hypocrisy. And honestly, since you are not a moderator, every time you attack my use of ad hominem and name-calling you are engaging in the exact same behavior because you are focusing on me and not the topic. So you are also guilty as charged.
No. When I call out your practice of name-calling, I am focusing on your practice of name-calling, not on you. If you don't want your practice of name-calling to be called out, then don't engage in a practice of name-calling.
In your earlier post, you commended to us as the appropriate response to your practice of name-calling the CD forum guideline of flagging offending posts to the moderator's attention. But now you openly acknowledge that you intend to continue your practice of name-calling despite the moderator's posts which presented clear guidance against it. Given that moderator intervention has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend for us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
Here's the bottom line, reformed: Were you to stick to the guideline "Criticize ideas, not people," these recurring sidebars we have on name-calling would instantly and forever vanish, and every one of our exchanges would be strictly issue-based. We'd disagree, probably on everything (!) but we'd never again have to debate whether you should call other posters names when you disagree with them, or whether my posting sins are as bad as yours.
Instantly and forever. If that's the bargain, why NOT stop your practice of name-calling?
p.s. Don't believe my prediction? Give up your practice, stick to issues, and let's find out.
And the hypocrisy continues. How ironic.
-
@reformed said:
And the hypocrisy continues. How ironic.
I'll take this as a "no," that you do not accept my invitation to give up your practice of name-calling.
Given that apparent resolution to the invitation, the questions I asked in my previous post are all the more relevant, so I ask them again: Given that moderator intervention has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend for us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
-
Just heard a little of President Trump's state of the union address where he again was talking about China having stolen jobs from the Americans. I would think, he is quite mistaken on this matter.
I would say that China did not steal any jobs from the USA, just as they haven't stolen jobs from Germany. What has actually happened is this: Large corporations working globally have exported jobs from the USA (and other countries, such as Germany) to China for the sole purpose of maximizing the profits of their mega share holders due to moving the jobs to a low labor cost China.
So then, in truth, USA corporations and firms voluntarily and in strategically planned moves have taken these jobs to China ... and they should be blamed for stealing USA jobs. -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
And the hypocrisy continues. How ironic.
I'll take this as a "no," that you do not accept my invitation to give up your practice of name-calling.
Given that apparent resolution to the invitation, the questions I asked in my previous post are all the more relevant, so I ask them again: Given that moderator intervention has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend for us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
More hypocrisy. So funny. So self-righteous. Apparently, the guidelines (not rules) don't apply to you, but man if someone else breaks them LOOK OUT Bill is on the prowl.
-
@reformed said:
More hypocrisy. So funny. So self-righteous. Apparently, the guidelines (not rules) don't apply to you, but man if someone else breaks them LOOK OUT Bill is on the prowl.
Your response here doesn't respond to the questions I asked, reformed, so I will ask them for a third time: Given that moderator intervention has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend for us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
More hypocrisy. So funny. So self-righteous. Apparently, the guidelines (not rules) don't apply to you, but man if someone else breaks them LOOK OUT Bill is on the prowl.
Your response here doesn't respond to the questions I asked, reformed, so I will ask them for a third time: Given that moderator intervention has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend for us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
I have not had moderator actions taken against me actually. It was a general comment. That being said, your self-righteous hypocrisy continues. Attention everyone, Bill is the guideline-nazi but the guidelines don't apply to him.
-
@reformed said:
I love how you and @Bill_Coley regularly champion this and point this out while simultaneously breaking another expectation.Regularly? I posted the guideline only once this year.
-
@reformed said:
I have not had moderator actions taken against me actually. It was a general comment.
It was a "general comment" that Jan chose to post in a specific thread and immediately after one of your posts in which you referred to CM and me as "snakes," a dismissive name you first invoked earlier in the thread to refer to me, and a reference that followed an earlier dismissal of CM and me as "idiots." [The most telling part of this paragraph, I suggest, is the fact that it contains links to three - count 'em, three - posts in which you made juvenile and derogatory comments about other posters.]
That being said, your self-righteous hypocrisy continues. Attention everyone, Bill is the guideline-nazi but the guidelines don't apply to him.
The guidelines very much apply to me, which is among the reasons you'll never read a post of mine that refers to you or any other poster as "stupid," a "pig," an "idiot," or any of the other names you have used to describe posters with whom you disagree.
And once again, your response here doesn't respond to the questions I asked, so I ask them for a fourth time: Given that moderator intervention/general commentary has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend to us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I have not had moderator actions taken against me actually. It was a general comment.
It was a "general comment" that Jan chose to post in a specific thread and immediately after one of your posts in which you referred to CM and me as "snakes," a dismissive name you first invoked earlier in the thread to refer to me, and a reference that followed an earlier dismissal of CM and me as "idiots." [The most telling part of this paragraph, I suggest, is the fact that it contains links to three - count 'em, three - posts in which you made juvenile and derogatory comments about other posters.]
That being said, your self-righteous hypocrisy continues. Attention everyone, Bill is the guideline-nazi but the guidelines don't apply to him.
The guidelines very much apply to me, which is among the reasons you'll never read a post of mine that refers to you or any other poster as "stupid," a "pig," an "idiot," or any of the other names you have used to describe posters with whom you disagree.
And once again, your response here doesn't respond to the questions I asked, so I ask them for a fourth time: Given that moderator intervention/general commentary has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend to us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
You already do call me names Bill. You can say it is describing my behavior but that is a form of name-calling. Even in this thread alone you have called me juvenile.
And if the guidelines apply to you, then follow them if you are so worried about others following them. Practice what you preach otherwise you are just a self-righteous hypocrite.
-
@reformed said:
You already do call me names Bill. You can say it is describing my behavior but that is a form of name-calling. Even in this thread alone you have called me juvenile.
- Assume for a moment that your vehicle is blue in color. I look at your vehicle then say to you, "Reformed, your vehicle is blue." Am I saying that YOU are blue?
- Assume for a moment that you have prepared a casserole for the church dinner at which we're both in attendance. I taste your casserole then say to you, "Reformed, your casserole is delicious." Am I saying that YOU are delicious?
- Assume for a moment that you wear a watch whose dial extends almost from one side of your wrist to the other (as I do!) I look at the watch on your wrist then say to you, "Reformed, your watch is huge!" Am I saying that YOU are huge?
The correct answer to each of those questions is obviously no. In each case, I'm not saying ANYTHING about you. I'm saying something about the subject of my observation - respectively, your vehicle, your casserole, and your watch. By the identical logic, when I say something about your practice of calling people names - in this case, that it's "juvenile" - I'm not saying anything about you. I'm saying something about the subject of my observation: your practice of calling people names - namely, that your practice of calling people names is juvenile.
And if the guidelines apply to you, then follow them if you are so worried about others following them. Practice what you preach otherwise you are just a self-righteous hypocrite.
And yet again your response doesn't respond to the questions I asked, so I ask them for a fifth time: Given that moderator intervention/general commentary has not and apparently will not change your conduct, what course of action do you NOW recommend to us who are targets of your name-calling? Should we just resign ourselves to your calling us names when you disagree with us?
-
Gentlemen,
"What's really going on in the U.S.A., thread?" In the CD World, we have gotten lost in talking ABOUT communicating instead of communicating. Sometimes necessity requires it, when it does, there needs to be a solution and some finality to the discussion and move on:- Where are the Guidelines and are they clearly understood?
- Are the guidelines agreed upon by all users?
- Are all users bound by the guidelines?
- Are guidelines written in stone (fixed or unbreakable)?
- Were users of CD given the opportunity to formulate the guidelines or were the guidelines handed down to be accepted?
- Do the guidelines need to be adjusted for great accountability for those with less self-discipline?
- What are the penalty or consequences of violation of the guidelines?
- Are guideline rules being enforced? Laws or rules without enforcement leads to disregard and anarchy.
- Should there be Administrative action for posters who show blatant disregards for the established rules and fellow posters, especially after being gently reminded?
These and, perhaps, other questions need to be asked, answered, implemented, enforced for order, respect, decency, and for an opened door to new users.
Since there are no known children use these forums, behaviors known and associated with them shouldn't manifest themselves through the known adult users of CD. I don't think this is an unrealistic expectation. Do you agree? If so, lets move on! Christians ("laymen" or pastors) continue to debate "What's really going on in the U.S.A?" The last time I checked, "debate" is NOT synonymous with "childishness", "pettiness", or "name-calling". Let's raise the standards to be what everyone expects you to be (Christian-adult) and don't give in to the tendency of being anything less than mature. You can do it! CM
-
Wolfgang,
"What's really going on in the U.S.A.? It's clearly for all to see, the USA has just increased the pool of orphanages for rich families to choose either for adoption or house servants. Removing the children from their parents at the Southern Border of the USA "Child-trafficking" and blatant kidnapping with uniforms and badges, is "Kosher" kidnapping. This practice cuts out the home country to hasten the adoption and/or the servitude of others. I say this boldly, Immigration authorities never had a plan or intentions to reunite the children to their parents. They're just now admitting this, along with a greater number of children were separated than first reported. I condemn this practice. Where are the other CD voices to repudiate this shameful act?Everyone knows that to influence or condition the next generation is to educate or to manipulate. It is most effective when this is done when one is young. This the US knows and have done. It's the tactics of dictators and totalitarian countries. The pool of "Brown Children" without parents or attachment to their homeland, fearing law-enforcement and speaking little or no English, sets the stage for a lifetime of manipulation and conditioning. America is back to her old ways. She had been down this road before. Instead of ships, she uses the promise of asylum, revised laws, and lies. This the new slavery, not of families, but of children. If America doesn't want the parents, don't take their children. This is familial Abortion! These are real, live, breathing on their own children, with names and parents who love and want to raise their children. How can we have more compassion for Roger Stone than we do for the children that were kidnapped wholesale at the southern border? Have we lost our Christian minds?
As for DOCA, this group of people has been used. Since they can't be controlled, they're slated to be deported. America, use them (labor, taxes, census, etc.) and dump them. America lives two steps from her shadowy cruel, slave-holding past, and racist tendencies. God nor sober-minded Christians aren't blinded or fooled. Children are the heritage of the Lord. America treats them like the pawns on a chessboard. What says, ye? CM
-
Here's an article by Ron Paul in which he addresses the (in)famous TSA put in place years ago under the claim of more safety and security by taking away citizen's constitutionally granted liberties
It seems there are only few voices nowadays who still undertake addressing some of these Washington instituted measures to curtail citizens' liberties
-
@Wolfgang said:
Here's an article by Ron Paul in which he addresses the (in)famous TSA put in place years ago under the claim of more safety and security by taking away citizen's constitutionally granted libertiesIt seems there are only few voices nowadays who still undertake addressing some of these Washington instituted measures to curtail citizens' liberties
Ron Paul is just wrong on this issue. The extreme cases he cites are the RARE exception, not the rule, by a few bad actors. And he is also wrong that airline travel was impacted by the Pelosi shutdown, it wasn't. It is documented that it was not impacted. In fact, there was relatively little impact to the government shutdown at all as far as private citizens are concerned.
-
I am trying to reply here to a post by @reformed , but clicking on the "Quote" function underneath his post only displays what he had quoted from my earlier reply and doesn't quote his text to which I wanted to reply, or else I am unable to scroll to the part with his lines of text to which I would like to reply .... technical problem ?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)