Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Great Replacement Theory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Then kindly demonstrate it with exact quotes from me.
    Starting another Volume fiasco? You literally stopped right at the point I gave you the quote.
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Your attempt to create wiggle room by demanding "that precise statement" when I did not provide a quote to extract a "precise statement" from, is transparent. What I said was

    She has made that argument about homosexuality in the past, effectively declaring it didn't exist until that term was first coined.


    And that can indeed be demonstrated
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    The word arsenokoitai appears to have been first used by Paul and is used very infrequently by him. Authors of most lexica, including all the standard English ones, have traditionally contented themselves with corroborating the inference of biblical translators by giving this definition as “sodomite”. The assertion that this word “obviously” means “homosexual” would appear to be an over-statement. As a point of information the word homosexual was coined in the nineteenth century .


    The only reason for claiming that the word wasn't coined until the 19th cent. is because you are trying to argue that wasn't what was meant because the word didn't exist.


    So why did you exclude the quote that I provided and then demand that I provide it?

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Same sex relationships clearly existed but they were not [at the time] referred to as homosexual.
    Who cares? As noted, the only reason for claiming that the word wasn't coined until the 19th cent. is because you are trying to argue that wasn't what was meant because the word didn't exist

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Perhaps you should read around the definitions of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism.

    As for Martin Luther engaging in an Early Modern version of anti-Semitism, his views on the Jews were rooted in a religiously motivated anti-Judaism although it might be contended that his attitude towards the Jews [including their apparent financial greed and murderous inclinations] did in some ways pave the way for modern anti-Semitism which has a racial/racist element within it . The issues are dealt with [albeit briefly] here:
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the same poster who was citing Luther in other threads as an example of Christian anti-Semitism?

    Moreover, where did I mention Luther? I said that anti-Semitism in Germany was around long before Adolf and the boys rolled into town.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

      "Creepy" for the reasons you stated. Being a native Californian, any building more than about 150 years old is considered ancient.

      This particular house was at least 900 years old, possibly more than a thousand. That's creepy.
      Back in 1990 I helped a friend move out of the Appalachian region after he received a threat from the KKK. He and his family were living in a house built in the 1870-80s to which he had added a bathroom (they also had an outhouse).

      What was odd was how virtually nobody lived in any of these old houses in the area but instead lived in trailers parked right next to them.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Back in 1990 I helped a friend move out of the Appalachian region after he received a threat from the KKK. He and his family were living in a house built in the 1870-80s to which he had added a bathroom (they also had an outhouse).

        What was odd was how virtually nobody lived in any of these old houses in the area but instead lived in trailers parked right next to them.
        Some old houses in my area now are unoccupied. From all appearances, they are no longer very livable or up to code (some pretty bad roofs) and are being used as storage buildings. I suppose if the homes are paid off and only taxes are being paid, they are cheaper than renting storage units.
        "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
        "
        Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Ronson View Post

          Some old houses in my area now are unoccupied. From all appearances, they are no longer very livable or up to code (some pretty bad roofs) and are being used as storage buildings. I suppose if the homes are paid off and only taxes are being paid, they are cheaper than renting storage units.
          From what my buddy said it was largely because they were built before central heating and it can get cold up in the mountain during the Winter. Of course, what they paid for to buy a mobile home, they could have used to put heating in and had a significantly bigger place. And given the way mobile homes fall apart, by now they've been replaced.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            From what my buddy said it was largely because they were built before central heating and it can get cold up in the mountain during the Winter. Of course, what they paid for to buy a mobile home, they could have used to put heating in and had a significantly bigger place. And given the way mobile homes fall apart, by now they've been replaced.
            Perhaps, depending on how old they are. They might also be without electricity or plumbing.
            "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
            "
            Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Starting another Volume fiasco? You literally stopped right at the point I gave you the quote.


              So why did you exclude the quote that I provided and then demand that I provide it?
              What you cited did not support your contention that:

              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              She has made that argument about homosexuality in the past, effectively declaring it didn't exist until that term was first coined.


              Self evidently from what you have quoted from me I accepted that same sex relationships in the ancient world took place.

              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Who cares?
              Because same sex relationships were not always performed by individuals attracted to their own sex. A Roman citizen could have [what we would term homosexual sex] with one of his male slaves but he was not automatically deemed by that act to be only sexually attracted to men.

              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the same poster who was citing Luther in other threads as an example of Christian anti-Semitism?
              Did I?

              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Moreover, where did I mention Luther?
              Then why refer to him?

              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              I said that anti-Semitism in Germany was around long before Adolf and the boys rolled into town.
              Anti-Judaism/anti-Semitism existed across all Christian nations [including later in the USA] not just in Germany or the earlier German states. Contrary to what is often implied here, anti-Semitism was not a unique idea promulgated by the vile Hun.

              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Ronson View Post

                Perhaps, depending on how old they are. They might also be without electricity or plumbing.
                Some didn't have indoor plumbing like my friend's (he added a bathroom). That they were lit up at night indicates they were wired for electricity.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post



                  Moreover, where did I mention Luther? I said that anti-Semitism in Germany was around long before Adolf and the boys rolled into town.
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post




                  Then why refer to him?


                  picardfacepalmthumb.jpg

                  Put the bong down.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    [/INDENT]


                    picardfacepalmthumb.jpg

                    Put the bong down.
                    For anyone that wants some more entertainment, view Hypatia's posts here about Luther and the term anti-semitism, and then view this other hypatia's post here:
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                    The history of Christian anti-Semitism is little more complicated and of much longer duration, although Luther was rather popular during the Nazi period.

                    Christian anti-Semitism has existed for almost two millennia. It has been transmitted through sermons, theological writings, laws, art, and literature. Christian anti-Semitism has concentrated on the enduring crimes and sins of the Jews. Their stiff necked persistence in their perfidia, their greed, their treason, their murderous rage towards Christ and Christians.

                    Christian mass murder of Jews across Europe and the Middle East was hardly uncommon in previous centuries and those murderers, like Chrysostom and [later] Luther, regarded these perfidious and intransigent people as fit only for slaughter.


                    The Nazis felt the same way and chose the same "solution" to the "Jewish problem".

                    Looks like those Hypatias need to have a debate about the existence of anti-semitism before the term was coined.......
                    "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                    - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                      For anyone that wants some more entertainment, view Hypatia's posts here about Luther and the term anti-semitism, and then view this other hypatia's post here:



                      Looks like those Hypatias need to have a debate about the existence of anti-semitism before the term was coined.......
                      I will make one reply to you on this.

                      https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...318/hau4.3.021

                      A fuzzy distinctionAnti-Judaism and anti-Semitism (An excerpt from Le Judaisme et ses Juifs)

                      Jeanne FAVRET-SAADA
                      École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales

                      Abstract


                      Scholarly contributions on the responsibility of the churches for the extermination of the Jews during the Second World War contrast Nazi “anti-Semitism” (the aversion toward the Jews as a racial group) with Christian “anti-Judaism” (the Christian aversion toward the Jewish religion), as one would oppose the new to the old, the modern to the traditional, the political to the religious, science to theology. The author shows, using four examples (Léon Poliakov, Hannah Arendt, Colette Guillaumin, Thomas Nipperdey & Reinhard Rürup), that this distinction induces one to ignore the churches’ actions in the process that led from the invention of the word anti-Semite in 1879 to the destruction of the Jews by the Nazis.



                      Résumé: Les travaux sur la responsabilité des Églises dans l'extermination des juifs pendant la Deuxième guerre mondiale opposent “l'antisémitisme” nazi (l'aversion envers le groupe racial juif) à “l'antijudaïsme” chrétien (l'aversion chrétienne envers la religion juive) comme le nouveau à l'ancien, le moderne au traditionnel, le politique au religieux, la science à la théologie. L'auteur montre, à partir de quatre exemples (Léon Poliakov, Hannah Arendt, Colette Guillaumin Thomas Nipperdey & Reinhardt Rürup), que cette distinction conduit à ignorer l'action des Eglises dans le processus qui a conduit de l'invention du mot antisémite en 1879 à la destruction des juifs par les nazis.



                      The terms “anti-Judaism” (the Christian aversion toward the Jewish religion) and “anti-Semitism” (aversion toward the Jews as a racial group) are omnipresent in the controversies over the churches’ responsibility with regard to the extermination of the Jews, as well as in debates related to the Passion of Oberammergau. Since 1945, most of the works on “anti-Semitism” have contrasted this term with “anti-Judaism,” as one would oppose the new to the old, the modern to the traditional, the political to the religious, science to theology. The use of these words in scientific discourse raises, however, two formidable difficulties.

                      The first difficulty is related to the use of these words as analytical concepts in the social sciences in spite of the major disagreements over their definition. Indeed, one scholar may argue that “anti-Judaic” refers to Christian theology and to Christian theology only, while another author holds the same adjective to apply also to the discriminatory policy of the churches from the fourth to the ninth centuries—which is a consequence of this theology. Likewise, some authors advance that eighteenth-century Catechisms were “anti-Semitic,” while others reject the use of the term before the date of its first appearance (1879), while using it simultaneously as an analytical concept. It seems to me that this confusing practice should be avoided. We should, rather, use the terms for what they are: elements of an indigenous discourse which, as such, are allowed to free-float. I will therefore write them in italics and without quotation marks.

                      The second difficulty concerns the antithetical placement of these two terms (the new and the old, the political and the religious …). This operation has proven fruitful in the exploration of anti-Jewish racism and has served as a framework for fascinating research. Yet it becomes a major epistemological obstacle as soon as it is used to describe the interaction between religious and racial issues in the nineteenth century. I will provide four examples.

                      Léon Poliakov, in the latest edition of his impressive Histoire de l'antisémitisme (1991a, 1991b),1 erects a chronological succession from anti-Judaism to anti-Semitism: the first volume, L’âge de la foi (“the age of faith”) is followed by the second volume L’âge de la science (“the age of science”), ending with La solution finale. The author is too attentive to empirical history to use this opposition as more than merely a convenient way to order his narrative. Yet this edifice has a perverse effect in that it suggests that science has dissolved religion and that atheist anti-Semitism dissolved anti-Judaism. Furthermore, considerations on the actions of the churches from the nineteenth century onward are absent from the second volume, which suggests that Christians must have massively converted to science, unless they have joined the ever-growing ranks of godless reactionaries.

                      In The Aryan myth (1996), Poliakov nevertheless acknowledges that the ages of humanity do not have any daylight between them and that Christian anti-Judaism has not vanished as if by magic with the coming of the age of science. With the apparition of anti-Semitism, “the ineradicable feelings and resentments of the Christian West were to be expressed thereafter in a new vocabulary” (ibid.: 194). But why is it that the passions remained ineradicable, if not because the culture that sustained them was still in place? By this I mean the complex of representations and of Christian customs concerning the Jews, spread and transmitted for nineteen centuries through a variety of means of communication: theology, liturgy, law, predication, catechism, familial education, opinion. It is possible that there were fewer Christians going to church during the age of science, but religious representations kept shaping minds.

                      Colette Guillaumin shares Poliakov’s point of view in her work L'idéologie raciste: Genèse et langage actuel ([1972] 2002), but supports it with an impressive theoretical apparatus which reinforces the opposition between the two periods, and positions them antithetically. According to the author, until the end of the eighteenth century, the Western world included the Others in the unity of the species (mankind): the churches, in particular, offered conversion to the Jews as a way of escaping divine malediction. But in the nineteenth century, with the domination of the capitalist bourgeoisie, industrial development, and colonial expansion, a radical change in mentalities was provoked. “Anti-Semitism succeeds to anti-Judaism, race succeeds to religion. A difference in race is assumed in lieu of the constatation of a religious difference” (ibid.: 10). The chronological succession between the two forms of aversion thus maps onto a difference in worldview: before capitalism, people agreed upon the unity of mankind, and therefore on anyone’s potential salvation; after capitalism, the individuals who belong to the socially constructed categories “Jews” are trapped in a biological malediction that they cannot escape.

                      Guillaumin’s assertions are justified if one considers the most solemn statements of the Christian doctrine: indeed, they endorse the dogma concerning the unity of mankind and affirm the redemptive value of conversion. But one only has to examine the policies of the churches, their concrete action toward the Jews and the declarations of the clerics—during l’âge de la foi, but especially during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—to see that the matter is not at all clear-cut.

                      Hence, we can pose these questions, which add to those already raised by Poliakov’s work: Can Christianity be reduced to the most official statement of its doctrine? How should we handle the numerous situations where religious authority itself contravenes it? What is the relation between theology and the policy of an ecclesiastical institution? What is the relation between the various levels of ecclesiastical enunciation: that is, in the Catholic Church, between the decisions of the councils, the articles of canon law, the pontifical orders (among which we find many contradicting statements), the legislation of the states of the church, the popes’ interventions with secular rulers?

                      A third example: Hannah Arendt. In the very first lines of “On anti-Semitism” ([1951] 2004: 3), she poses anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism as entirely independent phenomena: “Anti-semitism, a secular nineteenth-century ideology—which in name, though not in argument, was unknown before the 1870s—and religious Jew-hatred, inspired by the mutually hostile antagonism of two conflicting creeds, are obviously not the same; and even the extent to which the former derives its argument and emotional appeal from the latter is open to question.” Accordingly, political ideology has nothing in common with the religious doctrine, nor anti-Semitic passion with the Christian hatred of the Jew. It would therefore be useless to search, as Jules Isaac stubbornly did,2 for the “Christian roots of anti-Semitism”— since it only appeared at the dusk of the nation-state, with the rise of imperialism and its consequence, totalitarianism. Thus Christianity is off topic from the start, deemed obsolete from the very beginning of Hannah Arendt’s preface. Her general argument is problematic;3 but, furthermore, how would she qualify the relations between the Catholic Church, Judaism, and the Jews from the nineteenth century onward? Not as anti-Judaic—it is too late for that; nor anti-Semitic, since religion has nothing to do with it. And in fact, why would the author even be interested in finding the right terms, since Christianity is over?

                      One last example. Thomas Nipperdey and Reinhard Rürup, in a historical dictionary on German political ideas reedited several times, emphasize the cultural revolution produced by the invention of anti-Semitism. The two scholars assure us that they are presenting the conceptions of the historical actors of the 1880s—who, interestingly, already talk like Guillaumin and Arendt. “Anti-Semitism—as it was clear for the members of the various groups as well as for their opponents—referred to an enmity toward the Jews and Judaism that was entirely different from the traditional aversion for the Jews which existed, at the time, in Eastern Europe and South-Eastern Europe” (Nipperdey and Rürup [1972] 1992: 141–42).

                      Only one difference subsists, then, between the people of the nineteenth century and the theoreticians of the twentieth century: the former argued that anti-Judaism had disappeared from civilized regions, but that it still lived in a few inliers of credulity, in the borderlands of Christian Europe. But aside from that, the agreement is total: religious hatred toward the Jews has vanished, replaced by racial hatred.

                      It is unlikely, in my opinion, that Europeans of the nineteenth century, even if secularized, would have uttered such statements. Of course, they could have witnessed the traditional anti-Judaism of Catholic publications (which would survive effortlessly until the Second Vatican Council), but the clerical discourse of the 1880s did not limit itself to this. At that time, one could very well identify as a Christian and as an anti-Semite: this raises a doctrinal problem, but it is possible to avoid confronting it. Nipperdey and Rürup exclude this possibility:

                      Not only did the term [“anti-Semitism”] provide a new definition to an old enemy: it identified a new enemy. First, it designated a secularized form of the aversion toward the Jews and its ideology. It did not direct its aversion toward their religion, and it did not rely upon the Christians’ aversion: the religious question and the theological justification became secondary. (Nipperdey and Rürup [1972] 1992: 141–42)


                      It seems to me that the authors have superimposed on the nineteenth century their own convictions concerning the chronological and conceptual impermeability between the two justifications of hatred toward the Jews. It is very likely that this conflation was unintended, given how common this idea is in the social sciences. In text after text, we have seen it taking shape and reinforce itself: to the empirical succession of “eras” (Poliakov), a radical dissemblance in principles was added (Guillaumin and Arendt); finally, Nipperdey and Rürup insisted on the change of target (we are no longer talking about the same Jew). The unique historical actor of anti-Semitism is, hence, the capitalist bourgeoisie: not the churches, the Christians, or religions, which belong to a premodern past, that is, a precapitalistic past of Europe.

                      After 1945, the desire to understand anti-Semitism stemmed from the moral panic caused by the destruction of European Jews by the Nazis:4 no one could escape this impetus, whether it was acknowledged or not. Some thinkers, like Poliakov or Arendt, started their research right after its revelation; Guillaumin, and Nipperdey and Rürup, did so in the course of the 1960s. Relentlessly determined to discover the succession of events (whether it be historical or logical) that led to anti-Semitism and genocide, they were prevented from perceiving the churches’ actions in that process owing to their theoretical paradigm.5

                      Three kinds of reasons can explain their indifference in relation to the question with which I am concerned. First, they were focusing on the outcome, the National Socialist ideology. This ideology was, from the start, anti-religious; and if its anti-Semitism borrowed numerous elements from Christian anti-Judaism, it was to inscribe them in a very different framework, a totalitarian one. Second, the social sciences from the 1950s to the 1970s held as an almost undisputed certainty that the decay of religions was as a result of the advent of modernity, in spite of the strong movement of religious awakening that occurred in the nineteenth century. Finally, the real object of these authors was not Christian anti-Judaism, since for them it simply played the role of a bump that could support their theoretical construction of anti-Semitism.

                      In fact, the model offered to account for anti-Semitism only erred because the social scientists who developed it felt obliged to bury religion. Ignoring the avatars of the term anti-Judaism in Christian thought, they unknowingly adopted a distinction already loaded with apologetic presuppositions.


                      It all depends on how anti-Judaism and/or anti-Semitism is interpreted. Luther's virulent Judaeophobia was premised on the religion and its adherents, although as I noted a few pages back to rogue06


                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      .

                      As for Martin Luther engaging in an Early Modern version of anti-Semitism, his views on the Jews were rooted in a religiously motivated anti-Judaism although it might be contended that his attitude towards the Jews [including their apparent financial greed and murderous inclinations] did in some ways pave the way for modern anti-Semitism which has a racial/racist element within it .

                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                        For anyone that wants some more entertainment, view Hypatia's posts here about Luther and the term anti-semitism, and then view this other hypatia's post here:



                        Looks like those Hypatias need to have a debate about the existence of anti-semitism before the term was coined.......
                        Reminds me of how she kept insisting that you couldn't "Observe Behavior" of hers online, only to leave quote after quote after quote after quote of her "observing" "Behavior" of other posters here.

                        She narrows definitions when pedantism suits her games.

                        Do Not Feed.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                          I will make one reply to you on this.

                          I didn't ask for a cut and paste to an irrelevant article. I provided a direct, quoted post of you saying something directly contrary to what you've been trying to push in this thread. Clearly you cannot provide an explanation because you know you've been caught red handed, and your pedantry backfired on you.

                          Now go argue with Other Hypatia and tell her about how anti-semitism didn't exist until the term was coined, because she seems to think it existed for almost 2000 years, which is well before the term was coined. You two let us know the results of your argument.
                          "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                          - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                          Comment


                          • Here's Tucker's latest monologue. Interesting, but not as tight and organized as usual.



                            I especially like the part near the end, where he metaphorically pees on the empty head of former FNC colleague Campaign Carl Cameron, and dismisses the accusations people level against him (TC).
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Comment


                            • Cameron's strong authoritarian leanings have been quite an eye-opener.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                                No, instead you use insults to intelligence like "you must be rather dull", or call people "cowardly" when they refuse to engage in your nonsense, declaring that people have "unhinged animus", declaring that people are greedy and obsessed with money in a thread you started about taxing and spending other people's money, or telling someone their "ignorance is quite stunning" because they asked you a question you didn't want to answer,etc., and then you go into convoluted nonsense to try to pretend it wasn't an insult when people point out posts you make like this: "As you have [as usual] resorted to personal remarks, it is quite clear that you've lost the argument." and expose your inability to hold yourself to your own standards.
                                I find the passive aggressive insults to be worse than the up front ones. At least with the person directly insulting you they are being straightforward with their "animus".

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 01:55 PM
                                0 responses
                                8 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 05:32 PM
                                2 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 05:16 PM
                                2 responses
                                83 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:36 PM
                                10 responses
                                67 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:23 AM
                                58 responses
                                288 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X