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

Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

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

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    It's curious to me that you find the idea of reasonable certainty and conviction of belief so distasteful.
    I don't.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    My beliefs are open to any question you care to ask, but if I strike you as close minded or not easily swayed then perhaps it's because you're not asking very good questions.
    Or because you are closed to alternate ideas, and do an "MM dismount" as soon as you are confronted by logic you cannot refute....


    ETA: BTW - Happy Father's Day (at least I think you mentioned having kids)
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-16-2019, 09:30 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Really? You put Max and Adrift in the top tier of posters on this site, which they are, then attach yourself to that group.
      My point was actually that I consider Adrift better at it than I. Perhaps you missed that.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      I doubt that most of us who debate with you see you in that top tier.
      Of that I have no doubt. Yet I think you will be hard to put find that I regularly go after the person, rather than the argument, or seek to belittle. Indeed, I'd be willing to bet that most of Adrift's examples came from places where I had been on the receiving end of multiple such emojis, and finally returned in kind - not something I am proud of, to be sure, and something I pretty much always acknowledge and apologize for when I am back in my "right mind" (so to speak).

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      In any case that isn't something a man should claim for himself. It smacks of pride and hubris.
      Knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is not pride OR hubris, it's simply self-awareness. I am a person who prefers civil discourse about the issues, and prefers to look at the facts and explore the arguments. I don't usually spend my time accusing others of being hypocrites or attacking their person.* That's not to say I haven't. As I said to Adrift, I can slide into that space when I am tired or stressed, and should know better than to post at those times. That's primarily why I think he's better at it than I. I can also be defensive when I think I'm being misrepresented, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see I'm wordy.

      But I'm working on those things!



      *ETA: I can hear the response now: "what about the claims of bigotry?" Despite all of the claims of my thinking or saying "X is a bigot," I think you will find my statements have always been about positions that are or are not an example of bigotry. A person can lie without being defined as a chronic liar. Trump is a chronic liar. OBP is not, though I think he slipped into lying when he made his recent post. CP and you and others who hold anti-gay positions are holding a view I find to be a bigoted position. I don't think you are defined by bigotry or chronically bigots in all aspects of your lives. In fact, I think you and CP are generally good men, who hold a few positions I find morally unacceptable. I would daresay you have the same view of me, at least about the "morally unacceptable" part.

      ETAA: I guess I still need work on that wordy part...

      ETAAA: Oh yeah - happy Father's Day!
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-16-2019, 09:27 AM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        My point was actually that I consider Adrift better at it than I.
        I agree!
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          I agree!
          See - I knew we'd agree on something!


          Happy Father's Day, CP
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            See - I knew we'd agree on something!


            Happy Father's Day, CP
            Same to ya.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Or because you are closed to alternate ideas, and do an "MM dismount" as soon as you are confronted by logic you cannot refute....
              This thread alone puts the lie to that assertion.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                This thread alone puts the lie to that assertion.
                Oh I think not. Go back and reread carefully, MM. If this is the thread I am remembering it follows a familiar pattern:

                ...back and forth...
                ...carpe points out something MM cannot logically refute...
                ...MM blames carpe's posting style and does a dismount...
                ...carpe calls him on it...
                ...MM returns to repost without addressing the logical problem...
                ...carpe repeats the concept MM cannot refute...
                ...MM declares someone else has "said it all" and does another dismount...

                Perhaps it was not this thread, but it was one of the recent ones you and I were engaged in. MM, you have honed a skill taught in the JPH school of debate/discussion: take whatever the person is saying and turn it back on them. The person saying "that is bigotry" becomes the bigot. The person saying "that is not a rational argument becomes "irrational." The person pointing out the childishness of calling names and trying to humiliate others is the humiliator. It's a powerful strategy - and leaves no one able to call out inappropriate behavior, because the very act of calling it out becomes inappropriate behavior. It is your nom-de-plume. It is the go-to tactic you, and Sparko, and Pix, and several others have adopted.

                As I write this, I find myself feeling more sad than anything else. This has become the model for discourse throughout our country. I wonder if democracy, and just plain old human dignity, can survive it.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Have you ever noticed, Max, that if we ever had a discussion about "risks to my life," few of us would even think to include "meteor strike" on that list? The possibility is there. It is a natural consequence of how the laws of the universe function that any one of us could be killed by such a thing at any moment. But it is not in our thoughts because the possibility is so remote as to be essentially non-existent. No human being in history is known to have been killed by being struck by a meteor.

                  But this is essentially what the person arguing for subjective morality almost always ends up heading for. The incidence of someone valuing "not seeing chewed food" above "life" is almost non-existent; but out it comes, as if it were a perfectly common appearance.

                  If you encounter a person who values this way, and so sees it to be perfectly acceptable to kill someone over it, you hauling out your bible and pointing to the absence of such a moral code there will do pretty much nothing to convince them either. Your appeal to a moral code they have not adopted will not help you one whit. You will end up doing the same thing I have to do: ignore (probably not), isolate/separate, or contend.

                  That is what any two people will end up doing when they do not agree on a moral precept.



                  So let me insert the words that you, like Seer, omit in your sentence. What you are actually saying is, "That imaginary world is no less objectively moral than the present one." To that I say, "correct, it's not." Because morality is subjective, there is no objective standard, so there is no way to make the objective statement, "that world is more/less moral than this one." You have to specify the moral framework from which the assessment is being made - then you can make the assessment. And you are back to "subjective moralism is worse because it's not objective." You can make the claim if you wish - but you will have to do more than assert it to convince. From what I can see, all you are doing is reminding us that subjective is not equal to objective, and then claiming that is a basis for declaring it worse.



                  I am not "offended" in the least, Max. I wish it were possible to convey how useless the line of argumentation is, but my experience is that the moralist who subscribes to morality as objectively based is somehow not wired to see that. I have never found a way to successfully convey the point.



                  You and me both. I have sometimes been tempted to pick up my phone and camera app and just let them watch themselves...



                  Semi-correct. The nature of morality is rooted in sorting actions based on what we value. So if I encounter someone with a differing moral code, two things are possible:

                  1) We value differently so we then reason to differing moral codes.
                  2) We value the same but one of us has made an error of reasoning and arrived at differing moral codes

                  The first is a challenge. To align the moral codes requires us to convince the other person to value differently. My discussion with Seer (and others) about homosexuality is a good case in point, and has taught me the futility of approaching the argument as I have approached it.

                  The second is easier. If we value similarly and one of us has made a rational error in reasoning to a moral position, then it should be possible to uncover the error and align the positions.

                  If neither can be done, then we are back to ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend (as we always have been).



                  I am another human on this planet doing what all of the other humans on this planet do every day. When moral frameworks do not align and cannot be aligned - we ignore the issue if we consider it fairly trivial. We isolate/separate for more serious things. We contend for the most serious issues.

                  Example: You believe it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage, I believe it is morally neutral. The difference does not impact our day-to-day lives and I can still join you for a beer (well, a seltzer - I stopped drinking some time ago).

                  Example: You believe it is immoral to be in a same-sex marriage, I believe it is perfectly moral. If I have friends in that marriage, I will probably not be including you on any invitations to gathering in my home when same-sex couples are present. If you insist on being vocal about it, I probably will cease to include you in my circle of friends.

                  Example: You believe it is perfectly moral to take anything that is in anyone's possession because all things should be held communally and god forbids the concept of "personal possessions." I will again isolate you from my circle of friends, but if you insist on acting on your beliefs and taking my things, I will eventually invoke law enforcement and seek to have you punished and/or incarcerated. If we were not in a society, but rather were two individuals "out in the woods" with this difference, I probably would have to resort to booby-trapping my land and letting you know there are lethal booby traps to prevent you taking my possessions.



                  From my perspective, Max, you are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is pointing to the moral frameworks documented by other men and claiming them to be "the objective standard." Well - they are objective to you in that they were the moral frameworks of other people, but they are not "the objective standard." They are just someone else's moral framework set down on paper (or papyrus, as it may be). And you have adopted that particular framework because of how you value.

                  There is no moral framework anyone can point to that was not subjectively conceived by the mind of a sentient being and documented by the hand of a sentient being. There is no basis for thinking any of these is "objectively real" any more than there is a basis for believing there is an objective standard for laws.

                  This is an error Seer continually makes: he tries to align moral principles with logical and mathematical ones. But moral principles have little in common with logical and mathematical principles, so his argument reduces to "moral principles are like logical principles, so if logical principles are objectively real/true, then moral principles are as well." That's like me saying, "people are like cars, so if cars have four tires, people have four tires." If we are going to make an analogy, the two things we are equating need to have at least a few things in common.

                  Moral principles are like legal principles. Both govern actions. Both show variation from community to community. Both show enormous similarity from community to community. No one argues that "legal principles" are rooted in an "objective standard," or calls laws "meaningless" because two states, countries, nations might have different legal structures. So I have to wonder why they make this claim for moral principles.



                  I have my moments. One thing that TWeb is forcing me to face is my tendency to become defensive when someone says something about me that is untrue or reflects badly on me. It gives me a venue to exercise letting people say/think what they will about me, and moving on without having to convince them I'm not X and am Y instead. It is a skill I am not good at. I know, cognitively, that what someone says about me does not alter who and what I am. But my self-defense mechanism kicks in far more frequently than I like. But I am getting a LOT of practice here!

                  And I am slowly getting better at it. Maybe, someday, I'll achieve perfection!

                  ETA: Oh yeah - and I'm wordy. That one DOESN'T seem to be improving...


                  I think you're missing the point of the issue I've raised. It's NOT an argument for objective morality. And I know what you do when moral values conflict, I'm asking what is the justification for doing that consistent with your worldview?

                  Give subjective morality, all values are equally valid, and ontologically in the same class. They are statements about subjective, personal beliefs. How you want the world to be, how you think people should behave. Thus there is no difference between value X that you hold, and value Y that someone else holds, no matter what they are, except that you value X and not Y. There is nothing intrinsic about the value itself that makes it more or less valid. And there is nothing about the rationale or process anyone has or uses in deciding on that value that makes one value more valid than any other.

                  Therefore, any particular value can be held by someone, and it is valid and moral for them, no matter what it is. The close-your-mouth-when-eating society is just as justified in using your "ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend" process as you are for your values. Even to the point of executing nonconformists.


                  Therefore you have no basis except self interest to persuade, isolate, coerce or contend with someone who has a different and conflicting value to yours. What makes your value right and theirs wrong? Nothing.

                  Yet you insist that you have the right to impose your moral values on someone who doesn't hold them, using the full force of the state if need be. That right can't be because your values are in any way better than theirs, because there is no better moral value in your worldview. That right can't be because you know better than they what is best for them, since you are in no way well-enough informed about them, or wise enough to choose for them. If it is because everyone has the right to impose their moral values on others, then you have to accept that whoever is the most willing and able to do that decides morality for the bulk of people. Rule of the violent.

                  It can't be for any objective reason such as 'people have intrinsic value' or 'everyone has the right to their moral values' since those things are objective moral values, and thus denied by your worldview.


                  Subjective morality can't ground a basis for changing, challenging, or restricting the moral behaviour of others except to say that 'I want them to do what I like'.





                  BTW - Do you believe that the physical world is all that exists? If so, then Rosenberg's views are the necessary logical outcome of that.
                  ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    I think you're missing the point of the issue I've raised. It's NOT an argument for objective morality. And I know what you do when moral values conflict, I'm asking what is the justification for doing that consistent with your worldview?
                    The same justification there is for having a moral framework to begin with: to distinguish "ought" action from "ought not" action, which is to protect/enhance/nurture that which we value.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Give subjective morality, all values are equally valid, and ontologically in the same class. They are statements about subjective, personal beliefs. How you want the world to be, how you think people should behave. Thus there is no difference between value X that you hold, and value Y that someone else holds, no matter what they are, except that you value X and not Y. There is nothing intrinsic about the value itself that makes it more or less valid. And there is nothing about the rationale or process anyone has or uses in deciding on that value that makes one value more valid than any other. Therefore, any particular value can be held by someone, and it is valid and moral for them, no matter what it is. The close-your-mouth-when-eating society is just as justified in using your "ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend" process as you are for your values. Even to the point of executing nonconformists.
                    Max, valid means "having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent." If a moral framework is logically rooted, it is valid. Don't see how something can be "more" or "less" valid - it's either valid, or it's not. Further, two opposing moral frameworks can BOTH be valid if they are rooted in fact and reason. They can both be invalid if they are not. You are trying to make objective comparisons without a frame of reference.

                    This is the mistake Seer makes. Moral objectivists cannot seem to truly grasp subjectivism. If your moral framework is not exactly the same as mine, then it's not as good as mine - from the perspective of my moral framework. You have the same assessment of mine. What you are describing above is positioned (I think) as if this is somehow a problem. But what you are doing is describing the relative/subjective nature of morality. There is no objective standard for assessing morality. Agreed. That is how morality works. Each of us measures from the framework of our own morality.

                    Now can you say something about moral subjectivism to show it is bad that does NOT reduce to "it has no objective basis?" So far - that is all you are doing, and I have already agreed: Morality is subjective and has no objective basis.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Therefore you have no basis except self interest to persuade, isolate, coerce or contend with someone who has a different and conflicting value to yours. What makes your value right and theirs wrong? Nothing.
                    So first, as noted, the valuing can include others (but doesn't necessarily do so). And the basis for convincing others is entirely about the world running the way I think it should. That is what we ALL do, yourself included.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Yet you insist that you have the right to impose your moral values on someone who doesn't hold them, using the full force of the state if need be. That right can't be because your values are in any way better than theirs, because there is no better moral value in your worldview. That right can't be because you know better than they what is best for them, since you are in no way well-enough informed about them, or wise enough to choose for them. If it is because everyone has the right to impose their moral values on others, then you have to accept that whoever is the most willing and able to do that decides morality for the bulk of people. Rule of the violent.
                    How it works is pretty simple, Max. People with common values and common moral codes tend to group together. Those moral codes held in common become the "social norm" and the society works to protect its collective values. Those who disagree have the same resources they have always had:

                    1) try to convince the group otherwise
                    2) align to the group
                    3) leave the group
                    4) practice civil disobedience and deal with any consequences thereof.

                    Any individual has the right to protect what they value, and to form societies that protect what they value. That is democracy at its finest. What you call "using the state to force others" is nothing more than a society encoding its values in laws and saying, "those who want to live here, these are the rules." It is giving the power to the people who make up the society. We seem to applaud that in this country - yet suddenly you decry it? I have to wonder why?

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    It can't be for any objective reason such as 'people have intrinsic value' or 'everyone has the right to their moral values' since those things are objective moral values, and thus denied by your worldview.
                    It is because we all seek to have an environment that conforms to our moral views. We all work to make it so. We always have.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Subjective morality can't ground a basis for changing, challenging, or restricting the moral behaviour of others except to say that 'I want them to do what I like'.
                    Or I want to live in a society that values as I do... and thus has a moral code similar to mine. If yours is not aligned, then I will ignore you for trivial things, isolate/separate from you for more critical things, and contend with you for the most critical things.

                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    BTW - Do you believe that the physical world is all that exists? If so, then Rosenberg's views are the necessary logical outcome of that.
                    I believe in both the physical and spiritual, but the evidence tells me they are not separate and that what is physical gives rise to what is "spiritual" (for lack of a better word). For instance, I have experience of "mind" which appears to be an emergent property of "brain." I have no experience of mind separate from brain, and much evidence that physical alteration to "brain" impacts "mind."

                    I cannot claim to be an expert on Rosenberg, having only sampled a bit of his writing. So far, I'm not impressed. Many of his conclusions (like "meaning is illusion") are, IMO, unsustainable.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      My point was actually that I consider Adrift better at it than I. Perhaps you missed that.
                      Yes but just a little better, you are still in that top tier, according to you...


                      Of that I have no doubt. Yet I think you will be hard to put find that I regularly go after the person, rather than the argument, or seek to belittle. Indeed, I'd be willing to bet that most of Adrift's examples came from places where I had been on the receiving end of multiple such emojis, and finally returned in kind - not something I am proud of, to be sure, and something I pretty much always acknowledge and apologize for when I am back in my "right mind" (so to speak).
                      Let me tell you what my experience in debating you is Carp. You use ad hominem as much as any one, you are just more subtle.

                      Knowing one's strengths and weaknesses is not pride OR hubris, it's simply self-awareness. I am a person who prefers civil discourse about the issues, and prefers to look at the facts and explore the arguments. I don't usually spend my time accusing others of being hypocrites or attacking their person.* That's not to say I haven't. As I said to Adrift, I can slide into that space when I am tired or stressed, and should know better than to post at those times. That's primarily why I think he's better at it than I. I can also be defensive when I think I'm being misrepresented, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see I'm wordy.
                      Just putting yourself in the top tier of posters on this site, from my experience of you, is just delusional.


                      ETAAA: Oh yeah - happy Father's Day!
                      Same to you bro...
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        ...carpe points out something MM cannot logically refute...
                        What can't he refute?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Yes but just a little better, you are still in that top tier, according to you...
                          Yes. I actually work at it, and am generally successful. Just not as successful as Adrift.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Let me tell you what my experience in debating you is Carp. You use ad hominem as much as any one, you are just more subtle.
                          Or you are reading "ad hominem" where there is none...

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Just putting yourself in the top tier of posters on this site, from my experience of you, is just delusional.
                          Your opinion is duly noted...

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Same to you bro...
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            What can't he refute?
                            That subjective meaning exists (i.e., is real) and is used by all of us every day.

                            Even attempting to refute it is self-defeating, because he has to use symbols/words (whose meaning is subjectively determined) to do so. And pointing out that the meaning is based in an objective reality doesn't help him. Our discussion was about the assignment of meaning, and it is the assignment of meaning to the symbol that is subjective, just as assigning meaning to action or anything else is subjective.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-16-2019, 11:49 AM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              I agree!
                              That's kind of you, but the longer I've been on forums, and the older I get, I've found myself becoming more of a curmudgeon. I don't have the patience to listen to people repeat the same arguments over and over again, and there's something about online forums that attract a personality type that is more interested in arguing than listening, winning the discussion rather than moving the discussion forward. That just wears me out. I'd rather let someone have the last word than pick apart their reasoning for the nth time.

                              I still think discussion should be genial when possible, and I'm a stickler for thinking that Christians have a duty to share the hope in them with gentleness and respect. I still think name calling, and insulting people is contrary to the Christian witness, and i still think that when we use scripture to back harsh challenge/riposte style behavior, we miss the point of the cultural context, and the authority that the men of God in those situations carried. But I also realize that trying to convince people of that is a losing battle, and find myself wanting to simply cut through the crap and get at the heart of the discussion. That means, depending on who I'm dealing with, I'm more likely to offer a dry and blunt reply telling you exactly what I think rather than fluffing it up with flowery language. I don't mean to come off terse, or to be a jerk about it, and I could probably be more tactful, but I don't have the endurance anymore to tiptoe round and round over something that I suspect others are thinking as well.

                              Also, people in forums are so quick to point out that they're emotionless when they post. Everyone thinks they're stiff little Vulcans or something. It's okay to admit when you're frustrated with a poster, or that you're angry at someone or what have you. I get plenty emotional when I post. Just don't make your arguments emotion-based arguments, and don't that emotion with you when you log off.

                              In my opinion, someone like seer is a top tier poster. I don't always agree with his politics or even his theology, but the dude has the tenacity of a cockroach, and you need that with some of the skeptics on this website. I don't know how he does it, but I take my hat off to him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                ...find myself wanting to simply cut through the crap and get at the heart of the discussion. That means, depending on who I'm dealing with, I'm more likely to offer a dry and blunt reply telling you exactly what I think rather than fluffing it up with flowery language. I don't mean to come off terse, or to be a jerk about it, and I could probably be more tactful, but I don't have the endurance anymore to tiptoe round and round over something that I suspect others are thinking as well.
                                Welcome to the "dark side", my friend.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:28 PM
                                12 responses
                                56 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post The Pendragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:00 PM
                                1 response
                                29 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 04:08 PM
                                0 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:47 AM
                                37 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post The Pendragon  
                                Started by whag, 01-26-2021, 04:54 PM
                                17 responses
                                140 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X