It appears that I’ll soon be banned from Dan’s blog for being “too vague”, yet there are no specific examples and the evidence is disappearing.
FYI, this is a thread where I fundamentally agree.
This is but one more example of the tolerant, accepting, left silencing voices who don’t sufficiently toe the line.
Unfortunately, this means that it is likely that I will do more of something that I’m not comfortable doing. It means that there will be posts here which are direct responses to topics from Dan’s blog. I will try to keep it to a minimum, as I don’t want this to be, and orifice of eternal vitriol, but it’s pretty much my only option.
Fear makes people do strange things.
As always, Dan will be free to comment here.
11 comments:
I'll comment here to try to get you to where you can understand where you're messing up. You said in a previous post that you will never vote for a president who's had affairs. So by that measure, you would not have voted for Reagan. You don't think Reagan and others like him who have had affairs on their wives are fit for office. Is that what you're saying? Are you consistent in that, or did you vote for Reagan question mark do you think he was a good president?
You also stated that you would not vote for Trump or Clinton because they have a history of telling lies. Do you recognize how big that is? What defines a history of having told lies? You not agree that all humans tell allies. Does that mean that all humans have a history of telling lies, and therefore not fit for office? Does that mean you never vote? Do you see the problem with your vagueness in your inconsistency? I do agree that conservative evangelicals have made Fidelity to one's spouse a deal-breaker in the past, at least with Bill Clinton. So for you all to be consistent you would have to pose all candidates who had affairs. I don't think you do, but you tell me?
Further, you criticize my standard with Trump having told too many lies, given his huge history of documented false claims. Numbering in the thousands. I'm noting the reality that most rational adults can look at that and say whoa, that's way too many for him to be trustworthy. You complained that was vague and undefined. But you almost certainly agree that it is way too many to be considered trustworthy. You almost certainly agree that there is not a Define number where one has become untrustworthy. Do you see the problem with your vagueness and your inconsistency and your hypocrisy?
Dan, you don’t seem to understand that a conversation is more than me just answering your badgering questions.
I said I would post your comments, and I will, because things like honesty, honor, and integrity are important to me.
However, if you are going to claim that I have said something, I need a quote, and a link before I will address it. Since you have chosen to allow your groupie ready much free reign to make up whatever he wants, and since you are showing a tendency to miss represent me, I reserve the right to respond to things that I’ve actually said, not things that you say that I am sad.
It seems I, too, am now effectively banned from Dan's blog for telling the truth, though not the truth as he'd like it to be. (This isn't certain as I'm not really sure if he merely banned me from commenting on that particular thread until I bow to his fascism...as you note, it is not enough to agree with him, but you must agree EXACTLY in the manner he dictates...or his blog entirely.)
It looks like he gave you another chance to do exactly what he wants you to do.
Conversation and disagreement are frowned upon on the left.
It’s been almost a week since Dan’s above comment, and he’s been active on at least two blogs, so we know he’s around.
I think enough time has passed to draw some conclusions from his silence. The primary one being that he has no desire to engage in conversations that he can’t dominate and control.
If telling stupid lies is a major factor in ones fitness for office, Hillary has recently been outed for her stupid lies about why she lost on WI, and her comments on the "wage gap" have also been demonstrated to be lies. Not only that, but she paid male staff significantly more than female staff. Lies and hypocrisy, but I bet Dan and his ilk would vote for her in a heartbeat of she got the nomination in 2020.
Dan,
I'm not sure if your question was intended for me or not. My position is that a "one day old fetus" is a "fully human being" based on it's current developmental phase of life. Therefore it is deserving of all the rights appropriate for it's current developmental phase. I'd suggest that the fundamental rights of all human beings "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" would apply.
Beyond that, unless you can prove that a "one day old fetus" is something other than fully human, I see no value in continuing.
Lest my purpose be misunderstood, I'm merely answering for two reasons.
One, to continue to demonstrate the lie in the "don"t answer questions" trope.
Two, to point out the likelihood that the answer will be deleted and characterized falsely.
Apparently he has a specific definition ("standard" definition?) of what a"direct answer" is...a specific definition that is specific until he needs to change it. Now he suggests we "don't know" we didn't answer it. So, evidently, if we don't know we didn't really answer the questions, we're not to be informed as to just how our answer is lacking. He'll just delete us until we figure it out. Should be easy given how consistent with the rules he is.
This’ll probably get deleted for being vague and unclear, so I’ll post it here.
“What can you do?”
Embrace grace.
Answer the questions you are asked the same way you expect others to answer your questions.
Stop the random deletions and false characterization of what you delete.
Hold yourself and your lackey to the same standards you hold others to.
Provide proof when you make claims.
While that’s not everything? It’s a start. “
Beyond that, he just wants to dominate people he doesn’t agree with. He had this one tiny part of the world that he controls and is obsessed with “proving” his dominance.
Remember when he had the attitude that people who didn’t agree with him were “mistaken” or “confused”, but he assumed good faith. I guess once he embraced grace that went out the window.
The problem with the questions being asked is they they aren’t intended to gain new information, fill gaps in knowledge, or to move the conversation forward, they’re designed to maneuver an opponent into a “trap” or to gain some advantage. I can’t think of a question I’ve been asked that I haven’t either answered before (in some form) or that my answer isn’t pretty apparent, yet these questions come in waves. It’s a way to manipulate or control the narrative. The end result is that answering is a pointless exercise. The outcome is preordained, the venue, the “rules”, the “referee”, and the “scorekeeper” (one person) are all designed so that the home team wins. That’s why, some teams refuse to play “road games”, because they know that they can’t “win” without home field advantage. It’s simply an exercise in self preservation, in preserving one’s self image, one’s narrative, one’s prejudices and one’s pride, at any expense.
To be fair, while Feo has never even attempted civil discourse, Dan used to have the ability to disagree without being vitriolic, profane, and vulgar. Obviously something has changed and he has no desire for that kind of conversation anymore.
Post a Comment