# The Interchange Challenge



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

I have a challenge for my fellow interchange participants. As most of us who frequent the interchange know, these threads can get ugly. It seems like no matter what the topic, the threads turn into country bashing, religion or non-religion bashing, political affiliation bashing, and so on. I am very guilty of being nasty and spiteful during these conversations. We, as well dressed gentlemen, should act the way we dress. I challenge you to keep these threads civil. I am not saying no fun, no snarkiness, or no tongue in cheek comments. Just AAAC members having decent conversations without turning threads into mud slinging contests. I challenge you to ignore hateful and ignorant comments, even if they are directed toward you. I challenge you to step away from the computer when someone is really irritating you. If you want to accept the challenge, please reply with one of my favorite quotes, "Challenge accepted!" via Barney Stinson. For those of you who accept the challenge, help fellow members keep their cool. We should police ourselves and our fellow members. If no one accepts this challenge, I ask those who see this remind me that I myself accepted this challenge. The interchange seems to be out of control and I think we can fix that.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> I have a challenge for my fellow interchange participants. As most of us who frequent the interchange know, these threads can get ugly. It seems like no matter what the topic, the threads turn into country bashing, religion or non-religion bashing, political affiliation bashing, and so on. I am very guilty of being nasty and spiteful during these conversations. We, *as well dressed gentlemen*, should act the way we dress. I challenge you to keep these threads civil. I am not saying no fun, no snarkiness, or no tongue in cheek comments. Just AAAC members having decent conversations without turning threads into mud slinging contests. I challenge you to ignore hateful and ignorant comments, even if they are directed toward you. I challenge you to step away from the computer when someone is really irritating you. If you want to accept the challenge, please reply with one of my favorite quotes, "Challenge accepted!" via Barney Stinson. For those of you who accept the challenge, help fellow members keep their cool. We should police ourselves and our fellow members. If no one accepts this challenge, I ask those who see this remind me that I myself accepted this challenge. The interchange seems to be out of control and I think we can fix that.


I question Shaver's taste in clothes.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

You know, 32rnr, 

Generally, I feel that the better dressed I am, the more I can get away with. 

I've tested this with very positive results in many bars packed with the sweaty masses who consider t-shirts, cargo shorts, and flip flops (on Saturday night, I heard "Hey, bro, those are my good flip flops, watch where you step!") to be a reasonable "going out" ensemble.

Few will question the guy who just cut in to dance with your girlfriend or picked up that fresh beer on the end of the bar when he's got pomade-perfect hair, a bold tweed, impeccably creased pants, and Shaver-shined shoes. Although, that probably only works with a certain demographic.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> I question Shaver's taste in clothes.


F*** you!

:devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bollox, I generally don't dress well, so I'm gonna get medieval on your ass next time


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Bollox, I generally don't dress well, so I'm gonna get medieval on your ass next time


I specifically put that in there to give me an out. There are days that I dress like sometime looking for a fight.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Invalid link??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

immanuelrx said:


> There are days that I dress like sometime looking for a fight.


 I dress like that every day


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I myself am not usually a "turn the other cheek" type of guy. When I am wrongly compared to Nazis (once) & called an "anti-semite" (twice by 2 different people), I will most likely ask for specific proof and reasoning behind such. While I am an admitted atheist, I have not started fights with those that are believers but I will indeed challenge others viewpoints when such topics are brought up.. This does not make me a "god hater" as has been stated by at least one person. No one has been able to give any reasoning behind such statements, nor have I gotten an apology. These people deserve very little respect from me and although I have tempered it a bit with a couple of them, I am not going to let it rest until I am satisfied. I avoid direct insults with 99.9% of the posters in which I disagree with, but there are a few here that I have no problem calling as I see fit. A troll is a troll. One can be a decent active member on the clothing forums and come here just to troll.

Oh...There is a person here that claims they know more as to U.S. military honors than what the military itself seems to know. I take that as an insult as well. I damn well know what I did and what I was awarded. This person like to come troll as an "all knowing" creature that plays off of words verus having the facts. While I respect his service, he seems to think that his service & love of country to be "better" than that of others.

And the funniest thing... These are all coming from some of our most religious and conservative members...

While your idea is ok, it leaves no recourse for those that wish to respond to insulting behavior.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

justonemore said:


> I myself am not usually a "turn the other cheek" type of guy. When I am wrongly compared to Nazis (once) & called an "anti-semite" (twice by 2 different people), I will most likely ask for specific proof and reasoning behind such. While I am an admitted atheist, I have not started fights with those that are believers but I will indeed challenge others viewpoints when such topics are brought up.. This does not make me a "god hater" as has been stated by at least one person. No one has been able to give any reasoning behind such statements, nor have I gotten an apology. These people deserve very little respect from me and although I have tempered it a bit with a couple of them, I am not going to let it rest until I am satisfied. I avoid direct insults with 99.9% of the posters in which I disagree with, but there are a few here that I have no problem calling as I see fit. A troll is a troll. One can be a decent active member on the clothing forums and come here just to troll.
> 
> Oh...There is a person here that claims they know more as to U.S. military honors than what the military itself seems to know. I take that as an insult as well. I damn well know what I did and what I was awarded. This person like to come troll as an "all knowing" creature that plays off of words verus having the facts. While I respect his service, he seems to think that his service & love of country to be "better" than that of others.
> 
> And the funniest thing... These are all coming from some of our most religious and conservative members...


In Internet slang, a *troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[SUP][1][/SUP] by posting inflammatory,[SUP][2][/SUP] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[SUP][3][/SUP] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

*


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> In Internet slang, a *troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[SUP][1][/SUP] by posting inflammatory,[SUP][2][/SUP] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[SUP][3][/SUP] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
> 
> *


Sounds about correct as to those that start name calling & telling others that they know best...now doesn't it?

People that use the term Nazi to compare someone's thoughts when it was actually an American idea, are what?

People that compare anti-Iraeli government thoughts to that of anti-semitism are what?

People that call other verterans liars are what?

I can come up with 2 terms... Troll or superioristic... Any other thoughts?

Can you define your concept a bit more? Are there actual rules or should each individual decide (which is pretty much the same rule ideology we have now)? Is your thought that you can toss out personal insults & others are not supposed to respond (you've hit me with such a few times by now, haven't you?)?

I'm also a bit curios as to why a 6 month newbie member thinks they need to come to the site & try to control other peoples actions/reactions.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It would help too if some could harken back to the days when they actually had a sense of humor! 

Toughen up a little folks! Don't take everything so personally.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> I myself am not usually a "turn the other cheek" type of guy. When I am wrongly compared to Nazis (once) & called an "anti-semite" (twice by 2 different people), I will most likely ask for specific proof and reasoning behind such. While I am an admitted atheist, I have not started fights with those that are believers but I will indeed challenge others viewpoints when such topics are brought up.. This does not make me a "god hater" as has been stated by at least one person. No one has been able to give any reasoning behind such statements, nor have I gotten an apology. These people deserve very little respect from me and although I have tempered it a bit with a couple of them, I am not going to let it rest until I am satisfied. I avoid direct insults with 99.9% of the posters in which I disagree with, but there are a few here that I have no problem calling as I see fit. A troll is a troll. One can be a decent active member on the clothing forums and come here just to troll.
> 
> Oh...There is a person here that claims they know more as to U.S. military honors than what the military itself seems to know. I take that as an insult as well. I damn well know what I did and what I was awarded. This person like to come troll as an "all knowing" creature that plays off of words verus having the facts. While I respect his service, he seems to think that his service & love of country to be "better" than that of others.
> 
> ...


Get off the cross Mabel, we need the wood....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Get off the cross Mabel, we need the wood....


ooof.. the newbie nazi hunter returns. Yet, no apologies for a wrong turn on his part.. Seems more nazi like than the actual nazis. You seemed to forget a response as to your errors... Any reason for that or were your just trolling? I guess the American history texts failed to mention that they were the original nazis when it can down to eugenics? Pretend all you like but the fact is that the U.S. served as a sh"t example for the nazis...You must be quite proud...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Sounds about correct as to those that start name calling & telling others that they know best...now doesn't it?
> 
> People that use the term Nazi to compare someone's thoughts when it was actually an American idea, are what?


Since I believe that this is directed at me, I will address it specifically. Nowhere did I compare YOU with a Nazi. I challenge you to post the offending passage. What I said was that your personal stance on aborting pretty much anything that might have struggles later in life (a fetus with spinabifida, a child that would develop cancer, a schizophrenic, and a **** sexual were all specific examples) was close to the Nazi birth policies. Do you disagree with the similarity? If so, then why is your stance specifically different?

I did not have time to address that Eugenics started in CA yesterday and will try to do so today. But there are 2 crucial factors at play with it. It never became a national policy AND it never became very widespread.

Given what I have seen in my short time here, the facts will be irrelevant to you though, and you will continue to claim that someone called you a Nazi just because you had an opinion that differed from them, which is in no way at all true.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> ooof.. the newbie nazi hunter returns. Yet, no apologies for a wrong turn on his part.. Seems more nazi like than the actual nazis. You seemed to forget a response as to your errors... Any reason for that or were your just trolling? I guess the American history texts failed to mention that you were the original nazis when it can down to eugenics? Pretend all you like but the fact is that the U.S. served as a sh"t example for the nazis...You must be quite proud...


Absolutely. I had to work and take care of my kids for most of yesterday morning and afternoon. I am sorry that I did not respond quickly enough to pacify your need for immediate gratification, but I do have a life to lead and this board in general, and people who will generalize and mischaracterize words specifically are not my number one priority.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Since I believe that this is directed at me, I will address it specifically. Nowhere did I compare YOU with a Nazi. I challenge you to post the offending passage. What I said was that your personal stance on aborting pretty much anything that might have struggles later in life (a fetus with spinabifida, a child that would develop cancer, a schizophrenic, and a **** sexual were all specific examples) was close to the Nazi birth policies. Do you disagree with the similarity? If so, then why is your stance specifically different?
> 
> I did not have time to address that Eugenics started in CA yesterday and will try to do so today. But there are 2 crucial factors at play with it. It never became a national policy AND it never became very widespread.
> 
> Given what I have seen in my short time here, the facts will be irrelevant to you though, and you will continue to claim that someone called you a Nazi just because you had an opinion that differed from them, which is in no way at all true.


oops. I have stated several times (should you bother to read my posts) that you compared my thoughts to the nazis. How that isn't really calling someone a nazi is perhaps a bit beyond the general public (which is the audience you are playing to).

National Policy?..Funny from a country that has given federal funds for studies that have infected populations (afro-americans) with syphilus, put drugs into the water (flouride), and were the masters of eugenics, etc... The U.S. has much more funding and experimental programs than the nazis ever had.

Keeping someone alive for no purpose other than "religious* or "ethical" beliefs is disgusting. My thoughts have nothing to do with the "betterment of society" compared the relief of suffering. I was quite clear that these were my thoughts yet you wanted to state I was being a "king" or equal to a "nazi"... what a disgusting thought. I clearly stated that you were more than welcome to raise as many disabled children as you could afford as long as society wasn't required to pay money to raise kids that you knew were going to be born disabled.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

justonemore said:


> Sounds about correct as to those that start name calling & telling others that they know best...now doesn't it?
> 
> People that use the term Nazi to compare someone's thoughts when it was actually an American idea, are what?
> 
> ...


Darn! you were too quick. I was going to follow up the troll definition with this video:





It is not as funny since you already commented.

Look, you want an apology, here you go. I'm sorry that I didn't post my views on your comments in a better manner. I just find it a tad curious that you would post these, "I do what I want" comments when you could had just not commented at all. I am not trying to control anyone as this challenge is purely voluntary. I think some of the thread have reach a childish level and I am just as guilty. I truly feel you are a very intelligent man who posts provoking comment with the intent on getting people all nimbly bimbly in their pants. Please continue to post the way you do as this thread was only meant for those who want to act in a more professional manner so we can have some good conversations and debates.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

I will say this to everyone else though, this is a trend of J1M, please stop feeding him. It is very suspect that he decides those type of posts in a thread meant to get away from such posts.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

justonemore said:


> *I'm also a bit curios as to why a 6 month newbie member thinks they need to come to the site & try to control other peoples actions/reactions*.


Oh, and please let me know how long I have to bee a member before I reach tenure and can *try to control other peoples actions/reactions. *:biggrin:

Just incase, this was meant as a joke.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

immanuelrx said:


> Oh, and please let me know how long I have to bee a member before I reach tenure and can *try to control other peoples actions/reactions. *:biggrin:
> 
> Just incase, this was meant as a joke.


You must submit your dissertation and defend it first. Then when your doctorate has been conferred you may start to contribute and not assume a servile position. If you're lucky, you'll be granted tenure and then....have at it!!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> Darn! you were too quick. I was going to follow up the troll definition with this video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Should you actually be willing to respect others and ask their thoughts in a respectful manner (and respond respectfully as well), I have no problem with going along with your suggestion. There are members here that I have had a less than respectful relationship with... yet through respect, we changed things around and I will state that there are at least 2 members here that I would be honored to meet although they present a different viewpoint on life compared to my own. I have no problem with such. New members come and go. That's life on the internet. I prefer to have a membership that is respectful of each other. But... New members thatcome in and insult others (and they have a right to do so), will not go unchallenged by me.

If you had a problem with me calling myself a "wartime" veteran, you could have P.M.d me to start versus causing a public debate ( i would guess you could have figured out how to do so?). The debate you wanted is actually a matter of words versus ideology. I could have also questioned your service but had enough respect to avoid doing so until it came up for the 3rd or 4th time. Calling me anti-american was complet sh"t. That's what I really want an apology for. I wouldn't want to fight for the current political B.S. but I would kill and die for my fellow americans. I have always stated so. Perhaps you are too new to this site. Perhaps you couldn't be bothered to look up older posts. I despise the U.S. governement as it has become but I have always beeen an advocate for my fellow Americans. Always.

Do you perhaps now understand your insult and why I have a big problem with such?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Really guys? That you should have the energy for this type of waste of time. Enough already!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

immanuelrx said:


> I will say this to everyone else though, this is a trend of J1M, please stop feeding him. It is very suspect that he decides those type of posts in a thread meant to get away from such posts.


Again. It is against an indiviual that you just don't want to respond to. >Contribute or go away. I don't care if you don't respond but I will always be here to claim otherwise. It is you that started the insults... Can you not admit such or are you a newbie trying to claim that you are now the decider of what is correct?

If you can't participate in the thread against those that disagree, I'm not quite sure why you want to particiapte at all.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> oops. I have stated several times (should you bother to read my posts) that you compared my thoughts to the nazis. How that isn't really calling someone a nazi is perhaps a bit beyond the general public (which is the audience you are playing to).
> 
> National Policy?..Funny from a country that has given federal funds for studies that have infected populations (afro-americans) with syphilus, put drugs into the water (flouride), and were the masters of eugenics, etc... The U.S. has much more funding and experimental programs than the nazis ever had.
> 
> Keeping someone alive for no purpose other than "religious* or "ethical" beliefs is disgusting. My thoughts have nothing to do with the "betterment of society" compared the relief of suffering. I was quite clear that these were my thoughts yet you wanted to state I was being a "king" or equal to a "nazi"... what a disgusting thought. I clearly stated that you were more than welcome to raise as many disabled children as you could afford as long as society wasn't required to pay money to raise kids that you knew were going to be born disabled.


Gotta run make breakfast then run errands, take care of my kids, and also work, so it will most likely be a while before I can respond. Just wanted to make sure that you knew this so you wouldn't throw false claims of me not responding or trolling or running away.

Have a nice day...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Gotta run make breakfast then run errands, take care of my kids, and also work, so it will most likely be a while before I can respond. Just wanted to make sure that you knew this so you wouldn't throw false claims of me not responding or trolling or running away.
> 
> Have a nice day...


Good day then sir and good luck for all that it brings. Happy to hear that you are willing to respond versus sending out one liners and running away. Should you actually be wlling to debate, I will be here as well (when I am done getting the food made, working, dealing with the kids, etc). I am always happy to discuss issues that aren't agreed upon with those that aren't "out in left field"...i.e. Shaver may dislike kids and "breeders" but I never feel that he directly insults anyone over his viewpoints versus stating such (cough...cough...cough... I actually think I hit the debate a bit better against him on such idealogy the other day...Cough...cough...cough...). Comparing American Eugenics to the Nazis is a bit out of hand (although it does give quite a bit of creedence to the aforementioned Rammstein video)..


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

"We are the world,
We are the children..."


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> "We are the world,
> We are the children..."


Ah the 80's. I'm not sure if I miss the era or if I'm just being sentimental. Odd however that the younger generations as of the 60's have always asked for peace and unity but odd enough, nothing has actually been achieved as to such viewpoints. .
While there is no denying that Cheney and his billionair buddies desire the staus quo, it is quite a dissapointement that the others (clintons, obamas, etc) have screwed over their fellow "revolutionists" in order to become "cheney"s"... What a disgusting system... Other than speeches and words, the American political system contains only one political ideology.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Good day then sir and good luck for all that it brings. Happy to hear that you are willing to respond versus sending out one liners and running away. Should you actually be wlling to debate, I will be here as well (when I am done getting the food made, working, dealing with the kids, etc). I am always happy to discuss issues that aren't agreed upon with those that aren't "out in left field"...i.e. Shaver may dislike kids and "breeders" but I never feel that he directly insults anyone over his viewpoints versus stating such (cough...cough...cough...* I actually think I hit the debate a bit better against him on such idealogy the other day.*..Cough...cough...cough...). Comparing American Eugenics to the Nazis is a bit out of hand (although it does give quite a bit of creedence to the aforementioned Rammstein video)..


Eh? That one must have passed me by. Flag the post and I'll pick up the slack.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Eh? That one must have passed me by. Flag the post and I'll pick up the slack.


Ummm. Does the "kids are allowed by society and private business to be in certain places at certain times but disallowed by shaver" debate ring any bells?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Ummm. Does the "kids are allowed by society and private business to be in certain places at certain times but disallowed by shaver" debate ring any bells?


It does. And I do not recall giving ground.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> It does. And I do not recall giving ground.


Ahhh.... Well, giving ground in a personal ideogly has nothing to do with the actual stated situation. Our individual desires have nothing to do with reality "on the ground". If you desire to avoid children (and I as a parent agree with such ideas quite often), then it is up to you to decide if paying your money is Worth dealing with kids. When I pay $2'000 for a an airline ticket, my choice is to either acept all that the public has to offer me, or not fly. If I pay $200 for a concert ticket my cjoice is pretty much the same. What you consider to be a distraction is fine, but are you willing to admit that I may considr what you do to be a distraction to me? In the modern world do you honestly think your $1'000 as an individual is Superior to me paying $10'000 as a family? If you want to scream and applaud at a concert when paying $100, can my child, who paid the same ticket price, not do the same? There are plenty of venues that don't accept children. Why do you decide to go to those that do?

As an after thought...I have always claimed the same for pubs and smokers. There are plenty of places that smoking isn't allowed, why go to the places where smoking is allowed and bi*%h about it? go elsewhere for "gods sake".

Another edit.. I had a Professional confeerence in Rotterdam. We took it as a family vacation. My first daughter was less than 2 at the time.. She got ill and spent 2 days in the hospital. Leaving early was perhaps an option but I saw no reson to do so. There was a "little shaver" there that actually complained that my child was sick and actualy showed it. Am i allowed to complain about anyone showing a single sign of illness or is this just a bias against children? I'll be more than happy to Pm my response to such but you might imagine that I woud have been more than happy to put the bastard right into the same hospital.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Ahhh.... Well, giving ground in a personal ideogly has nothing to do with the actual stated situation. Our individual desires have nothing to do with reality "on the ground". If you desire to avoid children (and I as a parent agree with such ideas quite often), then it is up to you to decide if paying your money is Worth dealing with kids. When I pay $2'000 for a an airline ticket, my choice is to either acept all that the public has to offer me, or not fly. If I pay $200 for a concert ticket my cjoice is pretty much the same. What you consider to be a distraction is fine, but are you willing to admit that I may considr what you do to be a distraction to me? In the modern world do you honestly think your $1'000 as an individual is Superior to me paying $10'000 as a family? If you want to scream and applaud at a concert when paying $100, can my child, who paid the same ticket price, not do the same? There are plenty of venues that don't accept children. Why do you decide to go to those that do?
> 
> As an after thought...I have always claimed the same for pubs and smokers. There are plenty of places that smoking isn't allowed, why go to the palces where smoking is allowed and bi*%h about it? go elsewhere for "gods sake".


This is somewhat besides my original point. I was speaking (if I recall correctly) of encroachment, a valid and measurable effect. The simple truth is that children are allowed into far more venues now than ever they were. Establishments that serve alcohol (as one example, and this includes music concerts) should not allow children to be in attendance. Some of us wish to live our lives away from the blight of infants, most especially when we are trying to enjoy ourselves. I trust that this is a reasonable expectation? This is not a matter of financial outlay but a matter of adults being permitted spaces that are free from screeching little pests and the over-indulgence of the beguiled parents who spawned them.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> This is somewhat besides my original point. I was speaking (if I recall correctly) of encroachment, a valid and measurable effect. The simple truth is that children are allowed into far more venues now than ever they were. Establishments that serve alcohol (as one example, and this includes music concerts) should not allow children to be in attendance. Some of us wish to live our lives away from the blight of infants, most especially when we are trying to enjoy ourselves. I trust that this is a reasonable expectation? This is not a matter of financial outlay but a matter of adults being permitted spaces that are free from screeching little pests and the over-indulgence of the beguiled parents who spawned them.


My friend, I have never disagreed with such. But.. There are venues that you seem to claim as "adults only" that are indeed allowed for all. Booze, sex, and drugs, are not a determining factor for me when taking my children to a concert. They can see such anywhere in modern society. As stated, I think smoking in a bar is fine and I would avois such with my kids. I think fine dining and classical concerts are are a place for enjoyment which goes against the allowing of children. Rock concerts... Are not the same in my thoughts. I have no problems with people drinking, smoking, doing drugs, and havinjg sex at such places, but t^hose that wish to do so, will need to do so in front of all audiences compared to demanding that only adults are allowed to view their indiscretions.

we seem to be abit off topic here but I think we are pretty close to agreeing on a few points (as long as Î'm not being anti-semiticor a nazi in doing so). lol. :devil:

Oh... I'm not quite sure why you'd be shy of doing things in fornt of anyone that you condider to be ok. If you want to smoke a cigarette at a concert, is it any different than smoking one in the city? If you want to kiss (or more) a girl, would you not do so in public otherwise? If you want to get stinking drunk, is it only available at a concert? I only know my own expériences of London, but it seems that many smoke right in Green Park without too much of a problem (heck, I only got a minor citation for doing so and didn't think once about kids).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

What an excellent and timely subject for a thread in the present day Interchange and so consistent with the Interchange's reason for being, "A place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with a drink and cigar in hand, to pleasantly discuss the important issues of the day, other than clothes..." (pardon any unintentional paraphrasing). Ironically, while the Interchange was never specifically excluded for requisite compliance with the standard rules for member participation in the AAAC fora, the quality of postings throughout the various threads in the Interchange quite clearly reflect the long term benevolent neglect of the forum by we moderators. Pleasant ladies and gentlemen do not routinely insult one another or crudely disparage the righteously held beliefs of others and frankly many of the comments to be found in far to many of the Interchange postings are beneath and dishonor all of us. Please note, I do not exclude myself from blame for the present state of our offerings throughout the fora. 

While I do not hold great hope for the thread's long term prognosis, I do applaud immanuelrx's courage and obvious good intent in offering such for our thoughtful consideration and do hope each of us will give it fair and thoughtful consideration. I firmly believe that less moderation is the best moderation...step up and prove me correct in that belief!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> My friend, I have never disagreed with such. But.. There are venues that you seem to claim as "adults only" that are indeed allowed for all. Booze, sex, and drugs, are not a determining factor for me when taking my children to a concert. They can see such anywhere in modern society. As stated, I think smoking in a bar is fine and I would avois such with my kids. I think fine dining and classical concerts are are a place for enjoyment which goes against the allowing of children. Rock concerts... Are not the same in my thoughts. I have no problems with people drinking, smoking, doing drugs, and havinjg sex at such places, but t^hose that wish to do so, will need to do so in front of all audiences compared to demanding that only adults are allowed to view their indiscretions.
> 
> we seem to be abit off topic here but I think we are pretty close to agreeing on a few points (as long as Î'm not being anti-semiticor a nazi in doing so). lol. :devil:
> 
> Oh... I'm not quite sure why you'd be shy of doing things in fornt of anyone that you condider to be ok. If you want to smoke a cigarette at a concert, is it any different than smoking one in the city? If you want to kiss (or more) a girl, would you not do so in public otherwise? If you want to get stinking drunk, is it only available at a concert? I only know my own expériences of London, but it seems that many smoke right in Green Park without too much of a problem (heck, I only got a minor citation for doing so and didn't think once about kids).


At the risk of repeating myself, these venues which do now allow attendees of all ages once did not. It is not a matter of shyness on my part, how I may or may not choose to behave, rather the inescapable fact that many adults find children to be intrinsically annoying and are disappointed that situations which could traditionally be guaranteed to be child-free are becoming increasingly rare.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> At the risk of repeating myself, these venues which do now allow attendees of all ages once did not. It is not a matter of shyness on my part, how I may or may not choose to behave, rather the inescapable fact that many adults find children to be intrinsically annoying.


You and me both brother!!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> What an excellent and timely subject for a thread in the present day Interchange and so consistent with the Interchange's reason for being, "A place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with a drink and cigar in hand, to pleasantly discuss the important issues of the day, other than clothes..." (pardon any unintentional paraphrasing). Ironically, while the Interchange was never specifically excluded for requisite compliance with the standard rules for member participation in the AAAC fora, the quality of postings throughout the various threads in the Interchange quite clearly reflect the long term benevolent neglect of the forum by we moderators. Pleasant ladies and gentlemen do not routinely insult one another or crudely disparage the righteously held beliefs of others and frankly many of the comments to be found in far to many of the Interchange postings are beneath and dishonor all of us. Please note, I do not exclude myself from blame for the present state of our offerings throughout the fora.
> 
> While I do not hold great hope for the thread's long term prognosis, I do applaud immanuelrx's courage and obvious good intent in offering such for our thoughtful consideration and do hope each of us will give it fair and thoughtful consideration. I firmly believe that less moderation is the best moderation...step up and prove me correct in that belief!


But... The problem is that he doesn't ask people not to be insulting, just that they don't reposnd to insults. This is coming from a "guy" that has no problems with insulting others ideolgies but refuses to respond when the insulted might complain as to such. You and I have been at odds many times these past several years (and time is a determant amongst collègues whether others want to believe it or not), but we have seldom come down to personal insults. Our ealrlier days provided a bit of one on one combat but it never went so far as to me calling you anti-american or denying your service(althought I admit to combating you on your police service and the funding that police unions use against the public good).


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> At the risk of repeating myself, these venues which do now allow attendees of all ages once did not. It is not a matter of shyness on my part, how I may or may not choose to behave, rather the inescapable fact that many adults find children to be intrinsically annoying and are disappointed that situations which could traditionally be guaranteed to be child-free are becoming increasingly rare.


Welcome to the modern age?? Times change my friend. Should children be denied, I will agree. I have no problem as to not going somewhere where kids are not welcome. You (and others) seem to think that kids should be welcome nowhere. Travel is travcel yet , we have seen that many of yoiu prefer a potted plant over kids on an airplane...Was air travel ever disallowed for children? You seem to desire life to be a bit different? Why can I no longer have 5 beers and drive when it was just fine 20 years ago? I never killed anyone or crashed into a tree. Is smoking in a bar ok with you or is the anti-smoking law one of the benefits that you are ok with?

Another edit... Would it be ok if we stated that no one over x age was allowed to attend a certain event without children (rock concerts, bars, sporting events, etc.)? If you wanted to attend a concert but you needed to have children with you, would it not be just a bit against your desires`? If you were willing to pay £1'000 to do something, should I have final say because you are childless? Ahh. Shaver has only paid £100 and I have paid £400. He needs to go? Do you get the point or should I continue? I respect your rights, I expect you to do the same. I won't bring my kids to venues where kids are restricted, but... I reserve the right to bring them wherever they are allowed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Welcome to the modern age?? Times change my friend. Should children be denied, I will agree. I have no problem as to not going somewhere where kids are not welcome. You (and others) seem to think that kids should be welcome nowhere. Travel is travcel yet , we have seen that many of yoiu prefer a potted plant over kids on an airplane...Was air travel ever disallowed for children? You seem to desire life to be a bit different? Why can I no longer have 5 beers and drive when it was just fine 20 years ago? I never killed anyone or crashed into a tree.


A well, that is just the thing of it. I do not like the modern age. An unworkable molly-coddling trivia obsessed free-for-all where everyone's whims must be indulged and minor problems validated as tragedy. Harrumph!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> A well, that is just the thing of it. I do not like the modern age. An unworkable molly-coddling trivia obsessed free-for-all where everyone's whims must be indulged and minor problems validated as tragedy. Harrumph!


ok- so where do we draw the line as to modern advances being ok? Should we still drag gays behind a a ford pickup? Should we deny women voting rights? Minorities? It's all a bit confused isn't it? I would deny no one their rights as to anyone else. Kids are kids. gays are gays. etc.. As religious as you are, you still don't deny medical advances of the "modern age" do you? Or are you faithful enough to keep yourself from visiting the hospital? 
I agree that it's all a "catch 22" but be it god or science, we all benefit from modern advances. As already stated, as a parent, I enjoy having time away from the kids... But... They are certainly another reality as to society that will most likely benefit humanity in the end. My 2 kids that are being raised by 2 psychs might just end up helping you in a few years. Or perhaps you prefer a rat filled room with nothing to eat because politics have dominated?

I guess we're a bit off topic once again... Welcome to the interchange. lol.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

There's a discussion regarding Ford on the Fashion Forum. Let's keep this nonsense off of the Interchange!......


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> ok- so where do we draw the line as to modern advances being ok? Should we still drag gays behind a a ford pickup? Should we deny women voting rights? Minorities? It's all a bit confused isn't it? I would deny no one their rights as to anyone else. Kids are kids. gays are gays. etc.. As religious as you are, you still don't deny medical advances of the "modern age" do you? Or are you faithful enough to keep yourself from visiting the hospital?
> I agree that it's all a "catch 22" but be it god or science, we all benefit from modern advances. As already stated, as a parent, I enjoy having time away from the kids... But... They are certainly another reality as to society that will most likely benefit humanity in the end. My 2 kids that are being raised by 2 psychs might just end up helping you in a few years. Or perhaps you prefer a rat filled room with nothing to eat because politics have dominated?
> 
> I guess we're a bit off topic once again... Welcome to the interchange. lol.


This is something of a leap in the context of the conversation, is it not?

As to psychs and their children - might I recommend that you watch the Antichrist? A breathtakingly beautiful 2009 Danish art movie, remarkable but with genuine penetrative sex (amongst other shocks) contained within it, so you may not wish to allow your children to view it. Send them to a heavy metal concert instead.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> This is something of a leap in the context of the conversation, is it not?
> 
> As to psychs and their children - might I recommend that you watch the Antichrist? A breathtakingly beautiful 2009 Danish art movie, remarkable but with genuine penetrative sex (amongst other shocks) contained within it, so you may not wish to allow your children to view it. Send them to a heavy metal concert instead.


Wh not my friend.. I hide my chidren from nothing. Sex is a reality and not something to hide (unless you're of the type to disagree with such as many Americans,, English, Christians, etc). I took my daughter to a class today. One of the "fathers" is a "transvestite" that wore a long flowing dress (is that what we call a man who dresses as a woman?), she (my daughter) mentioned nothing. She also goes to school with a a child that has 2 "mothers". She has mentioned nothing about it in 6 years. I will agree to disagree with you on these factors. My children can do who they what, when they want. I will have no problem with such when they reach an age of understanding.

Besides... Our musical tastes are different enough that I doubt we'll ever see each other at a concert and therefore my kids will most likely never bother you....

Oh.. And since when does anyone have any right over others? If I were to cry in an airplane or at a concert, should I ignore my emotions for your comfort? Would you be willing to do the same? If one of our parents died (and we actually had any respect for them), is it such a problem to show how we feel?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Wh not my friend.. I hide my chidren from nothing. Sex is a reality and not something to hide (unless you're of the type to disagree with such as many Americans,, English, Christians, etc). I took my daughter to a class today. One of the "fathers" is a "transvestite" that wore a long flowing dress (is that what we call a man who dresses as a woman?), she (my daughter) mentioned nothing. She also goes to school with a a child that has 2 "mothers". She has mentioned nothing about it in 6 years. I will agree to disagree with you on these factors. My children can do who they what, when they want. I will have no problem with such when they reach an age of understanding.
> 
> Besides... Our musical tastes are different enough that I doubt we'll ever see each other at a concert.


The best band to ever come out of Switzerland are:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The best band to ever come out of Switzerland are:


I rarely defend anything out of switzerland (in fact my wife has threatened to divorce me for complaining about swiss society).. I'll look at the video in about half an hour. Is it as good as Rammstein (which I agree with as to the bad and good of American influence)or are you making a false analogy?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> I rarely defend anything out of switzerland (in fact my wife has threatened to divorce me for complaining about swiss society).. I'll look at the video in about half an hour. Is it as good as Rammstein or are you making a false analogy?


Better than Rammstein but no video (poverty).

This is the most talented band to never really make it outside of cognoscenti.

Bowie based an album of his own around their sound, and credited them for it.

They 'borrowed' the arrangement to one of their songs off my band, back in the day, but didn't credit me for it - although, quite flattering really.

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> ok- so where do we draw the line as to modern advances being ok?* Should we still drag gays behind a a ford pickup*? Should we deny women voting rights? Minorities? It's all a bit confused isn't it? I would deny no one their rights as to anyone else. Kids are kids. gays are gays. etc.. As religious as you are, you still don't deny medical advances of the "modern age" do you? Or are you faithful enough to keep yourself from visiting the hospital?
> I agree that it's all a "catch 22" but be it god or science, we all benefit from modern advances. As already stated, as a parent, I enjoy having time away from the kids... But... They are certainly another reality as to society that will most likely benefit humanity in the end. My 2 kids that are being raised by 2 psychs might just end up helping you in a few years. Or perhaps you prefer a rat filled room with nothing to eat because politics have dominated?
> 
> I guess we're a bit off topic once again... Welcome to the interchange. lol.


I don't think that was gay people. I believe the victim(s) were African Americans. I'm just saying...


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

In a burst of anarchic weirdness, I am going to actually reply to the original post: _*Challenge accepted!

*_I got tired of this eight-year old low class "Oh, yeah, well you're one too" style of argument when I was eight and a half, and I've never been good at "first liar loses".


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I don't think that was gay people. I believe the victim(s) were African Americans. I'm just saying...


Sh%t is sh%t. There have been many examples of racism etc. Out of my country. I hate to put it put it out but yes, there have been quite famous examples as to gays being dragged to their deaths for being gay. My thougt.. mind your own f'ing business and leave others to their own. "Live and let live".

No doubt that it has also happened to americans (With african ancestors) .

20 years ago I spoke in front of the town council in favour of a shooting range. Many were against it. There was a guy known for saying atheists were correct and he was a dedicated 2nd adm. person. I was a dedicated christian at that point. I went to my favorite firearm store and claimed " the atheist is killing our position".. The best response (& one i found disgusting at the moment) was... " Is he an American?" I replied "yes, so what he is killing our point of view as to firearms rights?" Secondary reply... "Is he an American?" I thought a moment. "Well yeah"... Reply..."so, he has every right as any other American.... Americans are Americans. We all fall under the bill of rights and the constitution".. He was harsh. We both wanted the same thing. He was right, I was wrong. I went before the commitee. We lost. But In the end we won. I still go home every few years and enjoy the freedom of seeing the same gent. None of his arms have been usede for murder. His range is used for all in the community that think the 2nd adm. should exist. When I return back to my home country/city, I can enjoy the same gent and reralise that I may have ben wrong, but that I was llead to see that politics are beyond conservative or liberal....Where has "America" gone? I want my country back...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I think that we should establish one thing that we can all agree on and then, like dandelion seeds to the wind, spread that warm fuzzy feeling throughout the world. We should, I think, agree on the broadest sort of thing possible. And it can't be objective, such as, we agree that there are 12 inches in a foot. We can begin with a broad premise and whittle until we reach the goal.

I'll start.

Bill Clinton was the greatest president of the 20th century.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

justonemore said:


> Ah the 80's. I'm not sure if I miss the era or if I'm just being sentimental. Odd however that the younger generations as of the 60's have always asked for peace and unity but odd enough, nothing has actually been achieved as to such viewpoints. .
> While there is no denying that Cheney and his billionair buddies desire the staus quo, it is quite a dissapointement that the others (clintons, obamas, etc) have screwed over their fellow "revolutionists" in order to become "cheney"s"... *What a disgusting system*... Other than speeches and words, the American political system contains only one political ideology.


Wow. Glad you've found a place you prefer to live, and honestly glad you're not here to pollute the feelings of those you come into contact with. I only wish I knew the event(s) that so soured you on what I believe is the greatest nation that's ever been. They must have been traumatic indeed, and I wish you godspeed on your life's journey elsewhere.

About the "peace and love" stuff, and not to minimize the impact on families of the victims of current conflicts, but I doubt there have been many times in recorded history when such a small percentage of the human race has been directly impacted by war. The news industry has a vested interest in drumming up anxiety amongst us, but things are nowhere near so dire as Fox, MSNBC and the boys in between would have us believe. One of the reasons I so like USA Today is that they offer many hopeful stories to balance out all the tales of woe that journalism requires be hunted out and advertised.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> Wow. Glad you've found a place you prefer to live, and honestly glad you're not here to pollute the feelings of those you come into contact with. I only wish I knew the event(s) that so soured you on what I believe is the greatest nation that's ever been. They must have been traumatic indeed, and I wish you godspeed on your life's journey elsewhere.
> 
> About the "peace and love" stuff, and not to minimize the impact on families of the victims of current conflicts, but I doubt there have been many times in recorded history when such a small percentage of the human race has been directly impacted by war. The news industry has a vested interest in drumming up anxiety amongst us, but things are nowhere near so dire as Fox, MSNBC and the boys in between would have us believe. One of the reasons I so like USA Today is that they offer many hopeful stories to balance out all the tales of woe that journalism requires be hunted out and advertised.


Glad to hear you're you're so happy to have a devoted person leave your fold. It is the same type of reasoning that I raise my children elsewhere. Should you have stated otherwise, I may have rethought my ideas but it seems obvious that many Americans enjoy their freedom without a second thought as to other Americans. Thanks again. You are a true prince amongst thieves. God speed to you whatever that may mean. Have you dedicated any moment of your time to society or do you only wish to be critical? Have you done Any volunatry service whatsoever or do you expect payment for every movement you make in my country? I w continue to state my point of iew over yours no matter wher I happen to live. I will "pollute"the feeling of all those that I know in the U.S.. Wrong is wrong, and my viewpoint of such is just as valid as you and your pollution whilee living within the country of my birth... Again...What have you done to serve your community compared to me?

Oh. I am holding on to my citizenship in hopes that I may one day vote against such nonesense... My vote against such a system is as good as annulling a vote from such a concerned Citizen as yourself., I will pay thousands from oversaes to void the vote of you and the types of Hitch.... Sweeet, isn't it.... While I don't want to have to pay U.S. taxes, that's life. I am forced into the U.S. system...Should you want otherwise... You are more than welcome to join me in my protest as to expats being held responsible for funding U.S. criminal activity...

Greatest country? Really? as to your thoughts and those of the American conservatives I suppose? where does the U.S. rank as to education? Healthcare? standard of living? etc? etc? etc?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

justonemore said:


> Glad to hear you're you're so happy to have a devoted person leave your fold. It is the same type of reasoning that I raise my children elsewhere. Should you have stated otherwise, I may have rethought my ideas but it seems obvious that many Americans enjoy their freedom without a second thought as to other Americans. Thanks again. You are a true prince amongst thieves. God speed to you whatever that may mean. Have you dedicated any moment of your time to society or do you only wish to be critical? Have you done Any volunatry service whatsoever or do you expect payment for every movement you make in my country? I w continue to state my point of iew over yours no matter wher I happen to live. I will "pollute"the feeling of all those that I know in the U.S.. Wrong is wrong, and my viewpoint of such is just as valid as you and your pollution whilee living within the country of my birth... Again...What have you done to serve your community compared to me?
> 
> Oh. I am holding on to my citizenship in hopes that I may one day vote against such nonesense... My vote against such a system is as good as annulling a vote from such a concerned Citizen as yourself., I will pay thousands from oversaes to void the vote of you and the types of Hitch.... Sweeet, isn't it.... While I don't want to have to pay U.S. taxes, that's life. I am forced into the U.S. system...Should you want otherwise... You are more than welcome to join me in my protest as to expats being held responsible for funding U.S. criminal activity...
> 
> Greatest country? Really? as to your thoughts and those of the American conservatives I suppose? where does the U.S. rank as to education? Healthcare? standard of living? etc? etc? etc?


Wow. I offered a kind word, sincerely intended, along with gratitude that your hatred for the US isn't being displayed daily among other Americans. And I'm greeted by this screed.

You're exceptionally bitter, J1M, and bitterness IME typically comes as a result of profound trauma of one form or another. I truly hope you're able to better come to terms with whatever the cause of your bitterness is, whether your opinion of the US changes or not. Life filled with such hatred seems hardly worth living.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> Bill Clinton was the greatest president of the 20th century.


I disagree, I think Mary Robinson was the greatest president of the 20th century.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I disagree, I think Mary Robinson was the greatest president of the 20th century.


OK, I'll change my stance and go with Edith Wilson.


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

32rollandrock said:


> OK, I'll change my stance and go with Edith Wilson.


Her successor, Coolidge gets my vote. Having a biological phenomenon named after you for a wise crack you made about your wife, puts him at the top of the list in my book.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Good day then sir and good luck for all that it brings. Happy to hear that you are willing to respond versus sending out one liners and running away. Should you actually be wlling to debate, I will be here as well (when I am done getting the food made, working, dealing with the kids, etc). I am always happy to discuss issues that aren't agreed upon with those that aren't "out in left field"...i.e. Shaver may dislike kids and "breeders" but I never feel that he directly insults anyone over his viewpoints versus stating such (cough...cough...cough... I actually think I hit the debate a bit better against him on such idealogy the other day...Cough...cough...cough...). Comparing American Eugenics to the Nazis is a bit out of hand (although it does give quite a bit of creedence to the aforementioned Rammstein video)..


Here is a synopsis of the exchanges we had. I have bolded some areas for usability and edited for clarity, but with neither am I trying to either change the context or pretend that emphasis was added in the original post. If you feel that either the bolding or the editing changes your post, I apologize. I have also added commentary in red so that it is easily distinguishable - these comments are below the quotes they refer to.



justonemore said:


> Oof. I myself think natural viability to be reasonable. If the dr can take it out alive without needing half a million in specialized healthcare & the state wants to care for it as an abandoned child, then why not? It no longer concerns the woman or her body. The fetus can survive on its own. Many will state otherwise but I suppose it's the ever famous line in the sand. I also see no reason to bring any child into the world that will suffer from various disorders. Nor do I think it right to force others to do so. Aborting a spinbifida fetus at 7 months is much more humane than bringing it to term and having it suffer several months before death.





vpkozel said:


> Well, natural viability can be a tricky thing. No babies are able to feed themselves, so in that case, none of them are naturally viable. On the other hand, with incubators and the ability to develop naturally outside the womb, babies as young as 5 months can be considered viable.
> 
> Interesting about the spina bifida comment though. So, if a test could be developed that determines a kid will have juvenile cancer, schizophrena, or even be homosexual, *would you want them aborted on the grounds of needless suffering as well?*


Please note the bolded section in my post. I was *clearly *referring to you aborting solely to avoid suffering, not for racial purity, so to imply later that I am equating your motives to that of the Nazis is at best lazy, at worst it is simply fabrication.



justonemore said:


> * Juvenile cancer? Probably. *I find no reason to watch a little girl/boy waste away in dreadful pain just for some religious ideology. In such cases I always think of my extremely convervative (childless) uncle that is against abortion and assisted suicide yet took his cat to be put down when it became too old to enjoy life comfortably. To me, his cat had more rights than he's willing to give his fellow Americans.
> 
> * Mental illness? Rough life. Hard to tell. Especially Schizophrenia. Scenarios such as long term involuntary hospitalization are not much of a life especially with the Social stigmas attached...*
> 
> *Homosexuality? Some would, I wouldn't.*





vpkozel said:


> *Wow, you certainly do have a lot of aborting going on. *And I think *if you look at your answers again, you will find that you are not very far off from Nazi birth policies*, which is frightening in and of itself.


This is the offending quote where you claim that I am calling you a Nazi. As everyone can plainly see, I say no such thing. I state that based on your positions there certainly would be a lot of abortions and that *your answers* put you close to the birth policy of the Nazis. Do you dispute that you advocate for abortions in cases where there will be severe physical or mental issues? Or in the case of disease? Or if a baby could be identified as homosexual? Because you clearly were in favor of the first and third, probably in favor of the second, and not in favor of the fourth. In my eyes, 2 solid yeses, 1 probably, and a no out of 4 choices discussed so far definitely means that you are not far off from a group that advocated for yeses for all 4. And "not far off" was exactly what I said.



justonemore said:


> indeed. I was quite clear that I spoke for myself & not others. I also stated that I respected others ideas but had no desire to have others force me into their ideas. I wasn't aware that anyone here was king but you act it more than I.
> 
> *nazi huh? Sweet. Wern't you just crying about keeping the threads decent?*


And here you claim I am calling you a nazi and that I am somehow making the thread indecent.




vpkozel said:


> *Why would comparing or contrasting your positions to another that is very similar not keep a thread decent? It simply is what it is. If you are all for aborting all but the healthiest fetuses and other people have that same point of view, then they are similar are they not? There is nothing inflammatory at all about that.
> 
> But nice basic debate move to try to take my comments out of context and pretend that I was calling YOU a Nazi.*



My first attempt to assure you that I was not calling you a Nazi, simply equating your beliefs on this one narrow topic with their beliefs on this one narrow topic. You will notice that nowhere in the exchanges have I ever denigrated you, ascribed any motives to your thoughts other than the one - needless suffering - that you stated. 



justonemore said:


> Odd enough it was the Americans & not the nazis that first explored such ideas you wanted to compare. I suppose the term nazi helps your arguement sound good? here's just a bit from good ole wikipedia....
> 
> *"Eugenics*, the social movement claiming to improve the genetic features of human populations through selective breeding and sterilization,[SUP][1][/SUP] based on the idea that it is possible to distinguish between superior and inferior elements of society,[SUP][2][/SUP] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States prior to its involvement in World War II.[SUP][3][/SUP]
> Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[SUP][4][/SUP] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] Stefan Kühl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands.[SUP][5]"[/SUP]
> ...


I am not sure why you seem to think that the "America started it" argument carries any weight, but if it makes you feel any better, your thoughts on aborting certain fetuses who may potential have certain physical or mental issues puts you very close to the birth policies advocated by the CA Eugenics movement - as well as groups - like the National Socialist Party in Germany for instance - who adopted those ideas and put them into practice.

I did like the strawman in the last bolded passage though. Another very basic level, and ineffective, debate trick.

Now, in this entire exchange I would put forth that I refrained from making generalizations, strawmen, personal attacks or taking any of your responses out of context. When I had a question, I asked it and waited for your response, then either asked for clarification or replied to what you wrote.

And never did I call you a Nazi.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

With that, I am done with this little tiff. Everyone can see what I wrote and see my comments in the synopsis and judge for themselves. 

I will not at all deny being passionate about my beliefs, as I have been a student of history since I was a kid and have thought through many positions already and would make extremely clear when I have not done so. I also reach my decisions after carefully reading as many points of view on a topic as I possibly can - often many more on the side I disagree with to make sure that I am not missing something. Of course, I also have no problem changing my mind about anything given new information.

I might also suggest that, in the future, if you have questions about what I mean, please ask for clarification or further refinement - I am quite able to provide it and it makes for a much better discussion than assuming what my position is or misrepresenting it, then arguing against what you say I said. I mean, if you are going to do that at least put the made up argument in the quote format to send people looking for where I didn't say what you are actually pretending I said.

Edit - As is my nightly routine, I have thought about this quite a bit in taking my inventory and all I can say is that I felt that I had wronged you in any way, then I would quickly apologize for it. But, I do not feel that I did that, so I can't apologize for something I did not do. However, at the risk of you mocking me for stating this, I will meditate and pray over this to see if perhaps I am missing something.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

sbdivemaster said:


> Her successor, Coolidge gets my vote. Having a biological phenomenon named after you for a wise crack you made about your wife, puts him at the top of the list in my book.


What traits did Coolidge have that you admire?


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*comity*

Imanuelrx,

Thank you for initiating this thread.

It is good to see movement on everyone's part toward increased civility.

Regards to all,
Gurdon


----------

