Dante Challenges Samson to a Debate: Put up or shut up?

Discussion in 'Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs' started by Dante, Jul 15, 2014.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Dante Challenges Samson to a Debate: Put up or shut up?

    [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION] only has to come in here and accept or...

    :eek:
     
  2. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,356
    Thanks Received:
    3,741
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,218
    Here I am.


    And you're already boring me, so I'll keep this thread short:


    You're a Fat Queer Attention Whore with No Talent and Less Intelligence living in your parent's basement.

    :banana2:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION] Looking at your threads and posts it begins to get difficult to select a subject of interest of value to anyone with which I will dispatch you -- but fear not, dispatch you we will

    Dante
    :cool:
    dD
     
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    sorry, I fell asleep reading your threads
     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    still trying to find something of interest in Samson's threads.
     
  6. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,699
    Thanks Received:
    2,728
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,130
    [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]

    Do you have any threads where you posted any opinion on
    prochoice? I am not getting very far with Dante on the issue
    of why does Roe V Wade recognize free choice and "substantive due process"
    for abortion laws, but this isn't being applied to free choice of health care options
    that ACA mandates currently restrict to insurance as the only choice.

    Do you have any issues related to choice or consent?
    And if it is Constitutional for laws to impose a bias on choice
    based on people's political beliefs at the cost of excluding other beliefs?

    I tried to argue this is "discrimination by creed" where laws involve "beliefs," but
    Dante seems to be okay with it as long as the govt process is used to establish law.

    I said that is fine for laws and areas that people agree to subject to majority rule
    or court ruling. But I disagreed when it comes to beliefs such as concerning abortion and health care choices, marriage laws, and other areas that I find cross the line between church and state; where laws should either be formed, written and passed by consensus or kept out of govt if people cannot agree, in order to prevent imposing by belief or creed.
     
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]
    [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
    :eusa_whistle:
     
  8. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,356
    Thanks Received:
    3,741
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,218
    Not "getting very far with Dante on he issue?"

    My advice is to try discussing the issue with a more intelligent plants; perhaps a geranium, or sunflower.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2014
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,699
    Thanks Received:
    2,728
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,130
    [MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]
    So you want to debate whether a geranium, sunflower or Dante has more intelligence?

    I would say the flowers already follow the "intelligent design" of the universe and don't need to think about it.

    With Dante, he thinks too much. He justifies all the differences between Roe V Wade, substantive due process, the court ruling and issues in that case vs. the issues of government intrusion in people's private decisions about health care under ACA.

    And misses the obvious -- the people DON'T consent to having their choices taken away by govt by ACA mandates, any more or less than the prochoice advocates who don't want govt imposing on free choice in abortion or reproductive decisions either!

    He chokes on mere gnats while the govt is shoving camels down people's throats.

    So that is my only issue with Dante. He is almost TOO discerning, and misses the similar connections "in spirit" with issues of free choice, individual consent, versus govt intrusion.

    He catches the difference between each tree in the forest, but misses the forest for the trees.

    If you want to debate with me, we can argue if the problem is Dante is TOO intelligent and overthinking, or "not getting it" because he is not thinking enough?
    I think it is a matter of being stubborn, not stupid.
    People get set in their ways, no matter how intelligent they are,
    and have their own beliefs and preferences.

    I think Dante's bias is based on not knowing enough rightwing/conservative people who ARE willing to discuss and resolve issues on his level.

    If he had that, he would not be so "closed-minded" that any such positions can or could or should change.
    So I think that is where the bias is coming from. It's about personal connection with other people, and not how intelligent you are.
    Dante is incredibly astute and discerning, so the blocks we run into must be coming from something else.

    The emotional blocks between people because of political division and resentment
    are enough to interfere with that process. So that is what I blame: the deeply engrained perceptions and
    stereotypes, which cause people to "assume" that some choices or levels of consensus in decision-making are "not possible" and "not a choice."

    So once you limit yourself to just "one way is right, and the other way is wrong"
    that closes the door to any other solutions that could focus on how to
    correct what is wrong on both sides, and fulfill/respect what is right for both.

    This is not an emotionally-available choice for people, so their brains don't go there either, and don't consider it a viable option to even consider.

    It is an engrained response to the environment we operate in, that tells us
    our two choices are "fight or flight" and there is no such thing as working out an agreeable solution "without compromising to the other side."
    So neither side opens themselves up to seek those solutions that could resolve conflicts and satisfy both sides without compromise.

    The intelligent mind, like Dante's, demands "proof this exists or works first" BEFORE believing in it.
    So it becomes counteractive.

    it takes having an open mind that such solutions could be pursued, developed and implemented
    BEFORE taking the steps to PROVE it can work or not!

    So it goes in a circle and becomes self-defeating:
    without proof consensus is possible, if the mind won't even open up to the possibility,
    then steps cannot be taken to reach consensus, so you keep proving consensus is not possible by not asking and seeking it!

    On the other hand, should more people push for either separation or consensus, and quit competing to dominate one side over the other,
    then more people WOULD work toward consensus or at least proposed ways of reaching it,
    and more people WOULD consider the options and try to prove where consensus can be reached or not.

    So the opposite can also happen: as more people consider ways to resolve conflicts
    to form agreements instead of competing to overrule and exclude each other,
    then the process becomes self-fulfilling. it opens the doors for the solutions
    to start forming among people.

    so the same way being closedminded, and sticking to conflicting sides, proves consensus is not possible,
    being openminded can prove consensus is possible by working in that direction instead, to show all the same conflicts can be resolved instead of assuming they can't be worked out without compromise.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2014
  10. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Silly me
     

Share This Page