Military Experience Worthy of Deferring To?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kathianne I apologise, but now I am stuck, if I simply stop responding they will spin it as if I conceded the point, which I refuse to do.
 
deaddude said:
Kathianne I apologise, but now I am stuck, if I simply stop responding they will spin it as if I conceded the point, which I refuse to do.

We all see your elitism and patronizing attitude. You can't spin out of it.
 
Kathianne said:
Okey dokey, not everyone wants to have threads shut down because a few wish to hijack.

conversations change onto other topics as they go along. It's called human interaction, look into it.
 
Shut down RWA. No I remain up and running eagerly awaiting whatever stream of ad hominums you regurgitate next. I responded with how I would react and I stand by my reaction.

My question remains with how you would respond to a soldier who served a double tour in Iraq and believes that going into iraq in the first place was a mistake.
 
deaddude said:
Shut down RWA. No I remain up and running eagerly awaiting whatever stream of ad hominums you regurgitate next. I responded with how I would react and I stand by my reaction.

Which is dismissive, elitist, patronizing and closeminded. Good day to you, sir.
 
deaddude said:
Shut down RWA. No I remain up and running eagerly awaiting whatever stream of ad hominums you regurgitate next. I responded with how I would react and I stand by my reaction.

My question remains with how you would respond to a soldier who served a double tour in Iraq and believes that going into iraq in the first place was a mistake.

I would bring to his attention how Saddam had flaunted resolutions, how saddam was acting as if he had wmd, and how it's too much to ask that american intelligence be so accurate as to know a regime better than it's own leader. I wouldn't run from the discussion so as not to upset his "ignorant grunt" feelings as you would.
 
Mine does not assume him to be a volatile idiot.
Nor does mine. It is called tact RWA, if he wishes to bring up the war than that is his decision and I will happlily debate with him as I do with you. However I am not going to bring it up myself. Partially because I do not know if he wishes to talk about it, and yes partially because if it did get violent (which political disscussions have more than potential to do, without requiring either party to be a volatile idiot) he could snap me like a twig.
 
deaddude said:
Nor does mine. It is called tact RWA, if he wishes to bring up the war than that is his decision and I will happlily debate with him as I do with you. However I am not going to bring it up myself. Partially because I do not know if he wishes to talk about it, and yes partially because if it did get violent (which political disscussions have more than potential to do) he could snap me like a twig.

Yes. It does. It's insulting for you also to assume he would use violence on a civilian.
 
So RWA, is anyone who doesn't confront everyone with anything they disagree about a patronizer? You must always confront everything you disagree with, or else you're being condescending?
 
Who is assuming,
Is he going to attack me? Almost certainly not.
If he did attack me, who would kick whose ass? Almost certainly he would kick mine

It is a form of diplomatic preemption called tact. Antagonising him increases the (minimal) chances that he will attack me, which is dangerous to my health, so I avoid antagonising him.
 
deaddude said:
Who is assuming,
Is he going to attack me? Almost certainly not.
If he did attack me, who would kick whose ass? Almost certainly he would kick mine

It is a form of diplomatic preemption called tact. Antagonising him increases the (minimal) chances that he will attack me, which is dangerous to my health, so I avoid antagonising him.


I said, "good day".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top