A coming of age moment

[Lozzer]

Good read, lozzer. Poignant at times and very articulate.

Only criticism I'd give is that you seem to confuse some words that look/are spelt similarly. I coul be your proofreader if you like?

Cheers

I know, I seem to do it automatically though without knowing I'm doing it. Yes you coul be my proofreader if you like Id appreciate it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Good read, lozzer. Poignant at times and very articulate.

Only criticism I'd give is that you seem to confuse some words that look/are spelt similarly. I coul be your proofreader if you like?

Cheers

I know, I seem to do it automatically though without knowing I'm doing it. Yes you coul be my proofreader if you like Id appreciate it.

Don't worry about typos and misspellings. If you write for a living, that's what proofreaders and editors are for.

[charlou]

Politicians with decency? Surely that's an oxymoron.

Have you ever heard the expression "Quit while you're ahead"?

Did I employ the term 'oxymoron' in the wrong tense?

No, you didn't.

Yeah, the whole writing off all politicians thing makes you look like a brainless ass, and kind of wipes out the respectability granted by your so-far cromulent points in this thread. Just sayin'.

It's just wry and cynical stereotyping ... a sardonic form of humour, MoNF.

[lordpasternack]

Yeah, the whole writing off all politicians thing makes you look like a brainless ass, and kind of wipes out the respectability granted by your so-far cromulent points in this thread. Just sayin'.

It's just wry and cynical stereotyping ... a sardonic form of humour, MoNF.

I think MoNF has some set principles and they're very black and white. He frequently makes reference to people having no ounce of good in them, that such and such is "evil" (as opposed to simply incompetant, or ignorant, or whatever), and that such and such rather trifling misdeeds are liable to wipe clean any respect he ever had for you.

It must not be too congenial for him living in a world full of fallible people.

[lordpasternack]

I coul be your proofreader if you like?

Yes you coul be my proofreader if you like

I just noticed this. Is it deliberate? If so, it's quite clever and subtle.

As it happens, I'm terribly sleep-deprived at the moment. I was with a guy last night whose snoring sounded like a fucking banshee, and he only had a single bed, and he was quite a chunky boy - so I curled up on his two-seater couch for a few hours. And later when I rejoined him in bed, he just wouldn't leave my fucking body alone. Sorry, but I tend to get irritable if I can't get my beauty sleep, and I am not a morning person - and my nipples are fucking tender little things. How many times do I need to brush you off and whine till you get the message?

[Lozzer]

I coul be your proofreader if you like?

Yes you coul be my proofreader if you like

I just noticed this. Is it deliberate? If so, it's quite clever and subtle.

As it happens, I'm terribly sleep-deprived at the moment. I was with a guy last night whose snoring sounded like a fucking banshee, and he only had a single bed, and he was quite a chunky boy - so I curled up on his two-seater couch for a few hours. And later when I rejoined him in bed, he just wouldn't leave my fucking body alone. Sorry, but I tend to get irritable if I can't get my beauty sleep, and I am not a morning person - and my nipples are fucking tender little things. How many times do I need to brush you off and whine till you get the message?

I couldn't resist.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Yeah, the whole writing off all politicians thing makes you look like a brainless ass, and kind of wipes out the respectability granted by your so-far cromulent points in this thread. Just sayin'.

It's just wry and cynical stereotyping ... a sardonic form of humour, MoNF.

I think MoNF has some set principles and they're very black and white. He frequently makes reference to people having no ounce of good in them, that such and such is "evil" (as opposed to simply incompetant, or ignorant, or whatever), and that such and such rather trifling misdeeds are liable to wipe clean any respect he ever had for you.

It must not be too congenial for him living in a world full of fallible people.

Well, I have quite a range of opinion, but at times people's absurdity drives me to firm conclusions. I usually try not to be so dismissive unless someone has clearly earned such a firm opinion, though philosohical incomompetence or just an unwillingness to do the right thing. And sometimes an instance of outright absurdity serves as a representative of someone's thoughts. And of sourse, I can be quite firm when it comes to people having bad taste. I'm very nice, overall.

*Stares down, holding hands behind back and looking coy, and swishes tail shyly*

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yeah, the whole writing off all politicians thing makes you look like a brainless ass, and kind of wipes out the respectability granted by your so-far cromulent points in this thread. Just sayin'.

It's just wry and cynical stereotyping ... a sardonic form of humour, MoNF.

I think MoNF has some set principles and they're very black and white. He frequently makes reference to people having no ounce of good in them, that such and such is "evil" (as opposed to simply incompetant, or ignorant, or whatever), and that such and such rather trifling misdeeds are liable to wipe clean any respect he ever had for you.

It must not be too congenial for him living in a world full of fallible people.

Well, I have quite a range of opinion, but at times people's absurdity drives me to firm conclusions. I usually try not to be so dismissive unless someone has clearly earned such a firm opinion, though philosohical incomompetence or just an unwillingness to do the right thing. And sometimes an instance of outright absurdity serves as a representative of someone's thoughts. And of sourse, I can be quite firm when it comes to people having bad taste. I'm very nice, overall.

*Stares down, holding hands behind back and looking coy, and swishes tail shyly*

You could backpedal on the hyperbole a little though. It does tend to undermine your arguments.

Statements such as "You cannot be a moral person, not in the least, as long as you believe in prohibition." and "And if you think the current system is just, or a good idea, then you are evil beyoned a shadow of a doubt." make your whole argument look ridiculously one-sided, inflexible and even juvenile.

I agree with both of your points, but not with the fact that those that think otherwise are immoral or evil. They are simply mistaken, deluded, badly-informed, or maybe just a bit thick.

The purpose of discussion is to compare viewpoints rationally and logically and ideally to come to consensus. Failing that, for both sides to better understand the viewpoint of the other. You give the impression of treating it as a pissing contest at times - you act like you want to WIN at all costs and consider any point conceded a defeat, when it is actually a point of contact and empathy.

I think you will get more out of discussions here if you enter them with a set of views that you consider a starting point for discussion and not a fortress that must be defended at all costs.

Please take this as friendly advice and not criticism. It is intended that way.

[Lozzer]

Yeah, the whole writing off all politicians thing makes you look like a brainless ass, and kind of wipes out the respectability granted by your so-far cromulent points in this thread. Just sayin'.

It's just wry and cynical stereotyping ... a sardonic form of humour, MoNF.

I think MoNF has some set principles and they're very black and white. He frequently makes reference to people having no ounce of good in them, that such and such is "evil" (as opposed to simply incompetant, or ignorant, or whatever), and that such and such rather trifling misdeeds are liable to wipe clean any respect he ever had for you.

It must not be too congenial for him living in a world full of fallible people.

Well, I have quite a range of opinion, but at times people's absurdity drives me to firm conclusions. I usually try not to be so dismissive unless someone has clearly earned such a firm opinion, though philosohical incomompetence or just an unwillingness to do the right thing. And sometimes an instance of outright absurdity serves as a representative of someone's thoughts. And of sourse, I can be quite firm when it comes to people having bad taste. I'm very nice, overall.

*Stares down, holding hands behind back and looking coy, and swishes tail shyly*

You could backpedal on the hyperbole a little though. It does tend to undermine your arguments.

Statements such as "You cannot be a moral person, not in the least, as long as you believe in prohibition." and "And if you think the current system is just, or a good idea, then you are evil beyoned a shadow of a doubt." make your whole argument look ridiculously one-sided, inflexible and even juvenile.

I agree with both of your points, but not with the fact that those that think otherwise are immoral or evil. They are simply mistaken, deluded, badly-informed, or maybe just a bit thick.

The purpose of discussion is to compare viewpoints rationally and logically and ideally to come to consensus. Failing that, for both sides to better understand the viewpoint of the other. You give the impression of treating it as a pissing contest at times - you act like you want to WIN at all costs and consider any point conceded a defeat, when it is actually a point of contact and empathy.

I think you will get more out of discussions here if you enter them with a set of views that you consider a starting point for discussion and not a fortress that must be defended at all costs.

Please take this as friendly advice and not criticism. It is intended that way.

Of course his compliment regarding my writing skills weren't exaggerations

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Statements such as "You cannot be a moral person, not in the least, as long as you believe in prohibition." and "And if you think the current system is just, or a good idea, then you are evil beyoned a shadow of a doubt." make your whole argument look ridiculously one-sided, inflexible and even juvenile.

I agree with both of your points, but not with the fact that those that think otherwise are immoral or evil. They are simply mistaken, deluded, badly-informed, or maybe just a bit thick.

The purpose of discussion is to compare viewpoints rationally and logically and ideally to come to consensus. Failing that, for both sides to better understand the viewpoint of the other. You give the impression of treating it as a pissing contest at times - you act like you want to WIN at all costs and consider any point conceded a defeat, when it is actually a point of contact and empathy.

I think you will get more out of discussions here if you enter them with a set of views that you consider a starting point for discussion and not a fortress that must be defended at all costs.

Please take this as friendly advice and not criticism. It is intended that way.

It wasn't hyperbole at all. I was being completely literal. I appreciate what you are saying, but there are times when it is simply immoral to pretend something is otherwise than it is, even if we want to soft-pedal it to get the view more widely spread. There is much disaster that can come from speaking in certain terms, or just standing tall and hissing, but there are times when it is both the right thing and strategically a good idea to be irate for the right reasons. To be honest, I could care less why some people believe in the "moral value" of prohibition. As I have said before, there is plenty of evidence out there, and so this deliberate shuttering of oneself away from the truth is so contemptible that I have no problem calling it evil. How much gentle explanation does it take to bring these people over to the sane side of things? My point is that you can argue logic with these people until you are blue in the face and it won't make a difference to them. Calling them(rightfully) scum, on the other hand, plus making clear our disdain for them, although it may make some of them more irate as they thrash their tiny little minds about in defiance of sanity, may be the only real recourse reformists have. Resorting to this kind of strategic option is the least desireable option politically, but sometimes it works. I do consider it a tactic of last resort, however. But how many tons of exhalations have reformists given towards ending this insane doctrine, often in very meek and cogent terms, and what has been the result? Now, I do think that there is a place for both the gentle and the venemous approach, it's just that in the light of the continual and overwhelming failure of the former, it can only succeed with some amount of the latter. I am explicitly not a Manichean, and I beleve there are far more shades of grey than either black or white in most places.

No offense, XC, but we need to address policy issues and how to solve them one by one, and tailor a specific approach to each. Not just a blanket "play nice" approach. I appreciate your general point though, and if we were a much more sane species, it might work a lot better.

Of course his compliments regarding my writing skills weren't exaggerations

True, but I pointedly avoided any mention of your spelling.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Statements such as "You cannot be a moral person, not in the least, as long as you believe in prohibition." and "And if you think the current system is just, or a good idea, then you are evil beyoned a shadow of a doubt." make your whole argument look ridiculously one-sided, inflexible and even juvenile.

I agree with both of your points, but not with the fact that those that think otherwise are immoral or evil. They are simply mistaken, deluded, badly-informed, or maybe just a bit thick.

The purpose of discussion is to compare viewpoints rationally and logically and ideally to come to consensus. Failing that, for both sides to better understand the viewpoint of the other. You give the impression of treating it as a pissing contest at times - you act like you want to WIN at all costs and consider any point conceded a defeat, when it is actually a point of contact and empathy.

I think you will get more out of discussions here if you enter them with a set of views that you consider a starting point for discussion and not a fortress that must be defended at all costs.

Please take this as friendly advice and not criticism. It is intended that way.

It wasn't hyperbole at all. I was being completely literal. I appreciate what you are saying, but there are times when it is simply immoral to pretend something is otherwise than it is, even if we want to soft-pedal it to get the view more widely spread. There is much disaster that can come from speaking in certain terms, or just standing tall and hissing, but there are times when it is both the right thing and strategically a good idea to be irate for the right reasons. To be honest, I could care less why some people believe in the "moral value" of prohibition. As I have said before, there is plenty of evidence out there, and so this deliberate shuttering of oneself away from the truth is so contemptible that I have no problem calling it evil. How much gentle explanation does it take to bring these people over to the sane side of things? My point is that you can argue logic with these people until you are blue in the face and it won't make a difference to them. Calling them(rightfully) scum, on the other hand, plus making clear our disdain for them, although it may make some of them more irate as they thrash their tiny little minds about in defiance of sanity, may be the only real recourse reformists have. Resorting to this kind of strategic option is the least desireable option politically, but sometimes it works. I do consider it a tactic of last resort, however. But how many tons of exhalations have reformists given towards ending this insane doctrine, often in very meek and cogent terms, and what has been the result? Now, I do think that there is a place for both the gentle and the venemous approach, it's just that in the light of the continual and overwhelming failure of the former, it can only succeed with some amount of the latter. I am explicitly not a Manichean, and I beleve there are far more shades of grey than either black or white in most places.

No offense, XC, but we need to address policy issues and how to solve them one by one, and tailor a specific approach to each. Not just a blanket "play nice" approach. I appreciate your general point though, and if we were a much more sane species, it might work a lot better.

Since when did YOU get to decide what WE need to do? You've been here 5 minutes and act like you own the place. Play Nice is the rule here. That's how we like it here. We don't cross the 't's and dot the 'i's. Rigid rules just create gaps for trolls to hide in, or mean that the staff are forced to take action against their better judgment - something I remember you taking umbrage with at RDF.

Your diatribe above pretty much proved my earlier point. It was a largely incoherent rant and you did nothing but reaffirm your previous claims in even more polemic terms. Frankly, I am bored by your debating style. You're not particularly good at it and are never going to convince anybody else of anything with that attitude. In fact, I can see no purpose in adopting such a deliberately confrontational stance except to annoy people.

Feel free to go around calling people scum for having a difference of opinion with you over minor matters such as drug laws. I'm sure it will win you a lot of friends. Just try not to do it to anyone here, if you don't mind.

And try and calm down. Your blood pressure must be through the roof.

[Trinity]

How much gentle explanation does it take to bring these people over to the sane side of things? My point is that you can argue logic with these people until you are blue in the face and it won't make a difference to them. Calling them(rightfully) scum, on the other hand, plus making clear our disdain for them, although it may make some of them more irate as they thrash their tiny little minds about in defiance of sanity, may be the only real recourse reformists have. Resorting to this kind of strategic option is the least desireable option politically, but sometimes it works.

The latter only works at the cost of someone conceding/acquiescing/being bullied into it, however you want to phrase that. That is no solution to affect change.
We can only change ourselves in relation to anything or anyone. It is our perceptions and thoughts that provoke emotions with regard to anything. Our ego's don't like being threatened in any quarter. So, if we want to affect change without enforcement or manipulation of others, then we need to look within. It is infinitely easier to shift blame to others and not take responsibility for our own shit. Higher levels of tolerance, awareness and empathy are needed ultimately. I think.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

Since when did YOU get to decide what WE need to do?

Gee, I thought I would use the "unseen we", representing me and others who are not in fact on this forum.

You've been here 5 minutes and act like you own the place. Play Nice is the rule here. That's how we like it here. We don't cross the 't's and dot the 'i's. Rigid rules just create gaps for trolls to hide in, or mean that the staff are forced to take action against their better judgment - something I remember you taking umbrage with at RDF.

Why are you conflating the forum with poitics in general? I have no idea why you're getting so uppity.

Your diatribe above pretty much proved my earlier point. It was a largely incoherent rant and you did nothing but reaffirm your previous claims in even more polemic terms. Frankly, I am bored by your debating style. You're not particularly good at it and are never going to convince anybody else of anything with that attitude. In fact, I can see no purpose in adopting such a deliberately confrontational stance except to annoy people.

Diatribe? Incoherent? Methinks these are weighted terms. And you seem just as vicious as you accuse me of being. I thought I made a very logical post. And the underlined seems like a petty swipe which saves you from arguing anything like an alternate view, such as " steady pressure and logical argumants can convince almost anyone eventually and sideline those who aren't convinced". Now, I may (possibly) be wrong, but I just think you've let your personal feelings get in the way. Maybe you're not used to people disagreeing with you, or just disagreeing strongly with you on here, but that's no reason to rip my head off. Or make bizarre strawmen such as interpreting my comments as meaning a criticism of forum policy. For the most part, I like the moderation here. And I have no idea why you're flippng out at me so much. I like discussing or arguing things with you, but not when you're being petty. Maybe you're having a bad day, maybe you're not. But could you please ease up on the hostility which, so far in this thread, I have not given in proportion to yours, and which is vastly unfounded?

Now, I sincerely hope you have taken this objectively and not gotten all mad again. I would really hope that we can argue things without becoming petty. I will try as much as possible to adhere to this. I like the forum and the people here. And I hope that you get whatever it is out of your system. Try to cheer up and have a good day. I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest with you.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

It is our perceptions and thoughts that provoke emotions with regard to anything. Our ego's don't like being threatened in any quarter. So, if we want to affect change without enforcement or manipulation of others, then we need to look within.

Logic doesn't care about our egos. A valid point is a valid point no matter show irately somone fights it. When someone is immune to logic for whatever reason, approaching it from an emotionalistic angle doen't really solve the problem. The truth and logic are above what our personal feelings are. So I fail to see why we should approach things from an emotional standpoint when logic has been proven ineffective. Sorry, but I think that logic and trying to objectively view things are the only really valid ways of dealing with whatever problems, personal or political, we might have. So I get sort of irate when it comes to people who have comtempt for reason and I cannot concieve of any reason for respecting their views. This may seem pedantic and petty at times, but it is based on my (nearly)absolute conviction that reason is the only real way to handle things. So when someone handles somthing from an emotionalistic angle when a more reasoned approach would be more appropriate, I generally view it as either a a failure of thought or intelligence, and their thinking seems completely alien to me.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Since when did YOU get to decide what WE need to do?

Gee, I thought I would use the "unseen we", representing me and others who are not in fact on this forum.

You've been here 5 minutes and act like you own the place. Play Nice is the rule here. That's how we like it here. We don't cross the 't's and dot the 'i's. Rigid rules just create gaps for trolls to hide in, or mean that the staff are forced to take action against their better judgment - something I remember you taking umbrage with at RDF.

Why are you conflating the forum with poitics in general? I have no idea why you're getting so uppity.

Your diatribe above pretty much proved my earlier point. It was a largely incoherent rant and you did nothing but reaffirm your previous claims in even more polemic terms. Frankly, I am bored by your debating style. You're not particularly good at it and are never going to convince anybody else of anything with that attitude. In fact, I can see no purpose in adopting such a deliberately confrontational stance except to annoy people.

Diatribe? Incoherent? Methinks these are weighted terms. And you seem just as vicious as you accuse me of being. I thought I made a very logical post. And the underlined seems like a petty swipe which saves you from arguing anything like an alternate view, such as " steady pressure and logical argumants can convince almost anyone eventually and sideline those who aren't convinced". Now, I may (possibly) be wrong, but I just think you've let your personal feelings get in the way. Maybe you're not used to people disagreeing with you, or just disagreeing strongly with you on here, but that's no reason to rip my head off. Or make bizarre strawmen such as interpreting my comments as meaning a criticism of forum policy. For the most part, I like the moderation here. And I have no idea why you're flippng out at me so much. I like discussing or arguing things with you, but not when you're being petty. Maybe you're having a bad day, maybe you're not. But could you please ease up on the hostility which, so far in this thread, I have not given in proportion to yours, and which is vastly unfounded?

Now, I sincerely hope you have taken this objectively and not gotten all mad again. I would really hope that we can argue things without becoming petty. I will try as much as possible to adhere to this. I like the forum and the people here. And I hope that you get whatever it is out of your system. Try to cheer up and have a good day. I have no desire to engage in a pissing contest with you.

Very clever. You are seeking to project your own faults onto me. I'm not angry though. Not in the slightest. Perhaps you are projecting a little too hard and see your own bitterness in my reply.

I didn't erect a strawman, let alone a bizarre one. You brought forum rules into the debate.

No offense, XC, but we need to address policy issues and how to solve them one by one, and tailor a specific approach to each. Not just a blanket "play nice" approach.

I even highlighted that section to make it clear where my points were addressed.
That is your opinion of how a forum should be run. However, it is not the way that this one is run. This one is run according to the rules which you signed up to when you joined. While you are quite at liberty to offer your opinions on those rules, they remain in place whether you like it or not. We don't change rules on the whim of a single member, no matter how self-confessedly intelligent, charming and furry that member is.