Brazilda Posted January 29, 2017 Author Share Posted January 29, 2017 So the non-donor pot addict who makes aloof posts questioning our "priorities" turns down an opportunity to possibly provide some value by calling in to discuss the topic, but wants me to explain to him why he's wrong anyway. Yeah, I'll pass. How dare I ask you to elaborate even though you're already here anyways mocking me. I have other reasons I don't want to call in. I guess you already explained well enough when you said the video is just a current even used to highlight the mainstream media's dishonesty. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I really dont see your evidence anywhere. I might have missed it, so please point it out to me if I have. heres what you said This is not evidence that legalising gay marriage will lead to a slippery slope. This is you stating that conservatives have CLAIMED that it will lead to a slippery slope. Even saying "look whats happening now, therefore, slippery slope" is not evidence. It MAY be the case, sure, but you havent shown it. you havent shown causation. You havent shown that one necessarily follows from the other. You have , at best, shown correlation. You also havent shown that the slippery slope argument is sufficient evidence to support not allowing gay marriage. I agree https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49094-my-issue-with-the-untruth-about-jeff-sessions/?p=446625 There's the post. There's the evidence (some of it). Concede or negate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49094-my-issue-with-the-untruth-about-jeff-sessions/?p=446625 There's the post. There's the evidence (some of it). Concede or negate. My previous post addresses your "evidence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuzzums Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 My previous post addresses your "evidence" Negate it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Negate it is. Not sure what you mean? You are admitting that I have shown you are incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spenc Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 You're welcome to call in and make your case too. I'd find that rather entertaining. Which part in particular are you referencing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilda Posted January 31, 2017 Author Share Posted January 31, 2017 Oh the entitlement. I honestly don't even know whats going on here anymore. I don't want to be the villain of this community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I honestly don't even know whats going on here anymore. I don't want to be the villain of this community. You wanted some answers, he told you how to get your answers, but you declined as not worth the effort, but you then asked again as if you deserved to get them your way without them getting anything out of the exchange, as would have been the case with a call-in show. He offered a trade, you declined, but still wanted your goods, so he called you entitled for suggesting you should get something for nothing. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spenc Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I honestly don't even know whats going on here anymore. I don't want to be the villain of this community. Can I ask what brings you to this community? What content do you most value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I honestly don't even know whats going on here anymore. I don't want to be the villain of this community. Saying that you would consider killing a cop for drug possession, may not be the best place to start. Go easy. The whole drug enforcement laws are a mess. You say you are raking in exponential profits on currency speculation, that you're not afraid to take risks. You obviously find some profit in talking about drug laws and how you think Jeff Sessions would be terrible, maybe you're right, I remember seeing a documentary somewhere where under Nixon incarceration rates were massive for drug possession. You have an opportunity to talk about something you find important/profitable to you with zero risk. Negotiate terms and questions you would like to discuss, maybe specify timing to make a case or have more of a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilda Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 You wanted some answers, he told you how to get your answers, but you declined as not worth the effort, but you then asked again as if you deserved to get them your way without them getting anything out of the exchange, as would have been the case with a call-in show. He offered a trade, you declined, but still wanted your goods, so he called you entitled for suggesting you should get something for nothing. I didn't really understand that he wouldn't explain his disapproval unless I call in when he asked. Can I ask what brings you to this community? What content do you most value? I care deeply about truth and critical thinking. Two things that are found in abundance at FDR but very rare almost everywhere else. I think what brings me here is probably no different from anyone else. I'm not certain I understand your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilda Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 Saying that you would consider killing a cop for drug possession, may not be the best place to start. Go easy. The whole drug enforcement laws are a mess. You say you are raking in exponential profits on currency speculation, that you're not afraid to take risks. You obviously find some profit in talking about drug laws and how you think Jeff Sessions would be terrible, maybe you're right, I remember seeing a documentary somewhere where under Nixon incarceration rates were massive for drug possession. You have an opportunity to talk about something you find important/profitable to you with zero risk. Negotiate terms and questions you would like to discuss, maybe specify timing to make a case or have more of a conversation. I wasn't sure if anyone was even going to acknowledge I said that. I most likely would never kill a cop. I have sympathy for what cops are going through and that sorta counter balances the resentment I have. But at the end of the day they are the ones who initiate violence when they try to arrest you. If I strongly believe drug laws are immoral then I think resisting arrest is logical. Idk... I'm not exactly certain about what I'm saying. That's why I'm here attempting to refine my thinking. Ding ding ding. I'm sorry for the aloofness and entitlement I've displayed. If you are still willing to schedule my objection I will email you. The only problem is that I think I've already changed my mind so there might not be anything left to object to. When I made this post I was trying to make an ends justify the means sort of argument against the untruth about Jeff Sessions. The end being he shouldn't be a politician. The mean being he doesn't deserve the help of having his name cleared of the lies told by the media. Its like if you are working at a restaurant and you know one of the cooks spits in the food and someone lies about them and says they are talking shit about the boss. Do you defend them and say they never talked shit about the boss or do you hope the lie causes them to get fired because they spit in the food and don't deserve the job anyways? I'm just not sure the ends justify the means anymore. Sessions doesn't deserve to be lied about even though I want to see him ass blasted for perpetuating the war on drugs. I'm aware I'm reaalllly pushing my luck here but I would appreciate your wisdom on the matter thou kind philosopher king. If you still pass then no hard feelings. I understand I am not entitled to your expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anuojat Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 How dare I ask you to elaborate even though you're already here anyways mocking me. I have other reasons I don't want to call in. I guess you already explained well enough when you said the video is just a current even used to highlight the mainstream media's dishonesty. Why would you not want ot call in? Do you fear Stefan will misrepresent you? Do you think you have the right arguements but not the mental fortitude to change his mind? Thats all i get from what youve said so far especially the umm last pages "concern". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecurrentyear Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I didn't really understand that he wouldn't explain his disapproval unless I call in when he asked. But surely you understood his request, and that your decline while insisting on your own request meant you wanted a lopsided one-way exchange of value. Where you get what you want but he does not get what he wants. One does not need to assert that their offer is conditional for the other party to understand what a fair trade is and is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaVinci Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 You wanted some answers, he told you how to get your answers, but you declined as not worth the effort, but you then asked again as if you deserved to get them your way without them getting anything out of the exchange, as would have been the case with a call-in show. He offered a trade, you declined, but still wanted your goods, so he called you entitled for suggesting you should get something for nothing. Is every call in show from regular viewers automatically a win-win scenario for the person calling in? The more famous You Tube celebs, and scientists with books, and whatnot are getting some exposure for themselves, their channel, and their products from being on the show, compared to the regular joe viewer who calls in. What is the win-win for going on the show if what they are asking here on the boards can be talked about and discussed here? I'm not sure I see the problem with negotiating an exchange to take place here on a message board, or maybe even through e-mail if that kind of privacy would work better. Would that be an unreasonable thing for him to request? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilda Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 Why would you not want ot call in? Do you fear Stefan will misrepresent you? Do you think you have the right arguements but not the mental fortitude to change his mind? Thats all i get from what youve said so far especially the umm last pages "concern". I know this isn't a good reason but I fear the call will become about my life and I'll become so emotional in the moment I won't even be able to think straight. It's not like my life is unique. There have been other callers that have been through what I've been through almost verbatim. So the lessons are already out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spenc Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I know this isn't a good reason but I fear the call will become about my life and I'll become so emotional in the moment I won't even be able to think straight. It's not like my life is unique. There have been other callers that have been through what I've been through almost verbatim. So the lessons are already out there. I care deeply about truth and critical thinking. Two things that are found in abundance at FDR but very rare almost everywhere else. I think what brings me here is probably no different from anyone else. I'm not certain I understand your question. I was asking more in terms of the type of topics: self-knowledge, politics, atheism, etc.. I was just curious. Its like if you are working at a restaurant and you know one of the cooks spits in the food and someone lies about them and says they are talking shit about the boss. Do you defend them and say they never talked shit about the boss or do you hope the lie causes them to get fired because they spit in the food and don't deserve the job anyways? Would you state the truth if you heard some spit-chef creep was being falsely accused of insubordination? I suppose you would. But would you not also state the whole truth? ("He was not disrespecting you, boss, however he does regularly spit in the food which I think you might find more important to address") Why put yourself in the position of having to choose between concealing or lying? You make yourself carry the burden for this asshole? I think that ties into your original criticism: truth, but not the whole truth. Like, Jeff Sessions is a highly flawed person as a political figure in the eyes of a libertarian. To defend him without drawing any focus to the real issues he should be criticized over, seems like it's only half-truth. Especially with Jeff Sessions, who to my knowledge has never been discussed on FDR before. Whereas if Stef did an untruth about Ted Cruz to dispel mainstream media lies about him, at least there would be a load of content in the archives that cover his shortcomings. SO that would seem more like the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilda Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 I regret creating this post. It was petty and in poor taste. Especially after watching the slow motion train wreck that was the Berkeley riots tonight. Changing the way insane intolerant radical left thinks definitely takes priority to changing the way Jeff Sessions thinks. I wish it were possible to do both. I hate seeing people rioting over free speech. And where the hell are the police when these riots are happening? It might just be my bias distorting my perception of things but i swear it seems like there is never a shortage of police around when I am trying to commit my misdemeanors. I was asking more in terms of the type of topics: self-knowledge, politics, atheism, etc.. I was just curious. Self knowledge es numero uno. I think every topic can be traced back to self knowledge one way or another. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts