Machiavellian: recourse of the dead

I said: on the subject matter re; "debate" (i.e. proper forms of discussion)

Unless a debate registers in the forum of public opinion it serves no purpose. . . that is what the Internet is for.

quote:
We're not getting marked on this.

It's as if the scriptures were a trail of abstract logic in order to purge us of our "divinity". Oh wait, after all that was the idea, you know. . . "we tell you this but you can't debate it back to us." Therefore, we're evil in the sense we're getting marked for abiding no objectionable amount of truth to something in a plausible manner but still "damned if we do, damned if we don't." You debate - then go to hell or suffer the consequences - blah, blah.

I think what debate really entails, is not proper language or misuse of ground-rules as sadie thinks. I believe debate is nothing other than human communication with intelligent understanding of what's in effect taking place no matter what seems "undesirable." There is a place for everything that happens resulting in clarity.


========================

Appeal to ignorance? Merk, you've got to stop this.

quote:

Thanks for effort Hap.Based on everything you provided you have issues with Christians. And everything else you blab about is a crap shoot. Congrats.

quote: colin said

Versus rational apologetics.

=========================

hahaha. . . that was nice work colin. Gold.

It kind of reminds me of facebook's branding.

"A social utility that connects you. . . " Most people on facebook would never exist otherwise, making you wonder what will they think of next. . .

=======================
quote:

cheap and stupid yes, but it boils the whole neo-con platform down to a tidy soundbite: smaller government, bigger army, every man for himself. but you know, republicans actually like big government, as long as it doesn't serve the interests of the people. they don't mind shoveling trillions into public projects as long as they benefit their pet corporate interests and not the collective interests of the people. better to shrink the parts of government that enable people to work together. As long as the people are atomized into millions of "big individuals" they pose no threat to the powers that be.

hap, i apologize for not reading this sooner then I have. But that response was equally pragmatic as it was truth. Took gusto to write, pleasure to read. Bravo.

The 'big individuals' part, reinforces my disbelief in why I've asked how can people actually allow themselves to be subjected, that a presidential candidate uses the WWE as it's vehicle to launch a campiagn add? Then, it struck a cord with me that it is accepted.