Bachmann Flees Iowa Fair After Being Confronted by Gay Teen.

[Conserative Morality]

Wrong. In democracies certain titles arise from popular mandate. They are, consequently, indicative of public trust.

Ha! And what about fooling the public is worthy of respect?

[Conserative Morality]

It's not a matter of considering yourself lesser, but not inflating yourself to a position where you don't belong.

And how is he not in a greater position than Bachmann, of all people?

[Bottle]

You indicated that you were in favor of non-constructive patterns of discourse.

Not at all. Giving vitriol back to those who give you vitriol teaches them that you aren't some meek lamb awaiting the slaughter. It sends a message, it says "We're not going to stand to be belittled and insulted without reaction."

You sure you wouldn't rather passive-aggressively play Logic Troll, and insist that everyone stop getting so silly and emotional over little things like torture or civil rights violations? After all, that shit is WAY more "productive" isn't it?

[Polruan]

Wrong. In democracies certain titles arise from popular mandate. They are, consequently, indicative of public trust.

Ha! And what about fooling the public is worthy of respect?

It's an action, you said actions grant respect, the corollary would be you can judge someone negatively for them. The important thing is that the title of representative isn't meaningless.

[Conserative Morality]

You sure you wouldn't rather passive-aggressively play Logic Troll, and insist that everyone stop getting so silly and emotional over little things like torture or civil rights violations? After all, that shit is WAY more "productive" isn't it?

I suppose it upsets one's enemies, possible to the point of giving up?

[Buffett and Colbert]

It's not a matter of considering yourself lesser, but not inflating yourself to a position where you don't belong.

And how is he not in a greater position than Bachmann, of all people?

They're both human. The least he could do is not sound like that whiny anarchist you mentioned and just call her Rep. or Mrs.. It's not a very hard thing to do at all, and demonstrates a higher level of maturity than Bachmann will ever know.

[Conserative Morality]

It's an action, you said actions grant respect, the corollary would be you can judge someone negatively for them. The important thing is that the title of representative isn't meaningless.

The title itself is meaningless. I will not respect a title. I may respect a person with a title, I may respect a person for the actions which gave them that title, but I refuse to respect a title in and of itself, no matter who holds it.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

You sure you wouldn't rather passive-aggressively play Logic Troll, and insist that everyone stop getting so silly and emotional over little things like torture or civil rights violations? After all, that shit is WAY more "productive" isn't it?

Yet another non sequitur.

[Conserative Morality]

They're both human. The least he could do is not sound like that whiny anarchist you mentioned and just call her Rep. or Mrs.. It's not a very hard thing to do at all, and demonstrates a higher level of maturity than Bachmann will ever know.

They're both human. Really. That's your justification for claiming relative equality? I'll tell you this much, Stalin was human but that sure as hell doesn't make him the equal of Churchill.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Not at all. Giving vitriol back to those who give you vitriol teaches them that you aren't some meek lamb awaiting the slaughter. It sends a message, it says "We're not going to stand to be belittled and insulted without reaction."

What an interesting justification for a failure to provide actual arguments. Why take the higher ground, after all, when one can simply respond to vitriol with vitriol in the completely irrational hope that it sends some sort of "message?"

[Keronians]

Not at all. Giving vitriol back to those who give you vitriol teaches them that you aren't some meek lamb awaiting the slaughter. It sends a message, it says "We're not going to stand to be belittled and insulted without reaction."

You sure you wouldn't rather passive-aggressively play Logic Troll, and insist that everyone stop getting so silly and emotional over little things like torture or civil rights violations? After all, that shit is WAY more "productive" isn't it?

Who claimed that torture is productive?

Because I have some motivation theory I'd like to talk to them about...

[Seperates]

It means you used empty words to convince a portion of the population that you're better than the alternative. Nothing more.

Wrong. In democracies certain titles arise from popular mandate. They are, consequently, indicative of public trust.

And humans are imperfect, gullible, apes. It is easy to gain an position running on purely hot air.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Ha! And what about fooling the public is worthy of respect?

What does that have to do with anything? It may be that the trust of the public, however attained, it itself worthy of respect.

[Conserative Morality]

What an interesting justification for a failure to provide actual arguments. Why take the higher ground, after all, when one can simply respond to vitriol with vitriol in the completely irrational hope that it sends some sort of "message?"

"Why fight back, when you can lie back and take it?"

You can prattle on about taking the higher ground all you like, but I don't consider passivity to be a 'higher ground'.

[Conserative Morality]

What does that have to do with anything? It may be that the trust of the public, however attained, it itself worthy of respect.

Who the hell says that? I'd like to hear what they think about Hitler, about Stalin, about Pol Pot, about Hirohito.

[Meridistan]

It's an action, you said actions grant respect, the corollary would be you can judge someone negatively for them. The important thing is that the title of representative isn't meaningless.

The title itself is meaningless. I will not respect a title. I may respect a person with a title, I may respect a person for the actions which gave them that title, but I refuse to respect a title in and of itself, no matter who holds it.

This. Unless I've missed something in the past 30 or so pages, he called her by her name; nothing worse. No title is inherently worth respect.

[Buffett and Colbert]

They're both human. The least he could do is not sound like that whiny anarchist you mentioned and just call her Rep. or Mrs.. It's not a very hard thing to do at all, and demonstrates a higher level of maturity than Bachmann will ever know.

They're both human. Really. That's your justification for claiming relative equality? I'll tell you this much, Stalin was human but that sure as hell doesn't make him the equal of Churchill.

But the two would still probably refer to each other as President and General-Secretary (or whatever). It's small, but in my personal view important. This is just my outlook on life. Perhaps I didn't make this clear throughout the thread. But I try and be civil to those who may not reciprocate. I don't need to justify myself when it comes to something that hurts no one, just like you don't have to justify your love for Rome or LG's affinity for mud pies. You may scoff at all that is not 100% factually and logically supported, but that's no real concern of mine.

[Seperates]

Ha! And what about fooling the public is worthy of respect?

What does that have to do with anything? It may be that the trust of the public, however attained, it itself worthy of respect.

Mmm hmmm... Yes, because "pop culture" is worthy of respect. Totally.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

And how is he not in a greater position than Bachmann, of all people?

They're both human. The least he could do is not sound like that whiny anarchist you mentioned and just call her Rep. or Mrs.. It's not a very hard thing to do at all, and demonstrates a higher level of maturity than Bachmann will ever know.

Right because it is such a terrible thing to call her by her first and last name. I think focusing on how impolite the heckler was is a bit ridiculous, how many times are hecklers polite...Its not like it was overly lewd or mallicious.

[Keronians]

What does that have to do with anything? It may be that the trust of the public, however attained, it itself worthy of respect.

Who the hell says that? I'd like to hear what they think about Hitler, about Stalin, about Pol Pot, about Hirohito.

I don't get why so many people say Hirohito was a tyrant. He basically ruled during a period of lese majeste thanks to his weakling father.

Combine that with him being trained by his grandfather, Meiji the Great, and, yeah...

[Conserative Morality]

But the two would still probably refer to each other as President and General-Secretary (or whatever).

That's because they have to play a game of politics to keep millions from dying.

It's small, but in my personal view important. This is just my outlook on life. Perhaps I didn't make this clear throughout the thread. But I try and be civil to those who may not reciprocate. I don't need to justify myself when it comes to something that hurts no one, just like you don't have to justify your love for Rome or LG's affinity for mud pies. You may scoff at all that is not 100% factually and logically supported, but that's no real concern of mine.

I never said that the reason I oppose this so strongly is because it's not logically supported, or any such nonsense. I oppose your view because it comes into contradiction with mine.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Who the hell says that? I'd like to hear what they think about Hitler, about Stalin, about Pol Pot, about Hirohito.

What about them?

[Conserative Morality]

I don't get why so many people say Hirohito was a tyrant. He basically ruled during a period of lese majeste thanks to his weakling father.

Combine that with him being trained by his grandfather, Meiji the Great, and, yeah...

Never said he was a tyrant. I implied that he was a bad or monstrous leader. He allowed the military to play their little game of genocide and war crime, and refused to lift a finger to stop it.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

I suppose it upsets one's enemies, possible to the point of giving up?

Enemies? It is very telling that you think in such terms.

[Conserative Morality]

What about them?

They earned the public's trust. If one believes that earning the public's trust is in and of itself worthy of respect, as with becoming a representative, then they must also respect them.