Bob Costas should be fired off NBC for his guns comment

[TheJPRD]

How do you get "dunny" to mean "dummy?"

There is no such English word as "dunny". The only English words close to what you spelled appear to be "dummy", "sunny", and "bunny". I used rational logic and concluded that you were NOT calling him "sunny" or "bunny". Additionally, those words didn't fit the context of your post. Process of elimination, you see??

Have fun. . .Obviously, your main intent is NOT to debate, it is just to attack anyone who doesn't think like you do.

My intent IS to debate. I've discovered over time that most leftwingers avoid debating an opponent who can see through their gobbledegook, and who returns insults with insults that actually ring true! If I recall correctly, and I do recall correctly, you were offered an opportunity to debate me using classical debating methodology, and prohibiting one-sided personal attacks. I also recall that you responded to that offer with an arrogant dismissal, and a comment that you may debate me when you felt like it; another attempt to minimize me. Luckily for me, I"m my biggest critic, and on those rare occasions when I do err, nobody's "attacks" on my failure are as hard on me as my own. My feelings can usually be hurt only by me!

Whatever. . .have a great Christmas, enjoy your self-righteous stands on just about everything, and your ignorance and bad faith on everything..

I wish you a great Christmas too. By the way, there's nothing wrong with "self-righteousness if one's positions are in fact the right ones. I don't hold the beliefs I do because someone else told me those beliefs are right. My beliefs have gone through many years of modification, modifications resulting from real-life experiences, deep thought, and indeed through heated debate. I never argue a point that has escaped my investigation and rational critique well beforehand. You may or may not have noticed that I agreed with some of your comments in your earlier post, and respectfully told you so? When you're right, I'll be very pleased to tell you so. Should you ever decide to debate me, don't make the mistake you made in this post. It wouldn't be wise for you to begin debate with me under the false impression that your opponent is "ignorant" and possesses "bad faith". Doing so would lead you to many strategic and tactical debating errors. Understanding one's debating opponent is a key consideration if one is to win a debate. I'm understanding you pretty well now. Perhaps you should try to understand me better??

I do not post in order to convince anyone, but I also do not post to be systematically attacked by a half dozen people with an UNIQUE mindset who know nothing better than to attack.

There is no escaping the fact that when one criticizes the political/philosopical positions of others, one is also attacking the persons who hold those positions. There is no way around that unstated implication, for if one holds views that are wrong, you might deduce that their thinking is flawed. I do debate in hopes that I can convince others that my positions are the right ones. If that isn't the reason for debate, then debates are nothing but exercizes in self-centered exhibitionism.

I'll be back when I feel like it, and I will answer the posts that I feel are worth answering. Too bad the two or three people in this forum who have demonstrated a sense of fairness and balance seem to be withdrawing from this "conversation," or maybe it is because they are "balanced" and have a sense of fairness that they choose not to engage in this. . .because their tendency would be to agree with your extreme stands. . .but they do not want to fall into this witch hunt that you have going on.

This paragraph proves my contention in my previous paragraph. Your first sentence is an arrogant dismissal of some posts that you're claiming are beneath you to answer; some might call your statement "arrogant"? You speak of "fairness" and "balance". When you made statements with which I agreed, I showed respect for your position, an indication of my "fairness" and "balance", and enforcing my belief that you're thinking logically when determining that position.

 

[dogtowner]

There is no such English word as "dunny". The only English words close to what you spelled appear to be "dummy", "sunny", and "bunny". I used rational logic and concluded that you were NOT calling him "sunny" or "bunny". Additionally, those words didn't fit the context of your post. Process of elimination, you see??



My intent IS to debate. I've discovered over time that most leftwingers avoid debating an opponent who can see through their gobbledegook, and who returns insults with insults that actually ring true! If I recall correctly, and I do recall correctly, you were offered an opportunity to debate me using classical debating methodology, and prohibiting one-sided personal attacks. I also recall that you responded to that offer with an arrogant dismissal, and a comment that you may debate me when you felt like it; another attempt to minimize me. Luckily for me, I"m my biggest critic, and on those rare occasions when I do err, nobody's "attacks" on my failure are as hard on me as my own. My feelings can usually be hurt only by me!



I wish you a great Christmas too. By the way, there's nothing wrong with "self-righteousness if one's positions are in fact the right ones. I don't hold the beliefs I do because someone else told me those beliefs are right. My beliefs have gone through many years of modification, modifications resulting from real-life experiences, deep thought, and indeed through heated debate. I never argue a point that has escaped my investigation and rational critique well beforehand. You may or may not have noticed that I agreed with some of your comments in your earlier post, and respectfully told you so? When you're right, I'll be very pleased to tell you so. Should you ever decide to debate me, don't make the mistake you made in this post. It wouldn't be wise for you to begin debate with me under the false impression that your opponent is "ignorant" and possesses "bad faith". Doing so would lead you to many strategic and tactical debating errors. Understanding one's debating opponent is a key consideration if one is to win a debate. I'm understanding you pretty well now. Perhaps you should try to understand me better??



There is no escaping the fact that when one criticizes the political/philosopical positions of others, one is also attacking the persons who hold those positions. There is no way around that unstated implication, for if one holds views that are wrong, you might deduce that their thinking is flawed. I do debate in hopes that I can convince others that my positions are the right ones. If that isn't the reason for debate, then debates are nothing but exercizes in self-centered exhibitionism.



This paragraph proves my contention in my previous paragraph. Your first sentence is an arrogant dismissal of some posts that you're claiming are beneath you to answer; some might call your statement "arrogant"? You speak of "fairness" and "balance". When you made statements with which I agreed, I showed respect for
your position, an indication of my "fairness" and "balance", and enforcing my belief that you're thinking logically when determining that position.

english is a second language so cant get too strict that way