I think there is some sort of law about this type of brilliant argument.

Fixed it for ya.;)

So, you want those you fling poo at to fling it back.

That may be how you get your rocks off, but I have better things to do with my time.

Honesty is more important than decorum: one should be able to call somebody a big dic, if that is their opinion of them.

I agree with that. but the incessant repetition is trying.

It ignores a fundamental fact. An accusation without supporting reasons why is simply an insult. One is expected to always justifiy their conclusions with relevant, supporting facts and numbers.

If you call me wrong and do not say why, then you are (typically) posting insult. If you called me wrong and say why, now a logical discussion exists. One reason why longer posts are so important. And why "cheap shot" posts are so short.

Unfortunately many will see (and therefore believe) the cheap shot. That emotion is why cheap shots work. Important in all discussions - if reasons why are not provided, then that is a poster who is insulting everyone. Too many fail to understand that .... which is why Rush Limbaugh is also so successful.

A ballpark difference between an insult and a logical conclusion. Latter comes with reasons why. Former never provides the always necessary supporting facts.

So you can only call someone a big dic if you have evidence?

Would a photograph do? ;)

ETA: oh yeah, and about that post where you said that if people leave because others are nasty, they're letting them win; I'd like to point out that for one thing, this is just an internet forum. It's unlikely that anyone is going to change their views if they've already resorted to insults and personal attacks.

and for Jumbo; would you like some cheese with your whine?

Nobody is saying anything about changing views. But when Congress did work, same facts resulting in two completely different conclusions based only upon one difference - perspective. There is no right or wrong. But respect of other conclusions based upon same facts and a different perspective is what discussion is about. A discussion based only in “We want Obama to fail” is not respect for anyone; is just an example of hate.

Throughout history, the way to destroy tolerance and cooperation was to hype only hate. It worked for Hitler - read his book to see why. It worked for Milosevic. It worked for the Hutu extremists to justify the massacre of Tutsis in two nations. It worked because emotion results in black and white conclusions where perspective (and the associated respect) can never exist.

That has happened to American politics. It is not about facts and perspective. Even in the Tea Party, the most popular figures were those who most promote only emotion, insult, and hate - Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity. Now respect for perspective - and even for the facts - no longer exists. True discussion and the resulting respect can never happen.

What did Sharon do to restart the Intifada? Constantly did things (ie walk all over Temple Mount with shoes and a few hundred close friends) only to incite emotion, hate, and extremism. Sharon needed Rabin assassinated and needed the Intifada restarted so that nobody would appreciate any other perspective - so that violence only entrenched extremists. That happens when emotion makes respect for the many perspectives impossible.

The world is not black and white. There is no blind ‘good and evil’. There are perspectives. Unfortunately those perspectives that only promote hate, well, at least we try to understand why they so hate tolerance, compromise, and consensus. They who hate will not. They who hate must subvert discussion so that differing opinions and the resulting diversified society that America strives for can no longer co-exist.

Discussion is not about changing minds. Discussion is about respect for differing opinions based in common facts and a different perspective. Limbaugh, et al is about destroying that just like Sen Joeseph McCarthy did generations previous.

Why was McCarthyism stopped? So many stopped ignoring and therefore encouraging him. The majority simply challenged that extremism. That extremism could only exist when so many zoned out and did nothing. Many who challenged McCarthy even agreed with him. But what turned them again McCarthy - he subverted free, open, honest, and honorable dicussion with cheap shots and insults. Once forced to provide the reason why he knew, well, it was all fiction. Once McCarthy was challenged to provide facts rather than cheap shot accusations - once discussion was possible, then McCarthy was done.

Although we enjoy logical discussion, there is no need for all posts to be logical discussion. If I think somebody is a big dic, and say so, I am posting an opinion. If others don't agree, their opinion of me will diminish. It's completely fair game, and by the way, you do it constantly. I chose that term "big dic" for a reason.

Your view here is diametrically opposed to your signature line, just sayin' ;)

Poo flinging isn't struggle. It's merely poo flinging. It does not advance any cause, change any opinions, or do the world an iota of good.

but, if you have any poo, fling it now!

<flings poo at Jim>

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscart...s/snin110l.jpg

You also provided the reasons for your reasoning. Just like I defined the concept of 'big dic' with supporting facts.

I never challenge anyone without supporting facts - the always required reason why. You know that quite well when I overtly challenged your beliefs in Saddam's WMDs and justification for "Mission Accomplished".

I also stated up front when and why I was challenging classicman's constant cheap shots with cheap shot. And I remind everyone of that event that was necessary due to a destructive tone encourages by so much silence.

If I do 'it' constantly, then post examples of posts not provided with the supporting justificiations? If you are making an accusation, then you have examples.

It is an insult to post without supporting facts. 70% of Americans did just that - which is why so many blindly accepted a Saddam WMD lie. And therefore sent 4000 American servicemen irresponsibly to a useless death. Many even get angry when the 'reasons why' are provided. For some, anything more complex than the Daily News makes some angry. That also is insulting.

Let's not forget a perfect example: "Mission Accomplish" that made you so angry. I posted unpopular facts and numbers constantly. Overtly challenged what we now know were lies and myths. We know today facts back then could not support the 'Saddam WMD' myths. And I keep posting the reaons why back then in 2003. Very unpopular to oppose conclusions based only in emotion.

Demonstrated not only were reasons necessary to justify war - which everyone should remember today. And that the administration was overtly lying - which is no longer in dispute. But the point. Despite what you accuse me of, I provide fundamental supporting facts which is why my posts are so often unpopular - and longer.

I would hope you learned, for example, why facts necessary to justify war - as so bluntly posted in 2003. I would hope you never forget those so many reasons why. Even though that reality made you so angry back then, those underlying reasons why were accurate.

Remember how I cautioned (in maybe 2004) of the resulting economic damage what would occur? Well I was wrong. I only put the number at $400 billion. But again, I made statements that a majority disagreed with. And I said why - ie $400 billion -well above what anyone else was saying. Well I was wrong. The number is closer to $1trillion. I did not just post the unpopular. Included (routinely) were reasons why.

Welcome to an economy that happens when the predicted bills come due. Another example of something you did not like - but that I predicted WITH the underlying reasons why and without being politically correct. Something I due routinely - and therefore are not popular for demanding the irrefutable fact.

Posts not based in logic - based only in emotion - without supporting facts - that overtly challenge another - that is called what? For some, that is why they carry big guns. What kind of people are they called?

Americans. With just as much right to their opinion as you. Whether you like it, agree with it or not, doesn't matter.