Re: Death penalty
pcg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> So "your philosophy is contemptible" is not personal and "good to know you > value your > convictions over other's lives," is personal? > > OK, please amend what I said to "your philosophy is contemptible". Happily done. :) >>Then again, the person who "sees an apparent double standard" is also > the only other person to have engaged in name-calling, which you also > defended.< > > So its ok to say "You're not this stupid", but not ok to say "you're a > hypocrite"? Just so I know where the line is. Yes. Saying, "You're not [bad thing]" is quite different from saying, "You are [bad thing]." About as different as they can be, actually. >>I have no problem with a heated debate, and I have no problem with > being passionate about ideas and behaviors and policies and so forth. > You can call my position stupid, or say the policies I support are > cowardly, or whatever. But it isn't necessary to imply that I'm a > "moral coward of the lowest form," or whatever. We're all friends, > let's just keep it all above the belt, eh?< > > I think my statement, assuming that was a quote, was prefaced with a > conditional "if". Other times I believe I have said "you are engaging in > moral cowardice". From the name calling examples, above, I would submit > that both of these example are above the belt. Fair enough, I'll take that in the spirit you intended. When you said, "we come back again to your moral cowardice," that felt fairly personal, but I'm willing to admit that I may have, at that point, been overly-sensitive to the charge. -- -pcg [email protected] -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot