Open Debate

jeanne_d_artois said:
I am fortunate enough to have lived in other countries.

The similarities were often deceptive. The local customs and culture accepted some things my current neighbours would find offensive, and the people of the other country were offended by things that are considered normal here.

Even within a country, county or community, different people have different tolerance levels. It is still not done to admit generally that one is a writer of erotica.

Jeanne
Interesting to look at other cultures? I find it so.
I returned from Leipzig (old East Germany) only 2 days ago. The greastest experience for me was a visit to the old Stasi headquarters (now a museum).
In my own life time this nation was subjected to control that goes way beyond standards expected by humanity and to have seen factual information drove home how impressionable we all are.
 
What is this, the "Isolated Debate Thread" or something? Boring.
 
Last edited:
Gaia_Lorraine said:
Are my nipples too big?

They are irrelevant to an intelligent debate unless the topic is nipple size.

Is that where you've finally decided to go after four pages of meandering?
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
They are irrelevant to an intelligent debate unless the topic is nipple size.

Is that where you've finally decided to go after four pages of meandering?
It got your attention didn't it?
How else does a new kid on the block achieve a goal?
Was I meandering? I was unaware, I thought it was a free-for-all.
 
Pure said:
the kernel of any debate posting should go to the claims of the other, and not get involved in name calling, 'characterization' etc.

that said, it's almost irresistable NOT to draw attention to the 'bedfellows' of whomever one's arguing with, or to the predictable 'line' they are taking.
but, strictly speaking, the fact that Amicus agrees with the Pope on many issues such as women and sex, is irrelevant.
Regarding that last item, I'm amazed to see you (correctly) acknowledge that such associations are "irrelevent." The "almost irresitable" certainly applies to you at least, in full measure. In almost two years and hundreds of exchanges I would be surprised if you have neglected more than a handful of times to snidely impute to me the views and motives of individuals and groups who for most people here have very negative associations. "Roxanne says granola is healthy - just like Hitler said granola is healthy." (No, you haven't used that one. You're too clever to be caught out that easily.)

Such associations are a form of insult. If they are irrelevent then failing to resist the urge to always insult can only be viewed as a character flaw. This is especially true when no "power" is at stake, as is the case here; those insulted are not politicians seeking to impose their will, but ordinary individuals seeking recreation and intellectual stimulation.

It's a violation of the rules of civility every time it's done. It's an illegitimate rhetorical device, obviously disrespectful to the target, and, whether or not they appreciate it, disrespectful to other participants as well, given that AH generally strives to maintain higher standards in such matters. If one's arguments are defensible then it is unnecessary, notwithstaning your valid comments about the implicit, intrinsic ambiguity of political issues.
 
Roxanne Appleby said:
Regarding that last item, I'm amazed to see you (correctly) acknowledge that such associations are "irrelevent." The "almost irresitable" certainly applies to you at least, in full measure. In almost two years and hundreds of exchanges I would be surprised if you have neglected more than a handful of times to snidely impute to me the views and motives of individuals and groups who for most people here have very negative associations. "Roxanne says granola is healthy - just like Hitler said granola is healthy." (No, you haven't used that one. You're too clever to be caught out that easily.)

Such associations are a form of insult. If they are irrelevent then failing to resist the urge to always insult can only be viewed as a character flaw. This is especially true when no "power" is at stake, as is the case here; those insulted are not politicians seeking to impose their will, but ordinary individuals seeking recreation and intellectual stimulation.

It's a violation of the rules of civility every time it's done. It's an illegitimate rhetorical device, obviously disrespectful to the target, and, whether or not they appreciate it, disrespectful to other participants as well, given that AH generally strives to maintain higher standards in such matters. If one's arguments are defensible then it is unnecessary, notwithstaning your valid comments about the implicit, intrinsic ambiguity of political issues.
People politics. I Love watching it.
 
Gaia_Lorraine said:
People politics. I Love watching it.

So you created a thread to stir the pot. Shit or get off, already.
 
Gaia_Lorraine said:
People politics. I Love watching it.
S-Des has flatteringly compared exchanges between Pure and me to old episodes of "Moonlighting." I don't think we're that clever, but appreciate the compliment. "Spy vs. Spy" sometimes seems more apt. :rolleyes:
 
Gaia_Lorraine said:
Amazing, I still search for that first friendly greeting :)

Stop trolling, micromanaging, and insulting people (per your words to cloudy and Dar), and you might get a friendly reply. :cool:
 
Back
Top