Mundine.....again.

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Am I right in saying that you believe that if someone reacts "emotionally" to being slandered, then this indicates they are insecure and therefore guilty?
No. Once again you are 100% intergalactically wrong on all counts.

Do you find emotions get in the way of comprehension often?
 
"Unspeak" - how very Orwellian of you - look it up. Sounds like I've been guilty of a thought crime. Actually you guys are starting to worry me now. Are you saying that "racist redneck bigot" is acceptable, but "left wing" is an unacceptable form of unspeak?
Orwell how very year 10 of you.

No one is saying calling any sort of names is acceptable. You sound like your arguing with yourself. I just said calling someone left wing/right wing in this conversation is unhelpful and explained myself pretty clearly. the whole debate is pretty simple I'm really not even sure what part your confusing.
 
I never have and never will give any time pondering what this excuse for a league player says , and would be extremely surprised if any body did as he suggests , also extremely disappointed , as always hes incapable of a genuine thought as hes just following the path of the American that did the same .
Enough time wasted on this subject .
 
Our emotions are subjectively aroused. The circumstances involved colour our behaviours.

If a wife or husband accuses their partner of paedophilia out of spite, and the resulting outcome would mean that you are no longer allowed to see your child, I find it difficult to see a person remain cool and sane. But if you were seen to remain unruffled by such accusations, rather than vigorously deny them, in front of a judge, it may be detrimental to your situation.

Yet, if I were to call a random person a paedophile, as I was walking down the street, I would imagine that I would receive a more secure response from them.

Ideally, we would try to always maintain a calm demeanour. But we don't live in an ideal world. There are appropriate times for outrage, and appropriate times for remaining cool.

The hardest part is determining when to respond appropriately.
Subjective arousal, situational, conflicts between ideal/actual, difficulty in maintaining demeanour. All agreed. Neither easy nor simple. And:

In court, a vigorous defence is seen quite differently to an emotively dominated defence. Neither cutting off emotion nor being dominated by it works well in court or in life.

Anger/outrage can break unhelpful inertia by heightening the urge for immediate decisive action. And anger/outrage also shuts down our ability to think or see clearly. Meaning we take the exact wrong action. A recipe for wasted efforts and messes that are difficult or impossible to fix.
 
Freedom of speech is about tolerance, not agreement. You get that distinction, don't you?

It is entirely possible to disagree with what Mundine said without being personally offended, reactive, attacking.

And if that is how you reacted, then what he said could be intelligently analysed. Instead you resort to your usual emotion-triggered comebacks like "lick your arse looney". That reaction just shows YOU believe you've lost the debate.

Changing direction again Rex. Your Ad hominem approach wouldn't work with my puppy.

1) Freedom of speech has nothing to do with tolerance, it has to do with the rights of everybody to express their opinion. That opinion is only "tolerated' legally and no prosecution can result from them stating it. There is no requirement for people to intellectually tolerate an opinion. However you really should try and tolerate those that disagree rather than calling them red necks don't you think?

2) Your assersion that any body disagreeing with Mundine is personally offended or "attacking" is fallacious and imaginary. Ridiculous.

3) And Rex, try to remember that you "reacted" and "attacked" with a childish "emotion-triggered" comeback of scared sh1tleess rednecks BEFORE I described you as lick your own arse looney.

4) And no, describing you as lick your own arse looney does not mean I believe I have lost the debate (again your fantasy world intruding) it means that I think you are arse lick your own arse looney.

5) In your previous post you declared that the Mundine article was simply a ploy by the newspaper to rein in suckers .... and now you are calling for an intellectual analyse of his comments .... get a grip .. which is it. Or have you intolerantly dismissed his opinion as that of puppet and stooge of Murdock?

6) I have yet to agree or disagree with Mundine, it is your inane rubbish I disagree with.
 
You're an educated man, Rex. You know very well that your use of a stronger term such as 'prejudice' was no accident. It was over-reach in the assessment of others and the context of there disappoint in Mundine, but you obviously don't mind using such techniques, even if just for your own amusement.
You are right that the use of prejudice was no accident. I used it because prejudice is what I meant. Prejudice: Prejudgement. Bias. A preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

And you are an educated man Hamster Huey. You know that your (mis)interpretation of an over-reach is driven by the outcome you are seeking to achieve. And that your assumption of my motive is nothing more than your assumption.
 
Changing direction again Rex. Your Ad hominem approach wouldn't work with my puppy.

1) Freedom of speech has nothing to do with tolerance, it has to do with the rights of everybody to express their opinion. That opinion is only "tolerated' legally and no prosecution can result from them stating it. There is no requirement for people to intellectually tolerate an opinion. However you really should try and tolerate those that disagree rather than calling them red necks don't you think?

2) Your assersion that any body disagreeing with Mundine is personally offended or "attacking" is fallacious and imaginary. Ridiculous.

3) And Rex, try to remember that you "reacted" and "attacked" with a childish "emotion-triggered" comeback of scared sh1tleess rednecks BEFORE I described you as lick your own arse looney.

4) And no, describing you as lick your own arse looney does not mean I believe I have lost the debate (again your fantasy world intruding) it means that I think you are arse lick your own arse looney.

5) In your previous post you declared that the Mundine article was simply a ploy by the newspaper to rein in suckers .... and now you are calling for an intellectual analyse of his comments .... get a grip .. which is it. Or have you intolerantly dismissed his opinion as that of puppet and stooge of Murdock?

6) I have yet to agree or disagree with Mundine, it is your inane rubbish I disagree with.
Are you on drugs Woodsie?

1) You argue that "Freedom of speech has nothing to do with tolerance" and in the very next sentence - yes - the very next sentence - you say that freedom of speech means it is tolerated legally. lol.

2) You then talk about my "assersion". You brag that you are a teacher. Do you teach English?

3) The scared sh*tless comment grabbed your attention. OK, you grasped the relationship to fear then.

4) You love saying "lick your own arse looney". Good for you.

5) You can't grasp that the media intentionally suck you in by hitting your emotional spurs. OK

6) You can't make up your mind on what Mundine has said. That's fine, because Mundine is only the superficial intro for this thread.

Keep smiling,
 
Are you on drugs Woodsie?

1) You argue that "Freedom of speech has nothing to do with tolerance" and in the very next sentence - yes - the very next sentence - you say that freedom of speech means it is tolerated legally. lol.

2) You then talk about my "assersion". You brag that you are a teacher. Do you teach English?

3) The scared sh*tless comment grabbed your attention. OK, you grasped the relationship to fear then.

4) You love saying "lick your own arse looney". Good for you.

5) You can't grasp that the media intentionally suck you in by hitting your emotional spurs. OK

6) You can't make up your mind on what Mundine has said. That's fine, because Mundine is only the superficial intro for this thread.

Keep smiling,

1) If you can't understand the distinction, don't advertise your ignorance.

2) You're reverting to childish nonsense again.

3) No , it only drew my attention to your emotive response to being wrong.

4) yeah I do like saying it ... got me.

5) Yes I can, why do you keep changing your mind on the issue?

6) Again, assuming that you know my position and commenting on your assumption is a very clear indication that you are lick your own arse looney.
 
1) If you can't understand the distinction, don't advertise your ignorance.

2) You're reverting to childish nonsense again.

3) No , it only drew my attention to your emotive response to being wrong.

4) yeah I do like saying it ... got me.

5) Yes I can, why do you keep changing your mind on the issue?

6) Again, assuming that you know my position and commenting on your assumption is a very clear indication that you are lick your own arse looney.
The site wouldn't be quite the same if you didn't stalk my postings Woodsie. Whether that would be a good or bad thing is entirely subjective. I can always rely on you to seek out an argument.

Points 1 and 5 - The distinction you draw is totally, 100%, in your overactive imagination. What's your drug of choice again?
Points 2, 3 and 6 - More evidence YOU believe you've lost the debate
Point 4 - I'm glad for you
 
I think I understand now - everyone is a racist, even if they don't know it. Certainly makes things simple I guess.
Generally, it is a question of degree of bias.

Until we see our prejudices, of course, we can't change them. And most people are afraid of seeing something within that doesn't fit their ideal.
 
Was it Choc who first came up with this idea?

Is there as much rage in the thread about the guy who did?
 
The site wouldn't be quite the same if you didn't stalk my postings Woodsie. Whether that would be a good or bad thing is entirely subjective. I can always rely on you to seek out an argument.

Points 1 and 5 - The distinction you draw is totally, 100%, in your overactive imagination. What's your drug of choice again?
Points 2, 3 and 6 - More evidence YOU believe you've lost the debate
Point 4 - I'm glad for you

Reality doesn't play a very big role in your life does it.
 
I'm not sure, but I think you may be guilty of unspeak. How emotional were you when reading about Buddy? Better check in with the lefties for some re-programming.

I only did it because Murdock made me sh1tscared and I got engaged.

What is funny is that rather than "tolerate" Buddy Franklins polite disagreement ... Mundine got emotional and "attacked" Franklin accusing him of basically being an Uncle Tom.

Can't wait until @Rex writes Mundine a letter to educate him about tolerance and not being prejudiced.
 
If I'm familiar with the lefty playbook, when backed into another corner they can't extricate themselves from with logic and reason, the go to plays are 1. Raise something totally irrelevant to the argument at hand, 2. Pluck some isolated example of something tenuously related and claim it represents a universal truth, 3. If all else fails (and it usually does) go to self righteous virtue shaming, preferably with some personal insults thrown in, or finally 4. Slink off and regroup for the next ill-fated ideological challenge. Let's wait and see.

I honestly believe that @Rex is that stupid he actually thinks we don't see exactly what he does and in his fantasy world believes that we somehow think he is smart ( or something ... )
 
I honestly believe that @Rex is that stupid he actually thinks we don't see exactly what he does and in his fantasy world believes that we somehow think he is smart ( or something ... )
Lol
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Socrates
 
So it was a non event in the AFL grand final.

All those fears, all that heated emotion, all that hyperventillating. All that moralisation. All those character attacks on people thinking differently to them.

And then ... nothing. Lol.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom