Pages: 1 … 28 29 30 31 32

 

2008-01-24 16:47:59
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Both: It is used negativly by ME in the sense that I do not agree with it, but that is another argument.( it is also sthe argument that I wished to debate all this time). YOU have used it as a positive in the sense that it shows GB taking the high road and trying to improve relations with the Muslims. "and what is wrong with that", argument.

but In a word yes..... as a conciliation
This conciliatory measure also has the intended effect of dividing and ostracising those with extremist tendencies from the Muslim community by emphasising the fact that what they do is unIslamic. This CAN ONLY BE good. As [TUF] Catbox showed with his references to the article the British government are taking a tough and pro-active line on pursuing and preventing terrorism of middle eastern origin. So I don't really get what you disagree with. Disagreeing with their actions doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And that, I think, is why even your own 'following' haven't come out in droves to back you up. I was quite surprised in fact to see [TUF] Catbox post what he did given that he is on the other side of the argument from me in 99.9% of debates.
Great so after 28 pages, we are in agreement this is, be it right or wrong is appeasement. I just want to clarify this because it seems sooooooo important to get the verbage correct here before we move on. Cam, you have conceded that a few of the definitions can in fact be used in the context of which I have used the word?

I do not have a following Cam, I am not well recieved in this forum. You on the other hand could shit in a punch bowl and convince 75% of this forum to drink it.
Not one thing Cam wrote in that post says this is appeasement, lowing, so I fail to see where you get the idea tha he has agreed with you.  These last 30 pages have been dedicated to us trying to explain to you the meaning of appeasement, though you are so unflinching in your belief that you are right that you stubbornly refuse to accept all the evidence we have presented you with.

And I will preempt you attacking me for the fact that I have "failed to see where Cam agrees with you" by stating that if you post anything to that effect, it means that you have no substantive argument with which to counter us.
2008-01-24 16:52:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

adam1503 wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


This conciliatory measure also has the intended effect of dividing and ostracising those with extremist tendencies from the Muslim community by emphasising the fact that what they do is unIslamic. This CAN ONLY BE good. As [TUF] Catbox showed with his references to the article the British government are taking a tough and pro-active line on pursuing and preventing terrorism of middle eastern origin. So I don't really get what you disagree with. Disagreeing with their actions doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And that, I think, is why even your own 'following' haven't come out in droves to back you up. I was quite surprised in fact to see [TUF] Catbox post what he did given that he is on the other side of the argument from me in 99.9% of debates.
Great so after 28 pages, we are in agreement this is, be it right or wrong is appeasement. I just want to clarify this because it seems sooooooo important to get the verbage correct here before we move on. Cam, you have conceded that a few of the definitions can in fact be used in the context of which I have used the word?

I do not have a following Cam, I am not well recieved in this forum. You on the other hand could shit in a punch bowl and convince 75% of this forum to drink it.
Not one thing Cam wrote in that post says this is appeasement, lowing, so I fail to see where you get the idea tha he has agreed with you.  These last 30 pages have been dedicated to us trying to explain to you the meaning of appeasement, though you are so unflinching in your belief that you are right that you stubbornly refuse to accept all the evidence we have presented you with.

And I will preempt you attacking me for the fact that I have "failed to see where Cam agrees with you" by stating that if you post anything to that effect, it means that you have no substantive argument with which to counter us.
Coupla things..........first, my post was not directed toward you and second..........my post was not directed toward you, so go play somewhere else until Cam responds, he is up to date on our conversation and you clearly are not.
2008-01-24 17:00:54
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK

lowing wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

And I will preempt you attacking me for the fact that I have "failed to see where Cam agrees with you" by stating that if you post anything to that effect, it means that you have no substantive argument with which to counter us.
Coupla things..........first, my post was not directed toward you and second..........my post was not directed toward you, so go play somewhere else until Cam responds,
I didnt think you would be able to respond to me with a constructive counter-argument.  Thanks for proving me right.


lowing wrote:

he is up to date on our conversation and you clearly are not.
I am not up to date?  It seems to me that you are still arguing over whether this constitutes appeasement... in your last post i quoted you tried to claim that Cam had aggreed with you that it was.  While I havent posted for a while, dont think I havent been following the topic.
2008-01-24 17:05:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

adam1503 wrote:

lowing wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

And I will preempt you attacking me for the fact that I have "failed to see where Cam agrees with you" by stating that if you post anything to that effect, it means that you have no substantive argument with which to counter us.
Coupla things..........first, my post was not directed toward you and second..........my post was not directed toward you, so go play somewhere else until Cam responds,
I didnt think you would be able to respond to me with a constructive counter-argument.  Thanks for proving me right.


lowing wrote:

he is up to date on our conversation and you clearly are not.
I am not up to date?  It seems to me that you are still arguing over whether this constitutes appeasement... in your last post i quoted you tried to claim that Cam had aggreed with you that it was.  While I havent posted for a while, dont think I havent been following the topic.
you still here?
2008-01-24 17:14:39
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7006

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Both: It is used negativly by ME in the sense that I do not agree with it, but that is another argument.( it is also sthe argument that I wished to debate all this time). YOU have used it as a positive in the sense that it shows GB taking the high road and trying to improve relations with the Muslims. "and what is wrong with that", argument.

but In a word yes..... as a conciliation
This conciliatory measure also has the intended effect of dividing and ostracising those with extremist tendencies from the Muslim community by emphasising the fact that what they do is unIslamic. This CAN ONLY BE good. As [TUF] Catbox showed with his references to the article the British government are taking a tough and pro-active line on pursuing and preventing terrorism of middle eastern origin. So I don't really get what you disagree with. Disagreeing with their actions doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And that, I think, is why even your own 'following' haven't come out in droves to back you up. I was quite surprised in fact to see [TUF] Catbox post what he did given that he is on the other side of the argument from me in 99.9% of debates.
I am not a follower of anyone and I make up my own mind... my point was that people can debate whether or not it was appeasement all day long(or 30 pages lol)
but the thing i was suprised by... is that the people that don't think it was appeasement didn't have a problem with Britain looking to root out the radical islamists... Wouldn't you agree that innocent people(or perceived innocent by other muslims) will be picked up with the evil guys...?   Sending muslims into yet another tizzy...


There is a serious problem with radical muslims in the UK... everyone knows that...  One of the things i respect about the UK is that they don't fuck around when they go after bad guys...

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-01-24 17:16:09)

Love is the answer
2008-01-24 17:25:27
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK

lowing wrote:

you still here?
Thanks again for proving me right.  You have nothing with which to respond, so you preted that you havent seen what I posted and resort to childish posts like that.

Why do you continue to post in this thread if you have nothing left to contribute?  Its time admit that you are wrong lowing.  Infact, if you could do that,  it would show real integrity and maturity on your part.
2008-01-25 02:07:18
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

Great so after 28 pages, we are in agreement this is, be it right or wrong is appeasement. I just want to clarify this because it seems sooooooo important to get the verbage correct here before we move on. Cam, you have conceded that a few of the definitions can in fact be used in the context of which I have used the word?

I do not have a following Cam, I am not well recieved in this forum. You on the other hand could shit in a punch bowl and convince 75% of this forum to drink it.
The word can be used to denote 'conciliation' yes I agree but the quite obviously negative connotation you wished to invoke with your statement 'Your appeasement is showing!!!' - which has a distinct and obvious tone implying that you wished to invoke the negative 'Neville Chamberlain' interpretation - means that you have used it incorrectly and that we have been correct in quashing your arguments. This final attempt to shift the goalpost by you has failed. You didn't mean 'conciliation', you meant 'Neville Chamberlain' and that was the premise upon which all arguments were correctly based throughout this thread.

Basically you wrote a bad OP because you invoked a negative interpretation of the word when in fact everything about this is positive. We should really have been arguing about your inappropriate use of the term and for the most part, we were.

And yes you do have a following: usmarine and StingRay being two of many.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-25 02:25:06)

2008-01-25 02:53:21
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7100|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Great so after 28 pages, we are in agreement this is, be it right or wrong is appeasement. I just want to clarify this because it seems sooooooo important to get the verbage correct here before we move on. Cam, you have conceded that a few of the definitions can in fact be used in the context of which I have used the word?

I do not have a following Cam, I am not well recieved in this forum. You on the other hand could shit in a punch bowl and convince 75% of this forum to drink it.
About Cam: He earned that respect lowing by making intelligent threads and posts, he have great knowledge about the topics he discusses and are beleiveable in the way he chooses his words, might infact be one of the more clever members in DST.

About you and the feeling you are not well received on this forum lowing i will try to give you an advice - be more humble in your approach to other members, insults and blatant replies seldom brings a debate to a higher level - you often have very good points but they sometimes seems to disapear in your choice of words when you express them. And take a hint when the people that normally supports you back out of a discussion.

You also have a tendency to categorize in absolutes not seing the "shades of grey"

For my own sake i never mean intentionally to ridicule or insult anyone, but i fight back when provoked - the falling of bad words in a debate is only a waste of time as it contributes nothing of value.

About semantics and verbage (is that even a word?) When using words like appeasement and similar it is important that the defininition of the word and the meaning of the word is correct or we end up having a debate like in this thread witch most find utterly useless but i like to think we all learned something from this thread afterall.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-01-25 04:08:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Great so after 28 pages, we are in agreement this is, be it right or wrong is appeasement. I just want to clarify this because it seems sooooooo important to get the verbage correct here before we move on. Cam, you have conceded that a few of the definitions can in fact be used in the context of which I have used the word?

I do not have a following Cam, I am not well recieved in this forum. You on the other hand could shit in a punch bowl and convince 75% of this forum to drink it.
The word can be used to denote 'conciliation' yes I agree but the quite obviously negative connotation you wished to invoke with your statement 'Your appeasement is showing!!!' - which has a distinct and obvious tone implying that you wished to invoke the negative 'Neville Chamberlain' interpretation - means that you have used it incorrectly and that we have been correct in quashing your arguments. This final attempt to shift the goalpost by you has failed. You didn't mean 'conciliation', you meant 'Neville Chamberlain' and that was the premise upon which all arguments were correctly based throughout this thread.

Basically you wrote a bad OP because you invoked a negative interpretation of the word when in fact everything about this is positive. We should really have been arguing about your inappropriate use of the term and for the most part, we were.

And yes you do have a following: usmarine and StingRay being two of many.
I wrote it in the negative because I disagree with it, IMO it is a negative. You say this form of appeasement is a positive. This is the debate that I wished to engage in before all of you broke out your scalpels and started dissecting.

I can tell you with great honesty that I hadda look up 'Neville Chamberlain' because I am unaware of what his relationship was with Hitler. I meant the use EXACTLY as I said it. To pacify, sooth , subside, conciliate. You are only correct in the assumption that I meant it is a negative, I did indeed want to invoke a negative connotation to the term because that is exactly how I felt about it. I used the term correctly in the context of its use. Sorry ya hate it but that makes little difference in the fact of the matter.


USmarine Stingray??..Not hardly, we just happen to agree a lot. With both of them there are certain topics that we do not agree on. WIth USmarine, it is some racial issues ( I think USmarine thinks I am a racist along with the rest of ya) and with Stingray it is religion. With you?!.... I honestly feel like you have groupies.
2008-01-25 04:26:10
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

I wrote it in the negative because I disagree with it, IMO it is a negative. You say this form of appeasement is a positive. This is the debate that I wished to engage in before all of you broke out your scalpels and started dissecting.
It's also the debate you thoroughly lost in the midst of the thirty pages of the debate, or do you want me to repost all of the relevant posts. We did debate this, you can pretend we didn't if you feel you need to. Your opinion might not change, but the logical facts of the matter that this IS positive stand.

lowing wrote:

I can tell you with great honesty that I hadda look up 'Neville Chamberlain' because I am unaware of what his relationship was with Hitler. I meant the use EXACTLY as I said it. To pacify, sooth , subside, conciliate. You are only correct in the assumption that I meant it is a negative, I did indeed want to invoke a negative connotation to the term because that is exactly how I felt about it. I used the term correctly in the context of its use. Sorry ya hate it but that makes little difference in the fact of the matter.
Are you for real? You really expect us to believe that you never heard of the 'Peace in our lifetime' speech after the bullshit Munich Agreement? It's practically what defined the modern use of the term appeasement and gave Hitler the breathing space to kick off WWII!! As I said, the term can only be used negatively in the 'Neville Chamberlain' context - that is the only context in which it fits, otherwise it is a positive term: conciliation - making peace. So you can dance around all you want but if you wanted to use it negatively then you have to stand over the 'ceding to demands made by an aggressor usually involving a compomise of principles' interpretation of the term - the 'Neville Chamberlain' interpretation. You could have just used 'pandering', which is what I think you really mean.

Long story short: for the term 'appeasement' to take on a negative connotation the 'appeaser' has to have compromised their principles or ceded something, neither of which have occurred. Full stop. End of story. The only other way you can possibly use the term with a negative connotation is if you personally actually believe that conciliation and making the world more peaceful is a bad thing, and perhaps maybe you do.

lowing wrote:

USmarine Stingray??..Not hardly, we just happen to agree a lot. With both of them there are certain topics that we do not agree on. WIth USmarine, it is some racial issues ( I think USmarine thinks I am a racist along with the rest of ya) and with Stingray it is religion. With you?!.... I honestly feel like you have groupies.
I don't think so. This is a forum of individual people. And there are plenty of issues I disagree on with usually likeminded people also.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-25 05:31:34)

2008-01-25 04:44:36
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7100|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

USmarine Stingray??..Not hardly, we just happen to agree a lot. With both of them there are certain topics that we do not agree on. WIth USmarine, it is some racial issues ( I think USmarine thinks I am a racist along with the rest of ya) and with Stingray it is religion. With you?!.... I honestly feel like you have groupies.
I can partially agree with you on this one lowing, if anyone have groupies in DST it is Cameron - if that is bad or good i don't know, i do hope most people are able to form their own opinion rather than just steal his thunder as you so eloquently put it
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-01-25 16:02:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

USmarine Stingray??..Not hardly, we just happen to agree a lot. With both of them there are certain topics that we do not agree on. WIth USmarine, it is some racial issues ( I think USmarine thinks I am a racist along with the rest of ya) and with Stingray it is religion. With you?!.... I honestly feel like you have groupies.
I can partially agree with you on this one lowing, if anyone have groupies in DST it is Cameron - if that is bad or good i don't know, i do hope most people are able to form their own opinion rather than just steal his thunder as you so eloquently put it
I am glad I am not the only one who sees it. I do not think it is a bad thing, I think it speaks well of Cam and his posts. It is simply an observation.
2008-01-25 16:13:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

I wrote it in the negative because I disagree with it, IMO it is a negative. You say this form of appeasement is a positive. This is the debate that I wished to engage in before all of you broke out your scalpels and started dissecting.
It's also the debate you thoroughly lost in the midst of the thirty pages of the debate, or do you want me to repost all of the relevant posts. We did debate this, you can pretend we didn't if you feel you need to. Your opinion might not change, but the logical facts of the matter that this IS positive stand.

lowing wrote:

I can tell you with great honesty that I hadda look up 'Neville Chamberlain' because I am unaware of what his relationship was with Hitler. I meant the use EXACTLY as I said it. To pacify, sooth , subside, conciliate. You are only correct in the assumption that I meant it is a negative, I did indeed want to invoke a negative connotation to the term because that is exactly how I felt about it. I used the term correctly in the context of its use. Sorry ya hate it but that makes little difference in the fact of the matter.
Are you for real? You really expect us to believe that you never heard of the 'Peace in our lifetime' speech after the bullshit Munich Agreement? It's practically what defined the modern use of the term appeasement and gave Hitler the breathing space to kick off WWII!! As I said, the term can only be used negatively in the 'Neville Chamberlain' context - that is the only context in which it fits, otherwise it is a positive term: conciliation - making peace. So you can dance around all you want but if you wanted to use it negatively then you have to stand over the 'ceding to demands made by an aggressor usually involving a compomise of principles' interpretation of the term - the 'Neville Chamberlain' interpretation. You could have just used 'pandering', which is what I think you really mean.

Long story short: for the term 'appeasement' to take on a negative connotation the 'appeaser' has to have compromised their principles or ceded something, neither of which have occurred. Full stop. End of story. The only other way you can possibly use the term with a negative connotation is if you personally actually believe that conciliation and making the world more peaceful is a bad thing, and perhaps maybe you do.

lowing wrote:

USmarine Stingray??..Not hardly, we just happen to agree a lot. With both of them there are certain topics that we do not agree on. WIth USmarine, it is some racial issues ( I think USmarine thinks I am a racist along with the rest of ya) and with Stingray it is religion. With you?!.... I honestly feel like you have groupies.
I don't think so. This is a forum of individual people. And there are plenty of issues I disagree on with usually likeminded people also.
1. we will agree to disagree perhaps, but you can not loose a debate over opinions.

2. Yup, I am for real, I was not aware of it. Sorry. I have no problem making peace. I do have a problem with what IMO, is sugar coatinf reality in order to do it. Again, I meant the word I chose, and I meant for it ot be a negative. Again we simply will have to agree to disagree. I concede nothing.

3. Agree to disagree. I concede nothing the term applies exactly how I intended it to apply negativly toward pacifing, soothing subsiding and conciliation under the conditions and reasons why it was done.
2008-01-25 16:19:44
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK

lowing wrote:

1. we will agree to disagree perhaps, but you can not loose a debate over opinions.

2. Yup, I am for real, I was not aware of it. Sorry. I have no problem making peace. I do have a problem with what IMO, is sugar coatinf reality in order to do it. Again, I meant the word I chose, and I meant for it ot be a negative. Again we simply will have to agree to disagree. I concede nothing.

3. Agree to disagree. I concede nothing the term applies exactly how I intended it to apply negativly toward pacifing, soothing subsiding and conciliation under the conditions and reasons why it was done.
You can't lose a debate for having a different opinion.

You can lose a debate for having an ill-informed and ignorant opinion, as you do.  These actions don't "sugar coat reality", they just present a different (and more constructive) perspective on the issues at hand.

As I said before, if you could admit that you have lost this debate on the basis of being proven wrong, it would show great maturity on your part.
2008-01-25 16:35:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

adam1503 wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. we will agree to disagree perhaps, but you can not loose a debate over opinions.

2. Yup, I am for real, I was not aware of it. Sorry. I have no problem making peace. I do have a problem with what IMO, is sugar coatinf reality in order to do it. Again, I meant the word I chose, and I meant for it ot be a negative. Again we simply will have to agree to disagree. I concede nothing.

3. Agree to disagree. I concede nothing the term applies exactly how I intended it to apply negativly toward pacifing, soothing subsiding and conciliation under the conditions and reasons why it was done.
You can't lose a debate for having a different opinion.

You can lose a debate for having an ill-informed and ignorant opinion, as you do.  These actions don't "sugar coat reality", they just present a different (and more constructive) perspective on the issues at hand.

As I said before, if you could admit that you have lost this debate on the basis of being proven wrong, it would show great maturity on your part.
The second I fee like I have lost I will say so. I have no desire to BUY your judgement of me by conceding something I do not believe.
2008-01-25 16:53:20
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK
So is this debate over?  Are we going to admit that were never going to agree on this?  Because we're really going round in circles here.
2008-01-25 18:25:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

adam1503 wrote:

So is this debate over?  Are we going to admit that were never going to agree on this?  Because we're really going round in circles here.
Sure, Cam already admitted that appeasement could be used. HE just wouldn't choose that word. I say he does not decide if I am supposed to use it in the positive or the negitive, I decide that for me. As for the rest, we will agree to disagree.
2008-01-25 18:50:05
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK

lowing wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

So is this debate over?  Are we going to admit that were never going to agree on this?  Because we're really going round in circles here.
Sure, Cam already admitted that appeasement could be used. HE just wouldn't choose that word. I say he does not decide if I am supposed to use it in the positive or the negitive, I decide that for me. As for the rest, we will agree to disagree.
Well, only that it could be used in another definition other than that implied by the title of the thread.  But I can see we're not going to get any further with this debate, so lets call it quits.
2008-01-25 19:17:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

adam1503 wrote:

lowing wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

So is this debate over?  Are we going to admit that were never going to agree on this?  Because we're really going round in circles here.
Sure, Cam already admitted that appeasement could be used. HE just wouldn't choose that word. I say he does not decide if I am supposed to use it in the positive or the negative, I decide that for me. As for the rest, we will agree to disagree.
Well, only that it could be used in another definition other than that implied by the title of the thread.  But I can see we're not going to get any further with this debate, so lets call it quits.
Nope, I implied negativity when I used it. It was intentonal, and I feel this form of appeasement is wrong. There is no proving me wrong about it. It is an opinionated topic and pretty damned arrogant for all of you to insist that say I am wrong about it.

But, you are right, like all other threads in this forum, nothing will convince anyone to change their minds.
2008-01-25 19:34:58
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK

lowing wrote:

Nope, I implied negativity when I used it. It was intentonal, and I feel this form of appeasement is wrong. There is no proving me wrong about it. It is an opinionated topic and pretty damned arrogant for all of you to insist that say I am wrong about it.

But, you are right, like all other threads in this forum, nothing will convince anyone to change their minds.
The only thing I accept about that post is that we will never agree on this.  As there isnt anything more to be discussed, can we have this thread locked please?
2008-01-25 20:13:33
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7006

adam1503 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I implied negativity when I used it. It was intentonal, and I feel this form of appeasement is wrong. There is no proving me wrong about it. It is an opinionated topic and pretty damned arrogant for all of you to insist that say I am wrong about it.

But, you are right, like all other threads in this forum, nothing will convince anyone to change their minds.
The only thing I accept about that post is that we will never agree on this.  As there isnt anything more to be discussed, can we have this thread locked please?
I thought you said you were done...?
Love is the answer
2008-01-26 06:56:34
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

1. we will agree to disagree perhaps, but you can not loose a debate over opinions.

2. Yup, I am for real, I was not aware of it. Sorry. I have no problem making peace. I do have a problem with what IMO, is sugar coatinf reality in order to do it. Again, I meant the word I chose, and I meant for it ot be a negative. Again we simply will have to agree to disagree. I concede nothing.

3. Agree to disagree. I concede nothing the term applies exactly how I intended it to apply negativly toward pacifing, soothing subsiding and conciliation under the conditions and reasons why it was done.
1. No I am simply saying that I won the factual argument - nothing anyone can say or do can compel someone to change an opinion.

2. We have already clarified numerous times that this is not a 'sugar coating of reality'. The British government are not hiding anything and you have not demonstrated in any way, shape or form that they have. The government continues to point to madrassahs in Pakistan as the source of much of this form of terrorism and as [TUF]Catbox outlined, are taking a tough pro-active stance against this form of terrorism. So basically, again basing things on facts rather than opinions, you are wrong or have failed to demonstrate that you are right.

3. Don't buy it.
2008-01-26 06:58:32
andy12
Banned
+52|6947
This thread has more pages than I have karma.

Last edited by andy12 (2008-01-26 06:59:10)

2008-01-26 07:10:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. we will agree to disagree perhaps, but you can not loose a debate over opinions.

2. Yup, I am for real, I was not aware of it. Sorry. I have no problem making peace. I do have a problem with what IMO, is sugar coatinf reality in order to do it. Again, I meant the word I chose, and I meant for it ot be a negative. Again we simply will have to agree to disagree. I concede nothing.

3. Agree to disagree. I concede nothing the term applies exactly how I intended it to apply negativly toward pacifing, soothing subsiding and conciliation under the conditions and reasons why it was done.
1. No I am simply saying that I won the factual argument - nothing anyone can say or do can compel someone to change an opinion.

2. We have already clarified numerous times that this is not a 'sugar coating of reality'. The British government are not hiding anything and you have not demonstrated in any way, shape or form that they have. The government continues to point to madrassahs in Pakistan as the source of much of this form of terrorism and as [TUF]Catbox outlined, are taking a tough pro-active stance against this form of terrorism. So basically, again basing things on facts rather than opinions, you are wrong or have failed to demonstrate that you are right.

3. Don't buy it.
1. You are telling me that you proved Islam is a peaceful tolerant religion?? I doubt it. You proved that the teaching of the prophet Muhammad was not violent and murderous or that following his teachings IS NOT Islam? I do not think so. You have already admitted that the term appeasement can be used as a negative, and that was my exact intention. YOu simply can not find away to admit that, without loosing face after all of the arrogance you have demonstrated in this thread, along with your groupies. Cam, you have won nothing.

2. I never said the British Govt. was hiding anything, I said they are re-naming it to sound less offensive. I think this is wrong. I think Islamic terrorism is so offensive it should be in your face, and dealt with as such. It is a fact that GB did this, it is my opinion and yours as to why. You haven't proven anything more than I have.

3. You do not have to, but I will not let you dictate my intenions. I said it exactly the way I meant it, and the context, was correct.
2008-01-27 05:54:08
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

1. You are telling me that you proved Islam is a peaceful tolerant religion?? I doubt it. You proved that the teaching of the prophet Muhammad was not violent and murderous or that following his teachings IS NOT Islam? I do not think so. You have already admitted that the term appeasement can be used as a negative, and that was my exact intention. YOu simply can not find away to admit that, without loosing face after all of the arrogance you have demonstrated in this thread, along with your groupies. Cam, you have won nothing.

2. I never said the British Govt. was hiding anything, I said they are re-naming it to sound less offensive. I think this is wrong. I think Islamic terrorism is so offensive it should be in your face, and dealt with as such. It is a fact that GB did this, it is my opinion and yours as to why. You haven't proven anything more than I have.

3. You do not have to, but I will not let you dictate my intenions. I said it exactly the way I meant it, and the context, was correct.
1. I proved that the teachings of Islam are peaceful and that homicide levels in Muslim nations are comparable or better than those of western nations. If you want me to repost these for the THIRD TIME then please scroll back through to the relevant page and read before asking for a repost. The term appeasement can be used in a negative context when used in a very specific that you happen to have stated was not the manner in which you used the word, as such you are wrong.

2. They are re-naming it to give it a more accurate description which, as we have gathered over numerous pages of debate, is a good thing especially given the cunning subliminal message contained within the new phrase. You obviously do not have to accept the overwhelming number of reasons why this is good and, quite frankly, the scant/non-existent reasons that this is bad ('sugar coating' doesn't explain much) - that is your prerogative.

3. To use it negatively you have to use it in the 'Neville Chamberlain' sense of the word, which you state you did not. The only other way it could be negatively used is if the user is not an advocate of peace and conciliation - so which is it?

 

Pages: 1 … 28 29 30 31 32

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard