02-13-2009, 11:26 PM
<!--quoteo(post=17905:date=Feb 13 2009, 08:20 PM:name=Bricklayer)-->QUOTE (Bricklayer @ Feb 13 2009, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->All I have to say to you Hemi is that you are seriously obtuse. What BT meant is that you insulted him by suggesting that he should read a book that anyone with any economic knowledge has read. Shit man, do you read his posts? BT is an intelligent person, of course he read Smith. I fucking read Smith, along with probably 75% of anyone who went to college. It's very condescending of you to make that suggestion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are a lot of intelligent people out there, a lot of which have not read Smith. Assuming everyone has read something is ignorant, and I don't think Hemi meant it as a backhanded suggestion to read Smith, even though it appears you or others took it that way. I call that arrogant assumption.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You are so blinded by your assumptions that you cannot see what BT is even telling you.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or you and BT are so blinded by your assumptions that you cannot see what Hemi is telling you in response. That simple minded dismissal works two ways, and it's a weak argumentative tactic. At the very least, BT tried to explain him/herself in great detail, going point for point against Hemi and that's respectable. Tearing someone down after 9/10th's of the conversation...isn't.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You've lost a lot of credibility. You really need to step back and process things a little better, otherwise what you think is rational thought is just dogmatic ranting.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I'm new around here, but I didn't realize you were the majesty king giver and taker of credibility for no reason other than you (strongly or otherwise) disagree with someone on the broad of finer strokes of the discussion. The idea of being open minded works both ways, not only if someone agrees with you. The fact you call hemi "blind by his assumptions" means you feel he's "closed minded" and "cannot see your side", when you're doing the exact same thing in exchange. Just because you disagree with Hemi, or anyone else, and don't feel as if he/they are grasping the situation doesn't mean he's lost credibility.
This is typical of political or religious arguments/discussions. People who cannot see eye to eye often resort to trying to force others to see things exactly how they see them. And when a third party agrees with one of the two, they often jump the bandwagon on the side they agree with.
It's ok to disagree with each other. It's ok to perceive things differently, political or otherwise. That's the beauty of living. If everyone saw things exactly the same, or was forced to see things exactly the same, this would be a boring motherfucking world to live in. Sterile, but boring and lifeless. I've read 1984, and no thank you to a world like that.
There are a lot of intelligent people out there, a lot of which have not read Smith. Assuming everyone has read something is ignorant, and I don't think Hemi meant it as a backhanded suggestion to read Smith, even though it appears you or others took it that way. I call that arrogant assumption.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You are so blinded by your assumptions that you cannot see what BT is even telling you.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or you and BT are so blinded by your assumptions that you cannot see what Hemi is telling you in response. That simple minded dismissal works two ways, and it's a weak argumentative tactic. At the very least, BT tried to explain him/herself in great detail, going point for point against Hemi and that's respectable. Tearing someone down after 9/10th's of the conversation...isn't.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You've lost a lot of credibility. You really need to step back and process things a little better, otherwise what you think is rational thought is just dogmatic ranting.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I'm new around here, but I didn't realize you were the majesty king giver and taker of credibility for no reason other than you (strongly or otherwise) disagree with someone on the broad of finer strokes of the discussion. The idea of being open minded works both ways, not only if someone agrees with you. The fact you call hemi "blind by his assumptions" means you feel he's "closed minded" and "cannot see your side", when you're doing the exact same thing in exchange. Just because you disagree with Hemi, or anyone else, and don't feel as if he/they are grasping the situation doesn't mean he's lost credibility.
This is typical of political or religious arguments/discussions. People who cannot see eye to eye often resort to trying to force others to see things exactly how they see them. And when a third party agrees with one of the two, they often jump the bandwagon on the side they agree with.
It's ok to disagree with each other. It's ok to perceive things differently, political or otherwise. That's the beauty of living. If everyone saw things exactly the same, or was forced to see things exactly the same, this would be a boring motherfucking world to live in. Sterile, but boring and lifeless. I've read 1984, and no thank you to a world like that.