Whimsicalchristian posted,
'It just gets a little old if you're the only person arguing a thing on a thread for weeks and it feels like my evidence is ignored or sidelined so why bother refuting back when I feel like I've said it all before.'
I feel for you, but - and this is crucial - you haven't been arguing at all. You simply state your views and then, as has been pointed out, resort to 'Bulverism' finding causes, not reasons for others' appraisals of the situation (s).
Nothing any poster has said to you appears to have made you, as Luther once said, 'consider in the bowels of Christ, that you may be wrong'.
Is there any action of Mr Trump and his administration that would make you change your mind about him? The use of nuclear weapons? Cutting health care provision and research?
Oh, hold on, he's done that.
Honestly, this is a discussion board of mostly-left-wing folks. We've had long discussions from time to time about how it's not easy being a conservative in these parts. It has been an ongoing thing for over a decade, at least. You're not the first right-winger to darken our doors. Some folks have hung around for years. Some people show up, throw tantrums, and promptly leave. "Flouncing" is the slang word for that behavior. It's undignified.
I grew up a mild mannered liberal in a mostly-conservative small town. I've had the "but everybody thinks I'm wrong and stupid and I keep losing arguments!" experience in the inverse, and I have some empathy.
But if you want to make arguments that persuade, you have to listen and read the people you're dealing with and deal with them as people instead of saying what feels comfortable to you. Believe me, I've heard right wing talking points my entire life and I don't find them compelling. You're not selling me stuff I haven't already seen before. I understand Henry Kissinger had a certain debased logic to his foreign policy. That doesn't make it right.
Kindly don't assume liberals are stupid, naive, or largely driven be an unnatural animus against President Donald Trump. I have personal, social, very carefully thought-out reasons reinforcing my contempt for that individual and his public policies. I may assure you that they are deeply sincere.
Or maybe take a break. Arguing politics is hard. Find something else to bicker about, like religion!
I type these words in a spirit of kindness, I hope.
@WhimsicalChristian Thank you for your considered response to my replies. It's no doubt been quite frustrating to repeat a position over and over again, without feeling like you have been heard.
It's not that we haven't heard you, it's that we've heard the same positions and talking points from many many sources and we are not convinced that they represent the entire scope of the issues at hand, or that they represent a reasonable or constructive attitude towards them.
On the point of airing unpopular opinions on this board, I confess I hold quite a number of them, but do not think it serves my peace of mind or the peace and goodwill of the fellowship to air them.
In the end, what I think on a topic is of no importance whatsoever, and is probably none of anyone's business anyway. Nothing in the world will change just because I tried to convince someone of the soundness of my point of view. It's just not a good use of my time and preciously frail emotional equilibrium.
I wish you a pleasant day and weekend and I hope you continue to hang out with us. We are all One in the Body of Christ after all.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called Estonia’s defense minister on Monday with some bad news: Because of its own needs in the war with Iran, the Pentagon would have to delay delivery of six units of a high-tech weapons system that Estonia had contracted to buy from the United States government.
@WhimsicalChristian I think it's interesting (meant sincerely) that you view being anti-Trump as being anti-Western, or that they are at least aligned viewpoints. Surely Trump himself is anti-Western? To me being pro-Western would mean being aligned with Europe and Canada and opposed to Russian interests, which Trump is very clearly and blatantly not. How is supporting Russia and opposing Ukraine a pro-Western stance? Trump doesn't care about quote unquote "Western values", he cares first and foremost about lining his pockets.
I can appreciate why China would feel like a threat from an Australian perspective. Nobody here is denying China's human rights violations for eg. But it's not like the Trump administration has much room to talk on that issue.
“Whimsical” according to the online dictionary means “playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing or amusing way”.
So I hope you stick around and get something positive out of your membership. There’s certainly a good deal of the playful, quaint and fanciful stuff in Heaven and The Circus. I’ve a lot of amusement there. Purgatory is much more about serious exchanges of ideas and opinions.
Which is why one of its Guidelines is “Expect to be disagreed with”. Folks will agree with you if they do! But it’s not a comfortable environment. Quite Purgatorial in fact. But not Hell.
One of the site administrators @Alan Cresswell , who is a nuclear physicist, posted a reply to you a few posts up giving his professional opinion, with well argued reasons, that “imminent” was an unlikely word to use when considering the development in Iran of nuclear weapons.
@WhimsicalChristian : I think our president has sewn some serious doubt in that department. He's treating every foreign policy commitment like a protection racket for the personal gain of "his" people (as he understands that concept.)
Plus, and here's a free link, all of the munitions he's throwing at Iran are munitions he won't be able to use to intimidate China and Russia, and I imagine they're aware of this situation.
And I repeat, I do not like our president, but if you know me (and some folks here have known me for a long time,) I am not a man given to hatred. I think he's making some terrifyingly bad decisions that we are going to be paying for for a long time.
You mean for protecting Taiwan?
It is in the US interest, Australia's and the world. From the National Security Strategy page 19.
A favorable conventional military balance remains an essential component of
strategic competition. There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan, partly because of
Taiwan’s dominance of semiconductor production, but mostly because Taiwan
provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits Northeast and
Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters. Given that one-third of global shipping
passes annually through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the
U.S. economy. Hence deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving
military overmatch, is a priority. /I]
I do agree there's a lot of munitions that might be growing low to deter China. That's a worry. But if they're stopping their primary source of oil then, as I've said, the subtext is weakening China.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions Bullfrog. I just think the National Security Strategy is good.
@WhimsicalChristian Thank you for your considered response to my replies. It's no doubt been quite frustrating to repeat a position over and over again, without feeling like you have been heard.
It's not that we haven't heard you, it's that we've heard the same positions and talking points from many many sources and we are not convinced that they represent the entire scope of the issues at hand, or that they represent a reasonable or constructive attitude towards them.
On the point of airing unpopular opinions on this board, I confess I hold quite a number of them, but do not think it serves my peace of mind or the peace and goodwill of the fellowship to air them.
In the end, what I think on a topic is of no importance whatsoever, and is probably none of anyone's business anyway. Nothing in the world will change just because I tried to convince someone of the soundness of my point of view. It's just not a good use of my time and preciously frail emotional equilibrium.
I wish you a pleasant day and weekend and I hope you continue to hang out with us. We are all One in the Body of Christ after all.
Honestly, this is a discussion board of mostly-left-wing folks. We've had long discussions from time to time about how it's not easy being a conservative in these parts. It has been an ongoing thing for over a decade, at least. You're not the first right-winger to darken our doors. Some folks have hung around for years. Some people show up, throw tantrums, and promptly leave. "Flouncing" is the slang word for that behavior. It's undignified.
I grew up a mild mannered liberal in a mostly-conservative small town. I've had the "but everybody thinks I'm wrong and stupid and I keep losing arguments!" experience in the inverse, and I have some empathy.
But if you want to make arguments that persuade, you have to listen and read the people you're dealing with and deal with them as people instead of saying what feels comfortable to you. Believe me, I've heard right wing talking points my entire life and I don't find them compelling. You're not selling me stuff I haven't already seen before. I understand Henry Kissinger had a certain debased logic to his foreign policy. That doesn't make it right.
Kindly don't assume liberals are stupid, naive, or largely driven be an unnatural animus against President Donald Trump. I have personal, social, very carefully thought-out reasons reinforcing my contempt for that individual and his public policies. I may assure you that they are deeply sincere.
Or maybe take a break. Arguing politics is hard. Find something else to bicker about, like religion!
I type these words in a spirit of kindness, I hope.
Contrary to popular opinion I am reading and listening and providing evidence.
But it doesn't really seem to matter does it if it's one person against a whole thread.
Unlike you I grew up in a very liberal tradition, but your comments could easily apply to both sides of the divide couldn't they?
In our polarised world, it seems rational discussion is a thing of the past.
Whimsicalchristian posted: 'Contrary to popular opinion I am reading and listening and providing evidence'
No, you made statements but didn't argue, gave no evidence for for their veracity.
@Barnabas62 I didn't know what assertions you were referring to. Re Iran's readiness for nuclear weapons? Some evidence suggests it could be pretty quick.
.
One of the site administrators @Alan Cresswell , who is a nuclear physicist, posted a reply to you a few posts up giving his professional opinion, with well argued reasons, that “imminent” was an unlikely word to use when considering the development in Iran of nuclear weapons.
And I replied with different evidence.
Was it picked up? No.
Let me deal with this point. The assertion of imminent risk came from Donald Trump. I think you do support it based on your first quote. I haven’t checked whether you alluded to it before. I asked what evidence was, AFF posted a link, Alan Cress-well posted a refutation. Did you read it? See his posts of 17 and 18 April.
Re your “quick” link I am no nuclear physicist but I can see two or three things.
Firstly Alan Cresswell’s post addressed in detail all the assembly issues mentioned in your link. Secondly, Alan addressed the challenges Iran would face in that assembly (which are very different to those faced by China in the link you mentioned.)
Thirdly, and ironically, the “quick” link contains the following comment.
“The first Trump administration left the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—in May 2018, significantly reducing the constraints on and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program.”
I suggest that you never read Alan Cresswell’s post before you posted your “quick” link. Further, you may not have seen it but the “ quck” link is critical of the policy of the first Trump administration which significantly reduced constraints and monitoring.
Comments
'It just gets a little old if you're the only person arguing a thing on a thread for weeks and it feels like my evidence is ignored or sidelined so why bother refuting back when I feel like I've said it all before.'
I feel for you, but - and this is crucial - you haven't been arguing at all. You simply state your views and then, as has been pointed out, resort to 'Bulverism' finding causes, not reasons for others' appraisals of the situation (s).
Nothing any poster has said to you appears to have made you, as Luther once said, 'consider in the bowels of Christ, that you may be wrong'.
Is there any action of Mr Trump and his administration that would make you change your mind about him? The use of nuclear weapons? Cutting health care provision and research?
Oh, hold on, he's done that.
Honestly, this is a discussion board of mostly-left-wing folks. We've had long discussions from time to time about how it's not easy being a conservative in these parts. It has been an ongoing thing for over a decade, at least. You're not the first right-winger to darken our doors. Some folks have hung around for years. Some people show up, throw tantrums, and promptly leave. "Flouncing" is the slang word for that behavior. It's undignified.
I grew up a mild mannered liberal in a mostly-conservative small town. I've had the "but everybody thinks I'm wrong and stupid and I keep losing arguments!" experience in the inverse, and I have some empathy.
But if you want to make arguments that persuade, you have to listen and read the people you're dealing with and deal with them as people instead of saying what feels comfortable to you. Believe me, I've heard right wing talking points my entire life and I don't find them compelling. You're not selling me stuff I haven't already seen before. I understand Henry Kissinger had a certain debased logic to his foreign policy. That doesn't make it right.
Kindly don't assume liberals are stupid, naive, or largely driven be an unnatural animus against President Donald Trump. I have personal, social, very carefully thought-out reasons reinforcing my contempt for that individual and his public policies. I may assure you that they are deeply sincere.
Or maybe take a break. Arguing politics is hard. Find something else to bicker about, like religion!
I type these words in a spirit of kindness, I hope.
Absolutely. Plenty of threads for that. Can’t guarantee that they don’t mention Trump, but mostly they don’t.
He just doesn't strike me as very pious.
It's not that we haven't heard you, it's that we've heard the same positions and talking points from many many sources and we are not convinced that they represent the entire scope of the issues at hand, or that they represent a reasonable or constructive attitude towards them.
On the point of airing unpopular opinions on this board, I confess I hold quite a number of them, but do not think it serves my peace of mind or the peace and goodwill of the fellowship to air them.
In the end, what I think on a topic is of no importance whatsoever, and is probably none of anyone's business anyway. Nothing in the world will change just because I tried to convince someone of the soundness of my point of view. It's just not a good use of my time and preciously frail emotional equilibrium.
I wish you a pleasant day and weekend and I hope you continue to hang out with us. We are all One in the Body of Christ after all.
AFF
I can appreciate why China would feel like a threat from an Australian perspective. Nobody here is denying China's human rights violations for eg. But it's not like the Trump administration has much room to talk on that issue.
It’s a nice ID.
“Whimsical” according to the online dictionary means “playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing or amusing way”.
So I hope you stick around and get something positive out of your membership. There’s certainly a good deal of the playful, quaint and fanciful stuff in Heaven and The Circus. I’ve a lot of amusement there. Purgatory is much more about serious exchanges of ideas and opinions.
Which is why one of its Guidelines is “Expect to be disagreed with”. Folks will agree with you if they do! But it’s not a comfortable environment. Quite Purgatorial in fact. But not Hell.
And I replied with different evidence.
Was it picked up? No.
You mean for protecting Taiwan?
It is in the US interest, Australia's and the world. From the National Security Strategy page 19.
A favorable conventional military balance remains an essential component of
strategic competition. There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan, partly because of
Taiwan’s dominance of semiconductor production, but mostly because Taiwan
provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits Northeast and
Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters. Given that one-third of global shipping
passes annually through the South China Sea, this has major implications for the
U.S. economy. Hence deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving
military overmatch, is a priority. /I]
I do agree there's a lot of munitions that might be growing low to deter China. That's a worry. But if they're stopping their primary source of oil then, as I've said, the subtext is weakening China.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions Bullfrog. I just think the National Security Strategy is good.
But I doubt anyone on the ship has read it.
Well said.
Contrary to popular opinion I am reading and listening and providing evidence.
But it doesn't really seem to matter does it if it's one person against a whole thread.
Unlike you I grew up in a very liberal tradition, but your comments could easily apply to both sides of the divide couldn't they?
In our polarised world, it seems rational discussion is a thing of the past.
I strongly recommend you visit Heaven and All Saints and get to know people.
But, back to the subject - will the Straits of Hormuz ever open again? Both sides are blaming the other for it remaining closed.
Will the world adapt to it being unnavigable? Maybe a huge push on renewable energy? That would be a positive outcome.
No, you made statements but didn't argue, gave no evidence for for their veracity.
Let me deal with this point. The assertion of imminent risk came from Donald Trump. I think you do support it based on your first quote. I haven’t checked whether you alluded to it before. I asked what evidence was, AFF posted a link, Alan Cress-well posted a refutation. Did you read it? See his posts of 17 and 18 April.
Re your “quick” link I am no nuclear physicist but I can see two or three things.
Firstly Alan Cresswell’s post addressed in detail all the assembly issues mentioned in your link. Secondly, Alan addressed the challenges Iran would face in that assembly (which are very different to those faced by China in the link you mentioned.)
Thirdly, and ironically, the “quick” link contains the following comment.
“The first Trump administration left the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—in May 2018, significantly reducing the constraints on and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program.”
I suggest that you never read Alan Cresswell’s post before you posted your “quick” link. Further, you may not have seen it but the “ quck” link is critical of the policy of the first Trump administration which significantly reduced constraints and monitoring.
Yes, it would. We shall see...but we are perhaps beginning only now to appreciate the sheer folly in relying so much on Oil.