1,523
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 460:
Line 460: + + + + + + + + + + +
→Another definition of liberal -2
:Ok, here's a response: the 66 word definition is trash, unencyclopdic, marxist tripe, and the type of garbage used to corrupt young minds on college campuses. Fair enough? I answered your question. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:52, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, here's a response: the 66 word definition is trash, unencyclopdic, marxist tripe, and the type of garbage used to corrupt young minds on college campuses. Fair enough? I answered your question. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:52, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::According to the same 66 word definition, [[NATO]] would be a "liberal organization". [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 14:23, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::According to the same 66 word definition, [[NATO]] would be a "liberal organization". [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 14:23, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Correct, Samwell. Collective security is a major attribute of liberalism, thanks for the helpful example. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not really sure where to put this, but I wrote it to respond to Rob's post then had to go to class and never posted it. I'm going to keep it separate from the pedophilia discussion, because... well I just will. Begin original message:
::Such a strong intellectual argument, Rob. I'm glad you are contributing positively and with solid points, not at all how you guys always claim a liberal would respond. I'm pretty sure if I had come up with an answer such as yours you would have complained that I was demeaning you again. If I or another editor had said that about something you wrote you would have blocked them and called them a troll. This is just another sentence to see how thoroughly you read what I write. I'm still betting on "skim". If you don't have any more arguments, it's not time to turn to ridicule. It's ok though, this probably doesn't happen to you very often. Most of the time around this site editors get blocked long before a sysop runs out of counterarguments; you just don't know what to do when confronted with this situation. Here's what you do: thank an editor for his well-defended contribution and add it to the article.
::*Trash: says who? And why? There are a lot of people who disagree with you and you really need some actual solid points to back a claim like that up.
::*Unencyclopedic : how? The definition is written in absolutely encyclopedic language, and it's just as useful in an encyclopedia as any other political ideology. This is also the first time you have had any problems with its use in the encyclopedia.
::*Marxist tripe: back to the old standby, I see (though you finally dropped the "gobbledygook"). How is my definition Marxist? You've never really explained that, and the only time you've ever actually used the word is to denegrate me in some way. I'm assuming you do know what Marxism is, and you aren't simply using it as an attack word. This is a correct assumption, right?
::*Garbage used to corrupt young minds: ah yes, insulting my intellegence again (and that of the many thousands of political scientists in the world). I fail to see how this stuff corrupts anybody at all. You also have failed to prove the motive of an entire field of political science (including those outside academia) to corrupt minds. At any rate, all you have to go on is what little I have told you about my entire political science experience. It's really rather ignorant to assume that you know everything about political science based on a couple of claims, especially when I've stated over and over that I'm simplifying some of them for the sake of argument and brevity.
::In conclusion, you are requiring me to have an overwhelming burdon of proof, wheras you seem to just spout off things from time to time, and then drop them when you can't back them up. I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but you keep calling me names and resorting to unsupported claims and accusations. I try to answer every single point in each of your posts, and then you accuse me of not answering your questions. You sort of answered some of my questions, but it's still rather clear that you aren't reading all the way down to the bottom of my posts (and not reading all of the text within my posts). I asked a question 5 times, and referred to it one more time. You last post answers it tangentially at best. I'd ask it again, but you can just read the last paragraph of 5 of my last 7 or so posts and find it there, written five different ways. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 14:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
==pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal orgainzation"==
==pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal orgainzation"==