4 ms·

Reading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue. Thank y

by gortok 11y ago

Reading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue. Thank you for responding.

Frondo 11y ago
Thanks for at least responding. I just noticed a flurry of downvotes on all of my comments in this thread. It'd be nice if the randbots could at least try to talk, instead of knee-jerking on the little down arrow.
- gortok 11y ago
  Don't automatically assume that people who disagree with you are 'randbots'. That would make me downvote (if I had that privilege). Reasonable people can disagree with you without being a 'bot'. I disagree with Rand Paul on a great number of issues, but I can also disagree with your position without being a Rand Paul supporter. This is another reason why we can't have a substantive discussion on this issue; when someone jumps to name-calling, it's clear they don't want to discuss the principles of the argument.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    I'm surprised that you're responding. In your own words, "... there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding ...". So, what gives? Do you want to try to have a discussion after all? Because, of course, I'm game. I've made no blanket declarations that you'll never be able to understand my point of view.
    - gortok 11y ago
      Not responding to the points you made regarding the CRA; responding to your specific actions.
      - Frondo 11y ago
        Why are you still responding? What kind of rhetorical trick is this? "I'm not going to talk to you, because there's no way you and I could ever see eye to eye. ..... except now I'm going to call out some part of your behavior I don't agree with." I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish; this is a new form of internet snark for me.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  Downvoting should be reserved for those who are impairing discussion, not engaging in discussion that I (or in many cases, the groupthink) disagree with.

by gortok 11y ago

Reading through your comment history; I recognize that there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding or have a substantive debate on this issue. Thank you for responding.

Frondo 11y ago

Thanks for at least responding. I just noticed a flurry of downvotes on all of my comments in this thread. It'd be nice if the randbots could at least try to talk, instead of knee-jerking on the little down arrow.

gortok 11y ago
Don't automatically assume that people who disagree with you are 'randbots'. That would make me downvote (if I had that privilege). Reasonable people can disagree with you without being a 'bot'. I disagree with Rand Paul on a great number of issues, but I can also disagree with your position without being a Rand Paul supporter. This is another reason why we can't have a substantive discussion on this issue; when someone jumps to name-calling, it's clear they don't want to discuss the principles of the argument.
- Frondo 11y ago
  I'm surprised that you're responding. In your own words, "... there's no way for us to achieve mutual understanding ...". So, what gives? Do you want to try to have a discussion after all? Because, of course, I'm game. I've made no blanket declarations that you'll never be able to understand my point of view.
  - gortok 11y ago
    Not responding to the points you made regarding the CRA; responding to your specific actions.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Why are you still responding? What kind of rhetorical trick is this? "I'm not going to talk to you, because there's no way you and I could ever see eye to eye. ..... except now I'm going to call out some part of your behavior I don't agree with." I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish; this is a new form of internet snark for me.
bdcravens 11y ago
Downvoting should be reserved for those who are impairing discussion, not engaging in discussion that I (or in many cases, the groupthink) disagree with.