gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Your location says "In my coffee". Could you be more specific. Then mabee your story might help someone.
She is referring to the Central District in Seattle.
Your location says "In my coffee". Could you be more specific. Then mabee your story might help someone.
I am glad you and your family are not harmed.
Do you have opinions on the reason for the rash of incidents in your neighborhood. Bad neighborhood, haters of the gay marriage bill?
Just do to yourself what you've been doing to some of us for quite some time. Just ignore it, pretend it didn't happen, go off on a tangent (until you forget about it), toss off glib comments about it until it stops bothering you, or just contradict yourself until its stops bothering you.
I'm sorry for the victims; but I think you've earned the lack of sympathy from some of us.
[snippers]
No, its not sympathetic. No, its not PC--the approved response. But, it is entirely fair to tell her to use the same tactics on her herself that she's used on some of us.
Now, if you will please not defend her, she might get the idea that her forum tactics maybe need a change.
Just sharing some Central District info. I'm not looking for sympathy.
Personally, I am not a supporter of PC.
Don't count on me changing my tactics due to some trivial thing as you responding in a way that hurts peoples feel-bads.
Two evasions in one post. Typical.
One a falsehood. Writing that it is tough is not just sharing some Central District info.
And, a strawman argument. Nobody said you were looking for sympathy.
But, I guess 1245Defender can go back to defending you; clearly you didn't get the idea that maybe you need to change your forum tactics.
Oh, trust me. Given your proven disability at handling truth--the various forum tactics I listed earlier--I definitely won't be counting on you for much of anything.
Truth is subjective, silly.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
That is like saying morals are relative. While completely true, the relativists are using it to evade morals themselves, not examine the surivival value of whichever moral is under discussion.
Truth is completely subjective, but you are using the statement to evade truth, not face it.
My, my. What a coincidence that your subjective view of truth has you committing the list of forum tactics I gave earlier. The worse factor is your subjective view of yourself. If you had all that much confidence in your own subjective view of the truth, you wouldn't need to use the tactics I listed.
So, a relativist stands on morals being relative in order to evade morals...or moral obligation? Let's say that morals are for survival and have value, morals are still relative.
You have not shown me any Truth.--what am I evading?
All I have is a subjective truth of myself.--a objective truth of self is an oxymoron.
I can view something as being the truth while maintaining there is only subjective truth.
Hahahahahahaha!
Just more of the same tactics.
Instead of addressing the actual implied argument of moral relativists, you go off on a tangent and argue about moral obligation? Strawman!
Subjective truth of self. Another evasion. All anybody has about themself is a subjective truth of themselves. Evasion. I wasn't arguing that you didn't. And, it only takes the slightest inference to recognize I was saying the same thing.
Big omission: you didn't even address the point about your lack of confidence in your own subjective truth being the whole reason you use the forum tactics I listed. Nobody said you can't view something as truth while maintaining there is only subjective truth.
Hahahahahahahah!
That's what I need, for a good home defense firearm: BMG 50 cal.
What you need to do is MOVE, if not for yourself, for your children.
In watching her posts over the years, that's what she's been doing a lot of, moving.