smokerx said:
My message was deleted by me not moderator please lets not lie in here ok ? And It was not abusive just thought there was no need for it. Which moderator changed the message from deleted by USER to deleted by MODERATOR ? Was is you Sozz ?
Yes...it was me. I was curious as to how you responded when you were asked to explain your accusations. If this offends you, I'm sorry; I have always been a very curious person by nature and as you have been attacking me without providing any evidence, I had the faint hope that there would maybe be something to help me understand your attacks in that post. I undeleted it, read it, then re-deleted it. I re-deleted it because you had deleted it initially, indicating you did not wish it to be public and I intended to honor this sentiment. No one knew your comment was deleted except for you and the Mods/Trav, as deleted posts are only visible (as being deleted) to the users to whom they belong and the mods/Trav. No one would have thought there was anything inappropriate because no one would have known that your post had been deleted or by whom.
smokerx said:
Christian DID NOT deserved the way you talked to him you know that very well. He only expressed his opinion. Who are you to tell him what to think ? Do you think you are better than him ?
Now here I'm confused...first off, a1pha was the one who initially asked Christian to elaborate on his post. As Christian's sentiments echoed my own, I felt that it was beneficial to chime in, as someone with similar views, to explain how one could bolster their arguments so that an individual like a1pha would not say, "Hey that sounds like CT talk." Could you please show me how "the way I talked to him" was disrespectful? My firsts posts were more than gracious, calmly explaining my opinion and presenting possible ways that he could, imo, better articulate his views with supporting evidence. Once he began to respond in a flip manner, I responded with a less gracious tone.
Where did I tell him what to think? Can you please show me where I did this? To my mind, at no point did I tell him what to think...if I had it would have been pretty pointless as we have a similar outlook; he just chose to make blanket statements without citing any evidence or support. All I did was point out the fact that evidence or support goes a long way and prevents people from accusing you of engaging in CTs. I think I made it quite clear in my response (when he asked me if I was a politician; somehow insinuating that in a democracy politicians are the only people who can know the system...despite the fact that in a democracy, the power of the system is supposedly derived from the people) that I do not think that I'm better than him. Why would you ask me such a question when I already stated in my response that I do not feel that I am any better than him?
smokerx said:
Why do you need evidence for everything ? The reason why I asked those questions was exactly this. There is no prove in out believe and we do not have to prove to you or anyone else what we believe in.
Why do I need evidence? Because we are discussing Politics...this is not a subjective psychedelic experience, these are real events and people whose validity and statements can be checked. I need evidence for the same reason people demand evidence in the scientific threads. I need evidence to be sure that we are not engaging in CTs instead of political discussion. Citing evidence for any claim that is not subjective is a standard practice at the Nexus, look throughout the threads and you will see that this is the case. I value politics very much; as such I do not take kindly to statements made with no regard for their truth (especially when someone rips politicians for doing essentially the same thing). In the case of Political Science, there
IS "proof in our belief". Things that happen in consensus reality (i.e. political events) can be checked and verified...as such, when engaging in a debate about them, facts are an appropriate requirement, imo.
Whether I believe in god or alternate universes or whatever has no bearing on factual evidence relating to political events. I can't prove a god or alternate universe, whether or not I believe in it. I can prove the existence of COINTELPRO, of FBI Assassinations, of CIA Drug Smuggling, of political contributions, of special interest donations, of Investment Banking deregulations, of "Free" Market manipulation and just about any other political event that merits discussion. There are facts in politics and they can be checked. As such, belief does not hold up...facts are available, so facts are necessary.
smokerx said:
You could either agree or disagree with Christian. What you did was disrespectful and I felt like to stop that victimization.
I did disagree...I do not think my disagreements were out of line, especially given the flippant attitude displayed by Christian when asked, by a1pha and then myself, to provide evidence to back up the claims he was making. I still don't see what was disrespectful about my words. My tone was certainly not the most gracious it could have been...then again, that was at least, in part, a result of the attitude being displayed by the other party. This does not make my tone "right", but as much as I would like to be the type of person who is able to maintain a calm and clearheaded disposition when others do not, that is not who I am. I am striving to work on this, but it is one of my flaws and try as I might, I am not always able to turn the other cheek. I usually apologize once I calm down. I do not think anyone here was being victimized and am unsure as to why you feel that Christian can't speak for himself.