Dante Challenges Samson to a Debate: Put up or shut up?

Here I am.


And you're already boring me, so I'll keep this thread short:


You're a Fat Queer Attention Whore with No Talent and Less Intelligence living in your parent's basement.

:banana2:
 
[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION] Looking at your threads and posts it begins to get difficult to select a subject of interest of value to anyone with which I will dispatch you -- but fear not, dispatch you we will

Dante
:cool:
dD
 
[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]

Do you have any threads where you posted any opinion on
prochoice? I am not getting very far with Dante on the issue
of why does Roe V Wade recognize free choice and "substantive due process"
for abortion laws, but this isn't being applied to free choice of health care options
that ACA mandates currently restrict to insurance as the only choice.

Do you have any issues related to choice or consent?
And if it is Constitutional for laws to impose a bias on choice
based on people's political beliefs at the cost of excluding other beliefs?

I tried to argue this is "discrimination by creed" where laws involve "beliefs," but
Dante seems to be okay with it as long as the govt process is used to establish law.

I said that is fine for laws and areas that people agree to subject to majority rule
or court ruling. But I disagreed when it comes to beliefs such as concerning abortion and health care choices, marriage laws, and other areas that I find cross the line between church and state; where laws should either be formed, written and passed by consensus or kept out of govt if people cannot agree, in order to prevent imposing by belief or creed.
 
[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]
:eusa_whistle:
[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]

Do you have any threads where you posted any opinion on
prochoice? I am not getting very far with Dante on the issue
of why does Roe V Wade recognize free choice and "substantive due process"
for abortion laws, but this isn't being applied to free choice of health care options
that ACA mandates currently restrict to insurance as the only choice.

Do you have any issues related to choice or consent?
And if it is Constitutional for laws to impose a bias on choice
based on people's political beliefs at the cost of excluding other beliefs?

I tried to argue this is "discrimination by creed" where laws involve "beliefs," but
Dante seems to be okay with it as long as the govt process is used to establish law.

I said that is fine for laws and areas that people agree to subject to majority rule
or court ruling. But I disagreed when it comes to beliefs such as concerning abortion and health care choices, marriage laws, and other areas that I find cross the line between church and state; where laws should either be formed, written and passed by consensus or kept out of govt if people cannot agree, in order to prevent imposing by belief or creed.
 
[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]

Do you have any threads where you posted any opinion on
prochoice? I am not getting very far with Dante on the issue
.

Not "getting very far with Dante on he issue?"

My advice is to try discussing the issue with a more intelligent plants; perhaps a geranium, or sunflower.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]

Do you have any threads where you posted any opinion on
prochoice? I am not getting very far with Dante on the issue
.

Not "getting very far with Dante on he issue?"

My adive is to try discussing the issue with a more intelligent plants; perhaps a geranium, or sunflower.
[MENTION=21821]Samson[/MENTION]
So you want to debate whether a geranium, sunflower or Dante has more intelligence?

I would say the flowers already follow the "intelligent design" of the universe and don't need to think about it.

With Dante, he thinks too much. He justifies all the differences between Roe V Wade, substantive due process, the court ruling and issues in that case vs. the issues of government intrusion in people's private decisions about health care under ACA.

And misses the obvious -- the people DON'T consent to having their choices taken away by govt by ACA mandates, any more or less than the prochoice advocates who don't want govt imposing on free choice in abortion or reproductive decisions either!

He chokes on mere gnats while the govt is shoving camels down people's throats.

So that is my only issue with Dante. He is almost TOO discerning, and misses the similar connections "in spirit" with issues of free choice, individual consent, versus govt intrusion.

He catches the difference between each tree in the forest, but misses the forest for the trees.

If you want to debate with me, we can argue if the problem is Dante is TOO intelligent and overthinking, or "not getting it" because he is not thinking enough?
I think it is a matter of being stubborn, not stupid.
People get set in their ways, no matter how intelligent they are,
and have their own beliefs and preferences.

I think Dante's bias is based on not knowing enough rightwing/conservative people who ARE willing to discuss and resolve issues on his level.

If he had that, he would not be so "closed-minded" that any such positions can or could or should change.
So I think that is where the bias is coming from. It's about personal connection with other people, and not how intelligent you are.
Dante is incredibly astute and discerning, so the blocks we run into must be coming from something else.

The emotional blocks between people because of political division and resentment
are enough to interfere with that process. So that is what I blame: the deeply engrained perceptions and
stereotypes, which cause people to "assume" that some choices or levels of consensus in decision-making are "not possible" and "not a choice."

So once you limit yourself to just "one way is right, and the other way is wrong"
that closes the door to any other solutions that could focus on how to
correct what is wrong on both sides, and fulfill/respect what is right for both.

This is not an emotionally-available choice for people, so their brains don't go there either, and don't consider it a viable option to even consider.

It is an engrained response to the environment we operate in, that tells us
our two choices are "fight or flight" and there is no such thing as working out an agreeable solution "without compromising to the other side."
So neither side opens themselves up to seek those solutions that could resolve conflicts and satisfy both sides without compromise.

The intelligent mind, like Dante's, demands "proof this exists or works first" BEFORE believing in it.
So it becomes counteractive.

it takes having an open mind that such solutions could be pursued, developed and implemented
BEFORE taking the steps to PROVE it can work or not!

So it goes in a circle and becomes self-defeating:
without proof consensus is possible, if the mind won't even open up to the possibility,
then steps cannot be taken to reach consensus, so you keep proving consensus is not possible by not asking and seeking it!

On the other hand, should more people push for either separation or consensus, and quit competing to dominate one side over the other,
then more people WOULD work toward consensus or at least proposed ways of reaching it,
and more people WOULD consider the options and try to prove where consensus can be reached or not.

So the opposite can also happen: as more people consider ways to resolve conflicts
to form agreements instead of competing to overrule and exclude each other,
then the process becomes self-fulfilling. it opens the doors for the solutions
to start forming among people.

so the same way being closedminded, and sticking to conflicting sides, proves consensus is not possible,
being openminded can prove consensus is possible by working in that direction instead, to show all the same conflicts can be resolved instead of assuming they can't be worked out without compromise.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top