Personally, I neither need nor want you to be nice to me. You’re beyond contempt.
I meant to address this earlier but it got lost in the shuffle.
Yes, we did have an extended debate in regard to the Paterno thread. And it was a breath of fresh air in which we both spoke our mind, gave our respective points of view, challenged each other when we felt it necessary and eventually came to agree to disagree, as Bricker said. Throughout the entire discussion which went on intermittently for several weeks, there were no insults, or name-calling, or anger, frustration or resentment. We simply talked like two civilized adults. It was a different and very pleasant experience compared to the way things usually go around here, and struck me as being the way things would go on the rest of this board if only it were as smart as it likes to think it is.
just what do you think the Golden Rule says?
The Bulwer-Lytton Prize is within your grasp! English majors will gouge out their eyes and take up panhandling in sign language.
The claims weren’t hysterical – they were just, mostly, that Joe could have done more, and had a responsibility to do more, to protect children. Not that he was a child molester, or approved of it – just that he didn’t do enough to stop it.
People say things others disagree with around here all the time without managing to get the vitriol in return that you do. There’s something different about the disagreements you get into and the disagreements other liberals and conservatives (etc) get into here at the SDMB.
That difference is, what you’re saying in these threads isn’t just something that people disagree with. What you’re saying, rather, is breathtakingly, almost frighteningly immoral. There is a natural reaction of disgust in reaction to such heinousness as you often post, as well as a desire to vigorously combat the evil you represent.
His interpretation is more like the Goldbug Rule.
You do realize you just pretty much confirmed what I said, right?
As an expert in the study of sociomoral reasoning once said to me, “It’s the Golden Rule backwards.” * By the way, most children grow out of this stage before adolescence.
- For the Starving Artists among you, the Golden Rule says that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Starving’s version is do unto others just as they have done unto you. This is reciprocity, and exemplifies the pragmatic exchanges of stage 2 moral development. It is what kids move into as they grow out of the entirely authority-driven morality of stage 1.
But the fact that Starving Artist shows stunted moral development will come as a surprise to absolutely nobody.
You do realize you started the thread in question yourself, right? There was no “joining in” happening.
It’s OK if you don’t realize that, BTW, I understand how it must be…
He’s a master troll. Look at all the shit he’s stirred up just in this thread. We are all the worse for falling for it, again and again and again. He’s nothing more than a construct. Stop feeding him, especially after midnight!
So, you’re saying he’s a master baiter?
One of the best there is!
This exactly.
Yup. He’s basically FXM with a slightly different political outlook, but they use the exact same tactics to keep people coming back for more. I’ve never understood why people continue to try and engage either of them at all.
Frequent Decrier miles.
Yeah, that’s the way I’ve always heard it, too. Was just wondering if there was some other version of it that I was unaware of.
That’s version 1.0. The updated 2.0 is “The guy who’s got the gold, make the rules.”
They say if you stand in front of a mirror and say his name three times, he’ll appear behind you wearing nothing but a Penn State crop top, wielding a paper towel tube.
…and end up that way, too.