The University of REBAWC

[j2k4]

I was not previously inclined to do this, but I am compelled to point out they don't care for free speech there either, though this ideological intolerance is utterly unacknowledged.

I do not regard this sentiment as particularly inflammatory, and frankly don't feel Alan should be offended enough by this post to delete it or complain about it.

However, this isn't my board, and my presence here is subject to his whim, so.

FWIW, I wasn't the only member banned from REBAWC.

[B-Man]

The ramblings of a mad-man.

[j2k4]

What they say, yes.

[futurevr4man]

You're being petty

[j2k4]

Says you.

I'm just stating cases, Gnate.

[futurevr4man]

You're arguing to argue. Some don't want that.

You're also very one-sided in your arguments which is off-putting. I admire that you're steadfast in your convictions, however, you have to acknowledge the other sides points as well if you want to sway an opinion.

[j2k4]

You're arguing to argue.

No I am not.

Some don't want that.

Then they shouldn't attend, should they?

I confine my (political) arguments to the appropriate sections, and anyone who objects is free to ignore me - as I assume you have been doing, apolitical as you seem to be.

I am a model of decorum everywhere else...am I not?

You're also very one-sided in your arguments which is off-putting. I admire that you're steadfast in your convictions, however, you have to acknowledge the other sides points as well if you want to sway an opinion.

I don't believe in advancing illogical/wrong-headed arguments - if you take that to mean I always think I'm right, that would be correct...or do you think I ought to argue wrongly or stupidly, just to be, what...fair?

Would doing so make sense?

Do you even know anyone who would do that?

If the opposition makes a sensible point I have not thought of, I freely acknowledge it - I am not perfect.

If I choose to argue against what someone else believes to be a relevant/legitimate/worthy point, because I think they are wrong, what of that?

People who lose arguments are - I assume you've noticed this, in your adult life - not inclined to acknowledge the fact, and this often manifests in ill-feelings.

And you know all of this already, so why should I have to tell you?

[futurevr4man]

Arguing politics is arguing opinions most of the time. You can pound the facts about the other side, but the underlying theme in what you're arguing is an opinion that one way of doing things is better than the other.

There are certainly some ways of doing things that make no sense. Healthcare for instance should not be a bunch of dudes who work privately out of their own basement. But to say whether it should be free for all, or a privatized institution becomes a little more opinion based than fact based. There are pros and cons of each.

Point being, you are arguing your opinion just to argue. If you're not (as you said you weren't just above), then what's the purpose? You're being so selfless as to teach people the error of their ways? Because it makes you feel good? I just don't get it.

[j2k4]

That last bit indicates you're onto something, but I'm getting ready to adjourn for the day.

I will post further later...prepare to be enlightened.

[j2k4]

Arguing politics is arguing opinions most of the time.

Arguing ideological opinion has no worth?

Ooookaaaaaaaaaay...

You can pound the facts about the other side, but the underlying theme in what you're arguing is an opinion that one way of doing things is better than the other.

It generally is, and, generally-speaking, it is universally true.

What's your point?

There are certainly some ways of doing things that make no sense.

Really?

Anything wrong with pointing that out?

Healthcare for instance should not be a bunch of dudes who work privately out of their own basement.

Stricken for lack of clarity.

But to say whether it should be free for all, or a privatized institution becomes a little more opinion based than fact based.

Yes, yes, aaaaaand NO.

There is abundant factage available to support private over public.

Do some homework.

There are pros and cons of each.

Any stupid person knows that; why are you mentioning it?

Also, to put a point on it, what there actually are, are possibilites and impossibilities.

To use your example of healthcare, I wish, when I am in a hopeful mood, our country could, strictly as a matter of generosity, the type of which the United States would like to be known for, provide free health care to our citizens - especially the legal ones.

Alas...we cannot afford that, much less for all who wander in uninvited.

Here's another surprise - I will say here and now, communism is the greatest system ever ideated by humans, but history shows us that it fails every time humans try to make it work.

Then, there's the problem of it's incompatibility with the uniquely/severely flawed capitalism and freedom which emanate from the Founders efforts.

Absurdly, it happens to make the greatest sense when practiced by humans - you tell ME why, if you want to argue about something.

Point being, you are arguing your opinion just to argue.

Again, wrong.

I do what I do because it needs done.

An engineer should know how it works, especially you, as you're currently fighting your work-space...like the rest us.

It never stops, troo story.

If you're not (as you said you weren't just above), then what's the purpose?

See above.

You're being so selfless as to teach people the error of their ways?

See?

You didn't want to say it because you didn't think I'd cop to it?

Because it makes you feel good?

It helps me sleep.

I just don't get it.

If you don't get it gnow, you gnever will, gnumb-gnuts.

Anyway, I need you to listen and hear me the first time, because I don't have the patience to do this^ at work, and when I'm at home, I have to eat and drink and shit and stuff.