Are you truly fair about people you don't like?

First topic message reminder :

Two examples I want to bring up:

I once saw a quote attributed to Trump where he was supposed to have said something like, "The US system of checks and balances is outdated and dangerous, and probably needs to be abolished."

I looked it up and it was more like, "the US system of checks and balances is important, but there are some rules, like the rules in the Senate in particular, that are outdated and dangerous and probably need to be abolished."

I had to correct the original post. Trump is bad enough; no need to lie about the bad stuff he's said.

My other example is edds with her ex. Now, edds [who, totally off the topic, is hotter than Scarlett Johansson and wittier than Dorothy Parker] will never hold back as to the bad things her ex did and still does, but she will also point out his good qualities and be really fair to him.

Shouldn't we all treat even the people we can't stand with basic fairness? Do you find yourself not trusting somebody who says someone they don't like is rotten to the core?

Angry Andy wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:I hate this bloody weather. Too hot and dry or too bloody wet and windy. Teeing off for 18 holes in an hour. Wet gear packed. Testing elements.

Well that was effing wet!
Even my sheddies were soaked.
Played quite well again, certainly even in the rain , playing golf is a bunch more enjoyable than reading Didge's latest smears against Corbyn, Labour, Veya,  Wolfie and me..
Now for some catching up.

Well this is a reading by what i class someone who had too many beers at golf

I never dished Wolf, labour, you or Corbyn tonight

I questioned Veyas views, but this is how you play andy

You wish to poorly lie, in the hope people will buy a lie

So who is really being honest here ?

Like i say, i actually would vote labour over the tories, if they took control of the party over the far left

The one thing you constantly do is be negative towards posters you do not like

You are a glowing example of what ben is talking about

So you are saying I am pissed, and a drink driver after a round of golf and too many ales on the 19th green?

I had a hot Cappachino to warm up.
And I don't post when I havl been drinking, unlike some.

Angry Andy wrote:So you are saying I am pissed, and a drink driver after a round of golf and too many ales on the 19th green?

I had a hot Cappachino to warm up.
And I don't post when I havl been drinking, unlike some.

Quite possible, when you make a false claim.

What am I to decide when I never made any of the claims you stated in my posts tonight

Hvaing a cappachino is having a drink, is it not

I guess the sugar rush is the guilty party for your hallucinations here then?

Or are you going to take responsibility for your lies?

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Two examples I want to bring up:

I once saw a quote attributed to Trump where he was supposed to have said something like, "The US system of checks and balances is outdated and dangerous, and probably needs to be abolished."

I looked it up and it was more like, "the US system of checks and balances is important, but there are some rules, like the rules in the Senate in particular, that are outdated and dangerous and probably need to be abolished."

I had to correct the original post. Trump is bad enough; no need to lie about the bad stuff he's said.

My other example is edds with her ex. Now, edds [who, totally off the topic, is hotter than Scarlett Johansson and wittier than Dorothy Parker] will never hold back as to the bad things her ex did and still does, but she will also point out his good qualities and be really fair to him.

Shouldn't we all treat even the people we can't stand with basic fairness? Do you find yourself not trusting somebody who says someone they don't like is rotten to the core?

Well, firstly it depends WHY I don't like them.

If they did something really nasty to me or someone I love, I'd have a hard time of it honestly. Also, and I don't care if people think I priorotise gay issues here, but I'd find it very difficult to be fair to someone who actively hated on gay people (not just opposed marriage equality but full on hang em high homophobe).


do you even know of any people who are actually really HATE (very strong word) gay people, though les? the whole reason homosexuality was decriminalised and then became an equal relationship in every way is because the vast majority of people DONT hate gay people, and wanted them to be equal no?

That said, if we had a falling out or disagreed politically then I will still be fair. 2 examples: I did not finish my previous job on the best terms, and had a big argument with my boss, who could be a tool a lot of the time. But in many ways he was a good boss and I will say so to people.

yes, I'm the same. I might dislike someone for whatever reason but that doesn't mean I cant see their good points also

A more well known example is conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. The guy has views I loathe (on abortion, religion, trans people, gay marriage, and most seriously on economics) however, he puts his views across very well, never gets riled, and is the ONLY person to ever present the pro-life argument in a way that has made me question my own beliefs on the matter (I'm still pro-choice, but would no longer make any claims to it being not immoral whatsoever).

that's exactly how I feel about his pro-life argument les. He certainly gives me food for thought

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Well, firstly it depends WHY I don't like them.

If they did something really nasty to me or someone I love, I'd have a hard time of it honestly. Also, and I don't care if people think I priorotise gay issues here, but I'd find it very difficult to be fair to someone who actively hated on gay people (not just opposed marriage equality but full on hang em high homophobe).


do you even know of any people who are actually really HATE (very strong word) gay people, though les?  the whole reason homosexuality was decriminalised and then became an equal relationship in every way is because the vast majority of people DONT hate gay people, and wanted them to be equal no?

That said, if we had a falling out or disagreed politically then I will still be fair. 2 examples: I did not finish my previous job on the best terms, and had a big argument with my boss, who could be a tool a lot of the time. But in many ways he was a good boss and I will say so to people.

yes, I'm the same.  I might dislike someone for whatever reason but that doesn't mean I cant see their good points also

A more well known example is conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. The guy has views I loathe (on abortion, religion, trans people, gay marriage, and most seriously on economics) however, he puts his views across very well, never gets riled, and is the ONLY person to ever present the pro-life argument in a way that has made me question my own beliefs on the matter (I'm still pro-choice, but would no longer make any claims to it being not immoral whatsoever).

that's exactly how I feel about his pro-life argument les.  He certainly gives me food for thought

1) Yes Tommy

He claims they are abnormal.

How is that not hateful?

Does he apply that thinking to people with blue or amber eyes?

His view on homosexuality is so short sighter and is ignorant of history. Its aboyt how people stoud up and were counted to argue against Homosexuals being oppressed and this very recent

The reason they are not hated is because people sawe through the bullshity when people presented good arguments to show. Those agaisnt were indeed hateful and negative

Did you also question my point on his pro argument, with polar oppsoiutes Gelica

As that is what he hinges on his argument

The potential for life

How about the potential for death?

Now I watch Ben many times and think he is a great debator, but this argument has a polar opposite and which he ignores

It makes redundent his view on this

gelico wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:Two examples I want to bring up:

I once saw a quote attributed to Trump where he was supposed to have said something like, "The US system of checks and balances is outdated and dangerous, and probably needs to be abolished."

I looked it up and it was more like, "the US system of checks and balances is important, but there are some rules, like the rules in the Senate in particular, that are outdated and dangerous and probably need to be abolished."

I had to correct the original post. Trump is bad enough; no need to lie about the bad stuff he's said.

My other example is edds with her ex. Now, edds [who, totally off the topic, is hotter than Scarlett Johansson and wittier than Dorothy Parker] will never hold back as to the bad things her ex did and still does, but she will also point out his good qualities and be really fair to him.

Shouldn't we all treat even the people we can't stand with basic fairness? Do you find yourself not trusting somebody who says someone they don't like is rotten to the core?

Well, firstly it depends WHY I don't like them.

If they did something really nasty to me or someone I love, I'd have a hard time of it honestly. Also, and I don't care if people think I priorotise gay issues here, but I'd find it very difficult to be fair to someone who actively hated on gay people (not just opposed marriage equality but full on hang em high homophobe).


do you even know of any people who are actually really HATE (very strong word) gay people, though les?  the whole reason homosexuality was decriminalised and then became an equal relationship in every way is because the vast majority of people DONT hate gay people, and wanted them to be equal no?

That said, if we had a falling out or disagreed politically then I will still be fair. 2 examples: I did not finish my previous job on the best terms, and had a big argument with my boss, who could be a tool a lot of the time. But in many ways he was a good boss and I will say so to people.

yes, I'm the same.  I might dislike someone for whatever reason but that doesn't mean I cant see their good points also

A more well known example is conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. The guy has views I loathe (on abortion, religion, trans people, gay marriage, and most seriously on economics) however, he puts his views across very well, never gets riled, and is the ONLY person to ever present the pro-life argument in a way that has made me question my own beliefs on the matter (I'm still pro-choice, but would no longer make any claims to it being not immoral whatsoever).

that's exactly how I feel about his pro-life argument les.  He certainly gives me food for thought

We mostly agree on everything there so I'll just address the point on homophobes

Do I personally know any full gay hating people? No. Zero. A thank goodness for that, long may it continue!

Do they exist? Of course, it is clear whenever a pastor in the US or Africa calls for our execution, or an ISIS thug throws one of us off a roof

I have no interest in fairness for those people.

For the border types - those who'd take our rights away here or tell us we're abnormal, I can still be fair, but still dislike them enough to not care much for them.

^didge, I've never heard Shapiro talk on the times having the child might kill the mother; though I'd presume that may be the only occasion he'd accept it. Could be wrong, but don't think that one case breaks his argument otherwise.

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:


that's exactly how I feel about his pro-life argument les.  He certainly gives me food for thought

We mostly agree on everything there so I'll just address the point on homophobes

Do I personally know any full gay hating people? No. Zero. A thank goodness for that, long may it continue!

Do they exist? Of course, it is clear whenever a pastor in the US or Africa calls for our execution, or an ISIS thug throws one of us off a roof

I have no interest in fairness for those people.

For the border types - those who'd take our rights away here or tell us we're abnormal, I can still be fair, but still dislike them enough to not care much for them.

^didge, I've never heard Shapiro talk on the times having the child might kill the mother; though I'd presume that may be the only occasion he'd accept it. Could be wrong, but don't think that one case breaks his argument otherwise.

He makes the point constantly on the issue of the potential for life

Dont get me wrong and he makes the best ethical argument against abortion.

I dont think many have been able to challenge this.

My view is it is ethically wrong, but then he would never argue against the death of animal life

Ot its also a flawed argument on this, because its based on all life is valued and he would then have to be a vegan.

He is not a vegan

The reality is no fetus can survive up to a set number of weeks, without the host the mother.

Hence if the potential of life argument is used, then the potential of death can also counter this

To me, the mother is the one thst is able to carry that life and should never be forced to carry

Then we dont have to get into the fact who then is going to care for so many unwanted babbies

He makes good arguments, why its ridiculous that Ben, bans his media article

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:I can answer it.

Yes. I think I am truly fair about people I dislike, it has actually irritated Ben and others, at times, - perhaps that’s the reason he started the thread?

Anyway, I can be very detached when analysing someone (including myself) and I hate it, really hate it, when people refuse to see something good in someone they “dislike” and won’t admit it.
Take this forum.

Many dislike/disagree with Tommy for instance and would refuse to back him if he happened to say something they agreed with. Why?

“Because he’s RW!”
Or
“I just dont want to!”


It’s stupid. It stifles debate and it doesn’t help anyone find their truth.

I actually complimented him on a view he made the other day

And how many people avoided his point

I myself get frustrated with Tommy, when himself avoids points and have goaded badly at times

I have no hate for him and his views are on some issues miles apart from me and at times he does speak sense

At times he makes good points, but to me he also avoids points and issues loads

Its a hammer style type of debating with Tommy

Anyway, this is not about Tommy and why even after so many years we are still debating

I just wish Tommy, and you mind, held the same skeptical belief you have, onto conspiracies you buy into

Neither of you do

You buy into them verbatim

The reality  is, when do I shy away from debate with anyone?

I never do and even have changed my views, with people I once was at a time before at odds with

One of these people is Victor. He used to ban me on his forum loads and yet i can see when he does make sense

That is me listenning

I do not buy into anything, anything, verbatim.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

I actually complimented him on a view he made the other day

And how many people avoided his point

I myself get frustrated with Tommy, when himself avoids points and have goaded badly at times

I have no hate for him and his views are on some issues miles apart from me and at times he does speak sense

At times he makes good points, but to me he also avoids points and issues loads

Its a hammer style type of debating with Tommy

Anyway, this is not about Tommy and why even after so many years we are still debating

I just wish Tommy, and you mind, held the same skeptical belief you have, onto conspiracies you buy into

Neither of you do

You buy into them verbatim

The reality  is, when do I shy away from debate with anyone?

I never do and even have changed my views, with people I once was at a time before at odds with

One of these people is Victor. He used to ban me on his forum loads and yet i can see when he does make sense

That is me listenning

I do not buy into anything, anything, verbatim.

Really?

So do you not believe in spiritualism?

Conspircies?

Have you ever looked at them , as you would skepitically of things you do not believe?

Didge, I can tell you now, I don’t have a 100% belief in anything. The truth is fluid and so are humans.
To me, everything is subject to change. Everything.
Especially a belief or an opinion.

That is true, Didge. Edds will hear out most any counter argument.

eddie wrote:Didge, I can tell you now, I don’t have a 100% belief in anything. The truth is fluid and so are humans.
To me, everything is subject to change. Everything.
Especially a belief or an opinion.

How about 100% belief in your children and or yourself?

Not knocking, but its something we should all have about ourselves and those we love

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:That is true, Didge. Edds will hear out most any counter argument.

I am not denying that, but the reality is all people do hold some beliefs that they are dogmatic on

One example is Eddie's belief the Mccans killed their daughter

If i am wrong on that, even though she certainly has argued the case, i will happily apologise

Didge wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:That is true, Didge. Edds will hear out most any counter argument.

I am not denying that, but the reality is all people do hold some beliefs that they are dogmatic on

One example is Eddie's belief the Mccans killed their daughter

If i am wrong on that, even though she certainly has argued the case, i will happily apologise

That’s what I (almost) believe until I find something to make me change my mind.

Nothing is set in stone. Nothing. How can it be?

Ps I’m not about to enter into a debate on the McCanns. Just so you know.
I have to stay quiet regarding this matter, I’ve paid for speaking out about this in the past...trust me.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am not denying that, but the reality is all people do hold some beliefs that they are dogmatic on

One example is Eddie's belief the Mccans killed their daughter

If i am wrong on that, even though she certainly has argued the case, i will happily apologise

That’s what I (almost) believe until I find something to make me change my mind.

Nothing is set in stone. Nothing. How can it be?

Ps I’m not about to enter into a debate on the McCanns. Just so you know.
I have to stay quiet regarding this matter, I’ve paid for speaking out about this in the past...trust me.  

Kind of a copout reply

Its like saying someonne is almost a Catholic, until they might change their mind

When at this time, they will believe 100%, if religiously Catholic

Didge it’s not a copout. It’s the truth. I can’t help it.

eddie wrote:Didge it’s not a copout. It’s the truth. I can’t help it.

I disagree, where at the given time, people tend to be dogmatic on beliefs

You may well change your view and I have, being as I once was religious, but once certainly did believe