Open Apology To Eilzel

I have come to understand a few things of late and one of them was in how I have poorly treated you in debate on this forum

Yes we may not agree on certain political issues and its always going to be wrong. If I attack you as an individual and a person based on your beliefs. Even if I think you are misguided about the current Labour party. Then I have failed here in understand and rational discourse

The reality is this. I do see them as a threat to the stability of this country. I also believe they are institutionally antisemtic, based on their obsession with Israel and by extentions Jewish people who support Zionism. Which truth being told has been made out by some of the left to stand for racism and Jewish supremacy. Sorry I draw the line on this and its intent has one purpose, to view Jews as evil and hateful

Having said that. Your views to back Labour come off economic reasoning. You place a view first on this and its not for me to question what loyalties you have here on what is important to you. As that would make me as bad as people claiming dual loyalties of Jews

Hence for that I am sorry and apologise

I should have not allowed my passions to run away with me

I should have simple reasoned my point on why I think Corbyn is a bad idea for this country without allowing my passions to interfere with my respect for you as a person

Personally I still believe you fail to see the dangers here, but its wrong to have castigated you as I have for the last week

One thing I have learnt is this. Its drawing me into a situation of polarisation , which I wish to not be a part of and have been arguing against in regards to how Labour has failed in tackling antisemitism. It has made me become intolerant to your views. When I would have been better placed to simple reason why I think your views fail to see the dangers here

My views has always been about protecting the rights of people and yet of late under Corbyn. This has allowed the normalisation of antisemitism in this country. You may not wish to believe this and your heart is in the right place mate. Hence why I was wromng to attack you for holding beliefs in a party. Even when i disagree. As it made me the very thing I did not want to be. Prejudiced and bigoted against you

For that I am sorry

All the best

You needn't apologise, didge. This is a debate forum and sometimes things get heated. I'm sure we'll cross swords again some time and similar words will be said, by both perhaps. I don't hold it against you or anyone.

I tend to think your heart is in the right place too, even when we completely disagree on something lol

So you needn't go to this length to apologise, or apologise at all, but I appreciate the consideration anyway ,so thanks

Eilzel wrote:You needn't apologise, didge. This is a debate forum and sometimes things get heated. I'm sure we'll cross swords again some time and similar words will be said, by both perhaps. I don't hold it against you or anyone.

I tend to think your heart is in the right place too, even when we completely disagree on something lol

So you needn't go to this length to apologise, or apologise at all, but I appreciate the consideration anyway ,so thanks  

To me its important and you have been a friend for many years and I did forsake this. Due to me allowing my passions to get the better of me

Hence my apology

I just wanted to apologise and admit to being wrong in how I was towards you. As I have been a complete dickhead towards you

Its me reognising I was a dick

Hence sorry mate

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:You needn't apologise, didge. This is a debate forum and sometimes things get heated. I'm sure we'll cross swords again some time and similar words will be said, by both perhaps. I don't hold it against you or anyone.

I tend to think your heart is in the right place too, even when we completely disagree on something lol

So you needn't go to this length to apologise, or apologise at all, but I appreciate the consideration anyway ,so thanks  

To me its important and you have been a friend for many years and I did forsake this. Due to me allowing my passions to get the better of me

Hence my apology

I just wanted to apologise and admit to being wrong in how I was towards you. As I have been a complete dickhead towards you

Its me reognising I was a dick

Hence sorry mate

Fair play mate, here's to kinder exchanges moving forward

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

To me its important and you have been a friend for many years and I did forsake this. Due to me allowing my passions to get the better of me

Hence my apology

I just wanted to apologise and admit to being wrong in how I was towards you. As I have been a complete dickhead towards you

Its me reognising I was a dick

Hence sorry mate

Fair play mate, here's to kinder exchanges moving forward

+1

What people have to realise is this: anger in a debate must come from something other than the other person not agreeing with you. I’ve never understood getting so angry in a debate. It doesn’t make sense.

How can one get angry because someone else has a different view? It’s like saying “My view is so right therefore anyone else’s opposing view is stupid”

Is it a trigger? Is it ego? Whatever it is, it isn’t healthy.

eddie wrote:What people have to realise is this: anger in a debate must come from something other than the other person not agreeing with you. I’ve never understood getting so angry in a debate. It doesn’t make sense.

How can one get angry because someone else has a different view? It’s like saying “My view is so right therefore anyone else’s opposing view is stupid”

Is it a trigger? Is it ego? Whatever it is, it isn’t healthy.

It's exactly what you said: “My view is so right therefore anyone else’s opposing view is stupid”


People who get angry in debates believe this.

eddie wrote:What people have to realise is this: anger in a debate must come from something other than the other person not agreeing with you. I’ve never understood getting so angry in a debate. It doesn’t make sense.

How can one get angry because someone else has a different view? It’s like saying “My view is so right therefore anyone else’s opposing view is stupid”

Is it a trigger? Is it ego? Whatever it is, it isn’t healthy.

People often get angry in debate over ad hominems, not because their position is challenged, although that happens too.

Then there is the whole "you're entitled to you're own opinions, but not you're own beliefs".

Two and two is four, yet there are people that would like to prove it equals something else.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:What people have to realise is this: anger in a debate must come from something other than the other person not agreeing with you. I’ve never understood getting so angry in a debate. It doesn’t make sense.

How can one get angry because someone else has a different view? It’s like saying “My view is so right therefore anyone else’s opposing view is stupid”

Is it a trigger? Is it ego? Whatever it is, it isn’t healthy.

People often get angry in debate over ad hominems, not because their position is challenged, although that happens too.

Then there is the whole "you're entitled to you're own opinions, but not you're own beliefs".

Two and two is four, yet there are people that would like to prove it equals something else.

I think the biggest problem with debate these days is that some people feel they're entitled to their own facts.

You can't have a proper debate if you don't even agree on what the facts are, IMOSHO.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

People often get angry in debate over ad hominems, not because their position is challenged, although that happens too.

Then there is the whole "you're entitled to you're own opinions, but not you're own beliefs".

Two and two is four, yet there are people that would like to prove it equals something else.

I think the biggest problem with debate these days is that some people feel they're entitled to their own facts.

You can't have a proper debate if you don't even agree on what the facts are, IMOSHO.

I meant facts instead of beliefs. You are correct.

But!

What are facts? The problem is, no one accepts the opposing “facts” because they think their “facts” are correct.

And really. Nobody knows if facts are correct because it all depends upon which “facts” you believe....

See?

eddie wrote:But!

What are facts? The problem is, no one accepts the opposing “facts” because they think their “facts” are correct.

And really. Nobody knows if facts are correct because it all depends upon which “facts” you believe....

See?

What is 2 + 2 ?

Maddog, we are talking MANY “facts” that aren’t maths.

Come on. Try harder.

eddie wrote:Maddog, we are talking MANY “facts” that aren’t maths.  

Come on. Try harder.

OK, does implicit bias exist?

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Maddog, we are talking MANY “facts” that aren’t maths.  

Come on. Try harder.

OK, does implicit bias exist?

Explain.

eddie wrote:But!

What are facts? The problem is, no one accepts the opposing “facts” because they think their “facts” are correct.

And really. Nobody knows if facts are correct because it all depends upon which “facts” you believe....

See?

lol Alternate facts?

What alternate facts?

Facts are facts, there is no alternate to this. Otherwise they would not be a fact

Doh

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:What people have to realise is this: anger in a debate must come from something other than the other person not agreeing with you. I’ve never understood getting so angry in a debate. It doesn’t make sense.

How can one get angry because someone else has a different view? It’s like saying “My view is so right therefore anyone else’s opposing view is stupid”

Is it a trigger? Is it ego? Whatever it is, it isn’t healthy.

People often get angry in debate over ad hominems, not because their position is challenged, although that happens too.

Then there is the whole "you're entitled to you're own opinions, but not you're own beliefs".

Two and two is four, yet there are people that would like to prove it equals something else.

" 'Opinions' are like arseholes --  everybody has one !"

Some people on forums and in informal discussions these days often attempt to justify their more ignorant  and stupid beliefs with the the insipid "my opinion is worth as much as your opinion" bullshit argument.. 

That is simply not correct, nor rational ==   a wrong opinion, based on ignorance, misunderstanding, religious 'faith', political bias, etc. is not equal to a rational opinion based on facts, experience and replicaple 'proofs'...

As shown by some of the more ridiculous 'dogmatic' drivel that we see the likes of you and Dodge using to back your arguments on here..

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

OK, does implicit bias exist?

Explain.

It's just a question? Nothing to explain.

I would say it's existence is a fact. I would say that most social scientists would say it's a fact.

Maybe some folks would say it doesn't exist. The general consensus would be they are wrong. I think facts can be implied to be correct through a general consensus of people trained to understand a certain topic.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Explain.

It's just a question? Nothing to explain.

I would say it's existence is a fact. I would say that most social scientists would say it's a fact.

Maybe some folks would say it doesn't exist. The general consensus would be they are wrong. I think facts can be implied to be correct through a general consensus of people trained to understand a certain topic.

Or to put in plain English

Eddie simple does not understand what a fact is

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:What people have to realise is this: anger in a debate must come from something other than the other person not agreeing with you. I’ve never understood getting so angry in a debate. It doesn’t make sense.

How can one get angry because someone else has a different view? It’s like saying “My view is so right therefore anyone else’s opposing view is stupid”

Is it a trigger? Is it ego? Whatever it is, it isn’t healthy.

People often get angry in debate over ad hominems, not because their position is challenged, although that happens too.

Then there is the whole "you're entitled to you're own opinions, but not you're own beliefs".

Two and two is four, yet there are people that would like to prove it equals something else.

" 'Opinions' are like arseholes --  everybody has one !"

Some people on forums and in informal discussions these days often attempt to justify their more ignorant  and stupid beliefs with the the insipid "my opinion is worth as much as your opinion" bullshit argument.. 

That is simply not correct, nor rational ==   a wrong opinion, based on ignorance, misunderstanding, religious 'faith', political bias, etc. is not equal to a rational opinion based on facts, experience and replicaple 'proofs'...

As shown by some of the more ridiculous 'dogmatic' drivel that we see the likes of you and Dodge using to back your arguments on here..

which of course can only be used where the facts experience and above all replicable truths are a matter of proveable study and amenable to a rigourous investigation. It cannot be applied where things like politics or even psychology is concerned since by their very nature they are for the moment unfathomable

for instance there is NO evidence that socialism works, indeed the body of subjective evidence is that in general it does not and that capitalist countries do best, both in terms of GDP and citizen happiness. however note that word...subjective
It is even argueable that the feudal system worked and worked well for all its participants PROVIDED that the lord for whom you worked was a decent sort (granted many were not, but considering the normans were keeping down a distinctly unfriendly saxon population thats not surprising).

consider a GOOD lord would have provision for his serfs for the winter, would look after them and that for those fortunate to work for such life wasnt continuous hard labour for the lord...It is known that in many cases, when a villein (NOT villain) had finished the task the manor steward had set him , he had done for the day, and would then have the rest of the day for his own affairs, (often the ale house)........
whilst not great since it involved no real freedom for the most people it still WORKED.....certainly no worse than many "socialist" countries do today.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:But!

What are facts? The problem is, no one accepts the opposing “facts” because they think their “facts” are correct.

And really. Nobody knows if facts are correct because it all depends upon which “facts” you believe....

See?

lol Alternate facts?

What alternate facts?

Facts are facts, there is no alternate to this. Otherwise they would not be a fact

Doh

Have you ever tried to analyse and "reverse engineer" that ridiculous internet creation "alternate facts", based off Kellyanne Conway's inbred and arrogant phrase "alternative facts",  Dodge  ?

The term itself is a complete nonsense..

The verb "alternate"  means to switch between two opposite states --  e.g.  on and off, in and out, positive and negative, up and down, hot and cold;  while as an adverb it means possessing two opposing conditions, as in AC current, and off/on switches --  it doesn't mean "alternative".

A "fact" is a proven thing, not an opinion, not a throwaway comment, not a simple matter of faith..

Ms Conway's original "alternative facts" comment itself seemingly makes the claim that any lie that somebody pushes might simply be considered as an "alternative" fact --  as if any lie, opinion or fallacy can be used as an alternative to the truth, merely at one's whim...

Thorin wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Explain.

It's just a question? Nothing to explain.

I would say it's existence is a fact. I would say that most social scientists would say it's a fact.

Maybe some folks would say it doesn't exist. The general consensus would be they are wrong. I think facts can be implied to be correct through a general consensus of people trained to understand a certain topic.

Or to put in plain English

Eddie simple does not understand what a fact is

I know there are some facts that remain, like we need oxygen to breathe and 2+2 equals 4

Etc etc.

I’m taking about the facts that you lot claim are facts but may not be facts. If you don’t know what I mean then you haven’t learned from your apology to Les.
Think about it.

'Wolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


lol Alternate facts?

What alternate facts?

Facts are facts, there is no alternate to this. Otherwise they would not be a fact

Doh

Have you ever tried to analyse and "reverse engineer" that ridiculous internet creation "alternate facts", based off Kellyanne Conway's inbred and arrogant phrase "alternative facts",  Dodge  ?

The term itself is a complete nonsense..

The verb "alternate"  means to switch between two opposite states --  e.g.  on and off, in and out, positive and negative, up and down, hot and cold;  while as an adverb it means possessing two opposing conditions, as in AC current, and off/on switches --  it doesn't mean "alternative".

A "fact" is a proven thing, not an opinion, not a throwaway comment, not a simple matter of faith..

Ms Conway's original "alternative facts" comment itself seemingly makes the claim that any lie that somebody pushes might simply be considered as an "alternative" fact --  as if any lie, opinion or fallacy can be used as an alternative to the truth, merely at one's whim...

I know its at times like this when I cringe at the cewrtain things Eddie says 

I think you’re confusing opinion with facts.

You need to understand what I mean otherwise you’ll be apologising again, very soon.

Thorin wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


lol Alternate facts?

What alternate facts?

Facts are facts, there is no alternate to this. Otherwise they would not be a fact

Doh

Have you ever tried to analyse and "reverse engineer" that ridiculous internet creation "alternate facts", based off Kellyanne Conway's inbred and arrogant phrase "alternative facts",  Dodge  ?

The term itself is a complete nonsense..

The verb "alternate"  means to switch between two opposite states --  e.g.  on and off, in and out, positive and negative, up and down, hot and cold;  while as an adverb it means possessing two opposing conditions, as in AC current, and off/on switches --  it doesn't mean "alternative".

A "fact" is a proven thing, not an opinion, not a throwaway comment, not a simple matter of faith..

Ms Conway's original "alternative facts" comment itself seemingly makes the claim that any lie that somebody pushes might simply be considered as an "alternative" fact --  as if any lie, opinion or fallacy can be used as an alternative to the truth, merely at one's whim...

I know its at times like this when I cringe at the cewrtain things Eddie says 

Probably because her points go flying so far over your head.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Or to put in plain English

Eddie simple does not understand what a fact is

I know there are some facts that remain, like we need oxygen to breathe and 2+2 equals 4

Etc etc.

I’m taking about the facts that you lot claim are facts but may not be facts. If you don’t know what I mean then you haven’t learned from your apology to Les.
Think about it.

lol, you are not grasping this are you Eddie

A fact is a fact

There is no alternative

You think that makes me not learn from my apology?

No it means you do not understand what this means

So yes please think about this, because a fact is a fact

What you should have said is some things people take as fact are not facts at all

An example of this is where someone claims its a fact they are the best at something. Its a subjective claim and thus not a fact

See how this works

Doh

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I know its at times like this when I cringe at the cewrtain things Eddie says 

Probably because her points go flying so far over your head.

Or she simple cannot grasp what the term fact means

Maybe you cannot either if you are defending her poor point here

So when you read an article and claim it as a fact, and someone says that their article is a “fact”....which of you is correct?

Trouble with you is, that you cannot see the subtleties of a post.

I’m not explaining that again. Try to grasp what I’m trying to say.

eddie wrote:So when you read an article and claim it as a fact, and someone says that their article is a “fact”....which of you is correct?

Trouble with you is, that you cannot see the subtleties of a post.

I’m not explaining that again. Try to grasp what I’m trying to say.

I am trying so hard not to laugh, but I simple cannot stop myself from doing so with your first sentence.

You need to read that back to yourself Eddie 

Again a fact is a fact

Sometimes people will claim something is a fact, when its not and is simple a claim

Two different things altogether

Now you claimed alternate facts

There is no such thing as alternate facts

Stop trying to worm your way out of what is quite litterally a stupid claim you made

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I know its at times like this when I cringe at the cewrtain things Eddie says 

Probably because her points go flying so far over your head.

Or she simple cannot grasp what the term fact means

Maybe you cannot either if you are defending her poor point here

Your entire apology, and the reason you needed to apologize, is because you treated something as a fact that actually wasn't a fact. As eddie already pointed out.

“Sometimes people will claim something is a fact, when its not and is simple a claim”

Says who?
You???

You just rather proved my point.

Namaste. You’ll get it one day.

eddie wrote:“Sometimes people will claim something is a fact, when its not and is simple a claim”

Says who?
You???

You just rather proved my point.

Namaste. You’ll get it one day.

I dont need to get anything here Eddie

You made a false claim

Saying alternate facts

There is no usch thing

As a fact is a fact

So no point proven other, than you not wanting to be shown to be wrong here

Maybe one day you will get that lol 

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Or she simple cannot grasp what the term fact means

Maybe you cannot either if you are defending her poor point here

Your entire apology, and the reason you needed to apologize, is because you treated something as a fact that actually wasn't a fact. As eddie already pointed out.

Wrong on so many levels. I got angry, because I could not believe someone I respected was to me not taking seriously the way British Jews were feeling in regards to the Labour party

Maybe you need to read my apology again

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Or she simple cannot grasp what the term fact means

Maybe you cannot either if you are defending her poor point here

Your entire apology, and the reason you needed to apologize, is because you treated something as a fact that actually wasn't a fact. As eddie already pointed out.

Wrong on so many levels. I got angry, because I could not believe someone I respected was to me not taking seriously the way British Jews were feeling in regards to the Labour party

Maybe you need to read my apology again

Perhaps he had read different facts to you?

Just sayin.

Okay got nothing new to offer so I bid you farewell.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Wrong on so many levels. I got angry, because I could not believe someone I respected was to me not taking seriously the way British Jews were feeling in regards to the Labour party

Maybe you need to read my apology again

Perhaps he had read different facts to you?

Just sayin.

Okay got nothing see to offer so I bid you farewell.

Yeah thanks for you and ben shitting all over my apology and failing to even grasp what does matter to me

It had nothing to do with facts or claims to facts

So thanks to the pair of you here for ruining this

Should’ve PM’d him then. Why make a post about it?

Grow up didge. No one pissed on your birthday cake mate.

eddie wrote:Should’ve PM’d him then. Why make a post about it?

Grow up didge. No one pissed on your birthday cake mate.

Because sometimes its important to openly admit when wrong

Sorry do I now have to follow the Eddie rule book on life or can I not make my pown decisions in life?

This was an apology

You had to make it about your beliefs instead

I thought the adult thing to do here was apologise, where I felt I had wronged Eilzel

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Should’ve PM’d him then. Why make a post about it?

Grow up didge. No one pissed on your birthday cake mate.

Because sometimes its important to openly admit when wrong

Sorry do I now have to follow the Eddie rule book on life or can I not make my pown decisions in life?

This was an apology

You had to make it about your beliefs instead

I thought the adult thing to do here was apologise, where I felt I had wronged Eilzel

Sorry do I have to not reply on a thread because you don’t like it?
Is this your “rule book”?


Glad you apologised, good for you, (is that the sort of validation you were looking for?), but don’t whinge when someone comments...isn’t that what PMs are for?

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Because sometimes its important to openly admit when wrong

Sorry do I now have to follow the Eddie rule book on life or can I not make my pown decisions in life?

This was an apology

You had to make it about your beliefs instead

I thought the adult thing to do here was apologise, where I felt I had wronged Eilzel

Sorry do I have to not reply on a thread because you don’t like it?
Is this your “rule book”?


Glad you apologised, good for you, (is that the sort of validation you were looking for?), but don’t whinge when someone comments...isn’t that what PMs are for?

You can reply all you like

Not looking for your validation here

Again this is what I thought would be nice to do and it was for eilzel

When you and Ben make threads about yourselves is this now wrong?

Can I come and shit all over them for you each when you open your hearts to us all about your lives?

If you want to?

I've two memes which reflect the attitude of people who are too insistent that their opinion is the only one which counts. I sometimes use them in my sig:

One is: 'Be reasonable, do things MY way'
The other is: 'Everyone is entitled to the benefit of MY opinion'  

….  

That post isn't aimed at anyone on here btw !!

On a more serious note i'm very laid back when it comes to people opposing my opinion. I'm ALWAYS the first to capitulate if I'm in an argument that drags on for too long.


I sometimes say to the argumentative person - "go on, have the last word, you need it more than I do" and then walk away.

JulesV wrote:I've two memes which reflect the attitude of people who are too insistent that their opinion is the only one which counts. I sometimes use them in my sig:

One is: 'Be reasonable, do things MY way'
The other is: 'Everyone is entitled to the benefit of MY opinion'  

….  

Sounds like my partner.......

JulesV wrote:That post isn't aimed at anyone on here btw !!

On a more serious note i'm very laid back when it comes to people opposing my opinion. I'm ALWAYS the first to capitulate if I'm in an argument that drags on for too long.


I sometimes say to the argumentative person - "go on, have the last word, you need it more than I do"  and then walk away.

Yeah I’m like that too. I get bored of repeating myself.