We need more of this in Canada!

[ScottSA]

Oh, Scott has read plenty of books, is very intelligent, and a fine debater. However, like many smart dogmatics on these forums, he either chooses to ignore the contradictions in his own philosophy, or he just refuses to acknowledge them on these pages.

The most blatant of these contradictions, which took me several years to discover, occurs in those who absolutely despise emotional arguments and emotionality in general. ( I think Scott would admit that he fits the bill here. ) Such people hold a Spock-like devotion to 'logic'. Yet, any logical person would find at least a few contradictions in those patently stupid bodies of thought that are 'party platforms'. And this never seems to happen. The reason for this gap is that the dogmatic person's philosophies are not based on reason, but on emotion. In this case, it is the subject's absolute hatred for the hippie bogeyman.

The best you can hope to do with such people is to get a non-response. That indicates that they have given up the fight. And the best way to debate with Scott is to point out the lack of reason and the emotionality in his arguments when you catch it.

Best of luck, I'm six years ahead of you and I don't think I've seen a point conceded even once. Lately, I've been accused of being a mushy middle-of-the-road type. Hmmmmm.

I've conceded plenty of points Mikey, as you well know. It'd just that it's been awhile since I've been wrong, as you also know. That's why I have a forum and you...well...we need say no more, eh wot? You haven't been accused of being a mushy middle of the road type LATELY Mikey, you live your klive in the middle of the road and get run over frequently because of it. But that's neither here nor there really, is it?

As for adopting a party platform, it's really quite simple...I adopt, as do most people...the party that best represents my politics. In this case it's the Conservatives, although I'm quite sure they'd make the sign of the cross and start wearing garlic if I showed up on their doorstep, since as far as I know they haven't decided to deport Muslims en masse. Yet. But that aside, there would be no point in allying with a political party and then parsing through its policies in a political forum full of the sort of intellect found in the fellow in the post above you, would there? I mean, it would just sound wishy washy, wouldn't it? I speak like an academic when I speak with academics, and when I speak to fools, I speak like a...no wait...I speak slowly with a few more rough edges. That's what I do. In any event it has nothing to do with emotionality, nor Spock-like devotion to logic. I just appeal to logic more than some people, like the emotive fool in the post...well, never mind, I've been reported enough by little cheerleaders tonight.

[Charles Anthony]

This thread is degrading. Stop the insults and stop returning insults.

When you encounter an insult or any forum violation, just report it and ignore it after that. Do not feed the flames by returning insults.

[ScottSA]

This thread is degrading. Stop the insults and stop returning insults.

When you encounter an insult or any forum violation, just report it and ignore it after that. Do not feed the flames by returning insults.

I'm surprised you were able to find the thread amongst all the spam.

[Higgly]

This thread is degrading. Stop the insults and stop returning insults.

When you encounter an insult or any forum violation, just report it and ignore it after that. Do not feed the flames by returning insults.

I did report it. People have been suspended for less name-calling than ScottSA has particpated in here. I see some of it has been expunged, but ScottSA is still here. I referred to Jim Flaherty as a fibber, and you told me to change it. What am I missing here?