The Unanswered Thread

When you act like an asshole, I will call you as such.

You pretend to be the "nice guy" here, but you have been the dishonest one.

You first tried to detract from the ridiculous Media claims of "Attack on Christmas" with a "solution" that had nothing to do with the initial assertion, then you attacked me personally when I pointed that out...now, you continue to attack me.


Note, that I am pointing out facts.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
You are re-writing history. You posted your "solution" as if it addressed what I said, when it obviously didn't.

Your "solution" dealt with a problem I did not say existed, and do not feel exists.

The problem is MEDIA figures making the ridiculous claim, not individuals in everyday conversation.
Click to expand...

One more time... I posted what would be done in the companies as well, were my solution to be applied. Of course, they get to pick whatever signs they please, but it would be a different course than the generic solution.

Damocles said:
You would have many signs expressing each.
Click to expand...

I posted it in answer to this question...

Watermark said:
How is a generic sign in a store supposed to do that?


Maybe we should put sensors on the door, to detect the religion of the people walking in, and then change the sign appropriately. No need for a boycott then.


And Happy Holidays.
Click to expand...

Thank you for actually paying attention this time.
 
Your "solution" didn't deal with my statement, and was, in fact, an attempt to re-frame the argument.

it was never about how people, on the street, deal with each other, pertaining to the holidays.

It was about MEDIA claims.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Making a concession AFTER THE FACT, to APPEAR to be reasonable, doesn't make up for previous indiscretions.
Click to expand...
However, we are having a conversation. As you present more questions or assertions I answer them honestly. You however fail to even read my posts at all then assert that I haven't made them.

You are being deliberately obtuse.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Your "solution" didn't deal with my statement, and was, in fact, an attempt to re-frame the argument.

it was never about how people, on the street, deal with each other, pertaining to the holidays.

It was about MEDIA claims.
Click to expand...
And I answered that when you made some assertion. I later quoted it again, bolded it, and underlined the portions where we have agreement.

Again. I fail to see your need to argue in agreement. Instead I provide a solution that I think would actually deal with the issue in a compromise.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Your "compromise" deals with individuals dealing with one another. It does NOT even remotely address the PARTISAN BULLSHIT SPREAD BY THE MEDIA
Click to expand...
Again, disingenuous. My solution deals with all of it. Including the ability of the media to exacerbate the RR's assertions of their "feeling" excluded.
 
Media claims that Christmas is under attack. PERIOD. That is the topic. Your ridiculous attempts to re-frame the topic so as to draw attention away from the FACTS shows what a partisan scumbag you are.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
You still try to change the subject.
Click to expand...
LOL. Again with the disingenuous assertion that providing solutions is "changing the subject".

Your argument is so weak, you can even tell your desperate to appear better at this than you are! Geez man, you make it worse each time you do this.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Media claims that Christmas is under attack. PERIOD. That is the topic. Your ridiculous attempts to re-frame the topic so as to draw attention away from the FACTS shows what a partisan scumbag you are.
Click to expand...

1. Not all media claims that Christmas is under attack, religious right pundits do.

2. If all of the holidays were included in the signs there would be no excuse for the religious right to point to some "exclusion"

3. If there was no emotive "excuses" being propounded the religious right pundits would have no platform for continued complaints of a "war on Christmas".

4. All of this has been stated in this conversation, yet you refuse to treat it as a conversation. Instead you pretend that each post is made in a vacuum and that nothing can be propounded on in later posts. Then you actually don't even read the posts and then pretend that they weren't made while creating a strawman.

5. You are arguing in agreement as I have shown with the quoted post above, as well as the original post.

6. You do this when you are drunkenposting.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Let's try this, Damocles...


Is it a LIE when media pundits claim that "Christmas id Under Attack"?
Click to expand...
I already stated that I do not think that anybody is attacking Christmas. However it is an opinion. Just as it is their opinion that it is being attacked.

I have the opinion that they are creating an issue out of thin air to promote power in their community, but that doesn't negate the feelings of those they convince.

Therefore I offered an opinion of my own on what I'd like to see when you asked me what my "stance" was on the "War on Christmas".

My stance is:

I don't think there is a war on Christmas, and I don't think that people who complain about those who believe there is are any better really because the issue itself is a joke.
 
1) I OBVIOUSLY wasn't stating that ALL of the media was claiming that Christmas was under attack. Don't be pedantic.

2) How can you get ANY MORE INCLUSIVE than to say "Happy Holidays"? (Just to inform you, that means ANY POSSIBLE HOLIDAY)

3) The religious right pundits (that includes those who really couldn't care less about religion, but pander to the voting block) have NOTHING to reasonably complain about.

They are complaining because THEIR HOLIDAY ISN'T BEING GIVEN SPECIAL TREATMENT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top