|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I really don't know what you're talking about here. You seem to like to get into 'debates' with people where you pick some pedantic point about something they say and try to make an issue out of it while completely ignoring the bigger message they're trying to get across. Then you get all snarky when they find that annoying. Well sorry I'm not interested in your definition of whatever you fuck you were trying to argue about.
I'm trying to learn from what you are telling me, but when the foundation of your point is nonsense, then I see no merit to the greater structure of your point.
Specifically:
You brought up the question of ignoring laws. I pointed out that it doesn't serve your argument because there are many examples of laws which we ignore.
If you think it's a bad point, then I agree, which is why I asked you, in the light of the fact that you've made a bad argument, what good argument would you prefer to make?
You then say sitting and talking cause a conflict of interest, which is a problem.
OK. What is the problem? How does the current sitting and talking exacerbate the already known conflict of interest?
I'm in no way trying to ignore your bigger message. I'm pointing out that the foundations of your big message have rot and decay in them, which undermines the authority of the message.
I'm not debating or arguing with you, I'm trying to understand you, out of respect for your intelligence and the personal search to understand old things in new ways.
I'm not saying a single poor argument means the big picture is bad. I'm just asking you to fill in a good argument where a poor one has been rooted out, otherwise, I cannot see your big picture as coherent.
I'm not saying it's incoherent, I'm saying I do not see the coherence. Whether or not I understand your big picture is all I'm saying, not that my understanding is somehow a mandate on what you should think or how you should behave. You do you. This is neither argument nor debate to me. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind but my own.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So here you go: people ignore laws they don't like. I agree. Well stated, and completely irrelevant to the bigger question.
I feel you've back-slid into talking about individuals ignoring laws rather than societal norms which ignore laws. Am I wrong?
Then are you recanting your statement that nepotism laws exist and ignoring them is bad?
Or are you making a point that it's more than simply ignoring the laws, that there are greater reasons that those particular laws are ignored and that those greater reasons do not apply to this case? (as wuf seems to be arguing. I'm not sure if wuf thinks nepotism is actually the goal or not.)
Or something else?
|
Reply With Quote