you miss quoted me nOv1c3, but im sure that was just an accident :D
the :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: is for a different comment,

as for argueing being fun, the fun part is seeing somone proove their point after contradicting them regardless of what you believe, they can be right and you can agree with what they said, but when they cant support what they said...
i mean this is not to say i dont do the same, i can throw out a comment and see if someone will question it. thats exactly what i did here, but instead of being contradicted or argued against i was called a bigot. :shrug:

Merely pointing out the obvious. No argument required!

If you do not see how that, and subsequent statements ("...and no im not a bigot, i actually have jewish friends...") are not evidence of that, than there is nothing I can do to help you see it!

Bob

definition of bigot

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ"

or how about this one

"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own"

i really dont see how i fit into anyone of these definitions,

but i guess your one of those people that resort to name calling when they cant refute a statement. unless your taking everything literally and believe that what someone says is thier personal beliefs and way of life


and this is when arguing turns nasty :(

anyway, what does everyone else think?
are we taking it to far? :)

I am one of those people who calls a spade a spade. And, yes, I guess I do take people literally.

I don't know you, I only have what you have written to go on, and what you have written evidences someone who bears both covert and overt prejudices. Sorry.:shrug:

Bob

um, i completely understand where your coming from, and i agree that based on that one thing i wrote you were justified in making that assumption/statement. but like you said, you dont know me,

its just that when i argue, my points are based on what i know or statements i've heard other people use, with the american history and the UN i talked about in my first post here, that was from actual research for essays i did a year ago. the part that started this controversy is what i heard other people use (bad idea), and i only said that for arguments sake, i thought someone would have a rebuttal towards it, i didn't intend to offend anyone and at the same time subject myself to name calling.

its just that when i approach an argument/discusion, like i said, i treat it like an essay (regardless of personal views). i'll make a point and i'll support it, but with the statement you disliked, i didn't really support that, cause i had no idea how, because its what i heard someone else say.

well i now understand why people say politics and religion should not be discussed.:D

Yeah, don't get me started on religion!:eek:

lol
not even touching that one



what about starting a new debate?

heres a topic
legalization of marijuana
should someone start a separate thread for this one, maybe even a poll lol :D

I dont smoke pot. I believe that it should be legal. I think alchohol is more of a social problem than marijuana could ever be.


RELIGION: Im not religious, I think religion can be a good thing it can also be a very bad thing. The tensions in the middle east are (bad) the crusades (bad) murder of pesents under the rule of the japanese buddhist temples (bad) etc... Helping people cope with uncertainty of death (good), Helping people through tough times (good), helping draw a more unified community (can be good) etc..

Its hard to say whether the absence of religion would be good or bad. Religion breeds fanaticism and complacency wich are both bad however I would say it makes alot more people happy and fulfilled than fanatics.

How did you guys get from, "I hate France, Saddam is going down, the UN sucks, Micheal Moore is an idiot" to I don't smoke pot but it should be legal?

not sure but seemed like fun.