Frustration factor

[Larry Gude]

I was thinking you might enjoy that.


You see, it is not I that is correct, it is this...err...this BIG thing that is correct and I am merely the messenger. I, of course, merely being a small thing could, of course, be wrong and respect your simpleton's opinion. However, given that I am simply passing on the truth of the matter and you don't wanna see it...

 

[ItalianScallion]

And there you have it...

 

[Bann]

Why do I do it? I know it won't end well, nothing will be resolved, no questions will be answered, no discussion will be had, and I'll just end up getting ticked off. It happens every time, and it's always the same outcome.
Definition of insanity.

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?



And having said that, I don't know why I try to have a discussion with the religious types regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.

I have a progressive friend that thinks "rich" people don't pay their fair share of taxes and if they did we wouldn't have a federal deficit.
I had to de-friend him on facebook

I had a few liberal friends on my FB page but it was just impossible to have a civil political discussion with them, so I just quit. They weren't really good enough friends to begin with.

It seems they couldn't separate personal feelings from the political discourse -and one or 2 made snarky comments on my family pictures, including ones of my kids.

*poof* They were gone.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

I had a few liberal friends on my FB page

*poof* They were gone.

Conservatives really have Liberal / Socialist / Progressive 'friends'


that said, FB really needs about 6 - 12 categories of 'friends'

although as annoying as the latest changes were, after wading through them, I was able to group co - workers, from 'close' friends, from 'acquaintances'

and 'restricted' is pretty cool

 

[Bann]

Conservatives really have Liberal / Socialist / Progressive 'friends'


that said, FB really needs about 6 - 12 categories of 'friends'

although as annoying as the latest changes were, after wading through them, I was able to group co - workers, from 'close' friends, from 'acquaintances'

and 'restricted' is pretty cool

I don't really even categorize my people/friends. When I first joined, I would put them in friends or family but that's about it. I know who is who or else I wouldn't have friended them in the first place.

 

[SamSpade]

Now THAT would frustrate me no end. I have come around on a number of subjects including gay marriage.

As have I, and I've convinced others at varying levels of degree to change their minds, although I've been most successful when I've let them think they did it without my help.

But what DOESN'T happen is that people change their minds while the argument is going on, because people have a strong need to not look stupid or admit they were wrong. It's also very hard to go from one extreme of an argument to another when emotions become vested in the outcome. What happens is, people reflect some time afterward and realize, geez I'm an idiot.

Which is why I try to avoid arguments when it becomes clear that I've reached a certain point - continuing the push the issue doesn't make the outcome of a changed mind any more likely. You've made your argument, now let it sink in.

This is all of course, in the context of people with firmly entrenched positions - they've set their opinions, as Vrai has observed. But other people much smarter than me have noted, you can have the same facts and have reasonable differences of opinion - which is different from the all too common premise (which I've run into repeatedly with liberals - and religious people) that "if you knew all the facts, you'd agree with me - unless of course, you're a bigot, or a racist or selfish or....." ad nauseam.

 

[Sweet 16]

Exactly.

That's another thing that drives me crazy about the one-way crowd: you disagree with them, and they flurry you with opinion pieces because they think you just don't understand. When you assure them you do understand, but still disagree, they CONTINUE to insist that you simply do not have the facts. It's inconceivable to them that there might be a different opinion out there.

This implies that there is a thought process involved. Usually they will just attack anyone with an opposing opinion because they are incapable of rational debate and because they are either incapable or unwilling to back up any argument they think they have with actual facts. IMO.

 

[PrchJrkr]

And I have had success, fairly often, in helping change someones mind.

I figured out I am not the one to judge other people's preferences in who they are attracted to, and for that I thank you.

If IS wants to preach fire and brimstone, so be it. I know there is but one judge that matters.

You're not going to change "their" opinion of who the love, so leave well enough alone. Don't shove it in my face, and I want mangle yours.

As for libs...


j/k

 

[ItalianScallion]

But what DOESN'T happen is that people change their minds while the argument is going on, because people have a strong need to not look stupid or admit they were wrong...What happens is, people reflect some time afterward and realize, geez I'm an idiot.

So because you haven't changed anyone's mind about something, no one ever has? It does happen Sam. Maybe not visibly on here, but it does happen. And how many people on here have ever come back and admitted they were wrong after the fact? Some but not many...

Which is why I try to avoid arguments when it becomes clear that I've reached a certain point - continuing the push the issue doesn't make the outcome of a changed mind any more likely. You've made your argument, now let it sink in.

I can partially agree but, remember, both sides are guilty of that. I also believe that there is a lot of good that comes out of those long threads. We get to see all the sides of an issue.

This is all of course, in the context of people with firmly entrenched positions - they've set their opinions, as Vrai has observed. But other people much smarter than me have noted, you can have the same facts and have reasonable differences of opinion - which is different from the all too common premise (which I've run into repeatedly with liberals - and religious people) that "if you knew all the facts, you'd agree with me - unless of course, you're a bigot, or a racist or selfish or....." ad nauseam.

Speaking for myself, the reason I say those things is because there are many folks here who speak THEIR personal opinions but will NOT realize that there is a higher opinion that is set in concrete. This is what I'm saying when I say that people here don't understand. If more people accepted HIS rules, they would understand and more of us would be on the same page. Our opinions mean nothing; what's morally right is what will stand in the end but I know that most people don't want to hear that, hence the dilema on here...

This implies that there is a thought process involved. Usually they will just attack anyone with an opposing opinion because they are incapable of rational debate and because they are either incapable or unwilling to back up any argument they think they have with actual facts. IMO.

The problem is that most people here don't believe those "actual facts". Many people on here have opinions from all sides but that doesn't change the moral truth...

I figured out I am not the one to judge other people's preferences in who they are attracted to, and for that I thank you. If IS wants to preach fire and brimstone, so be it. I know there is but one judge that matters.

Nice to hear you say that there is "but one judge that matters". I never would have thought you believed in that "Judge"...


Waiting for Vrai to at you too...

 

[Larry Gude]

I figured out I am not the one to judge other people's preferences in who they are attracted to, and for that I thank you.

:

Allow me to clarify. I think we are all free to judge all we like. I don't get homosexuality, at all. At least not guy/guy. That's just gross and, to me, silly. But, oh well.

Where I come down is that I have NO right to advocate or support any action or laws in this nation, from a federal perspective, to deny things. benefit,s privileges, etc, common to a married heterosexual couple.

I am a sticks and stones person. I might not like your words but, you have the right to wag a finger at me. However, I don't have the right to impose sanctions on you or limit rights and privileges on you based on what I might think of what you do or like.

A distinction with a difference me thinks.

 

[Larry Gude]

Speaking for myself, the reason I say those things is because there are many folks here who speak THEIR personal opinions but will NOT realize that there is a higher opinion that is set in concrete. This is what I'm saying when I say that people here don't understand. If more people accepted HIS rules, they would understand and more of us would be on the same page. Our opinions mean nothing; what's morally right is what will stand in the end but I know that most people don't want to hear that, hence the dilema on here...

...

I respect people of faith and am glad I live in a nation founded on religious freedom. Having said that, do you make any room, at all, that you may be wrong? Thus, do you make any allowance that people are free to believe as they choose and are you therefore happy that our founders made that, religious freedom, bedrock, or, concrete you might say, in this nation?

Further, do you then see how contradictory your comments are? Our opinions mean nothing...except for yours?

Now, if you are not a religious freedom person, that there is and can be only ONE truth then, fine. I still support your right to your faith and...opinions.

 

[bcp]

Allow me to clarify. I think we are all free to judge all we like. I don't get homosexuality, at all. At least not guy/guy. That's just gross and, to me, silly. But, oh well.

Where I come down is that I have NO right to advocate or support any action or laws in this nation, from a federal perspective, to deny things. benefit,s privileges, etc, common to a married heterosexual couple.

I am a sticks and stones person. I might not like your words but, you have the right to wag a finger at me. However, I don't have the right to impose sanctions on you or limit rights and privileges on you based on what I might think of what you do or like.

A distinction with a difference me thinks.

I dont think any of us that post here have the ability to impose sanctions on anyone else.
I could be wrong, for all I know JPC is really Hoyer trying out new ideas.

 

[ItalianScallion]

I respect people of faith and am glad I live in a nation founded on religious freedom. Having said that, do you make any room, at all, that you may be wrong? Thus, do you make any allowance that people are free to believe as they choose and are you therefore happy that our founders made that, religious freedom, bedrock, or, concrete you might say, in this nation?

I have checked, checked and double checked and found that I am correct with regards to God's commands for human sexual behavior but I can't stop anyone from doing whatever they want. Our country's laws were based on God's morality so homosexual behavior was never ok according to Him. Even if we lose and gay marriage becomes legal in Maryland, I was still required to have spoken out against it.

All I want to do is help people change their lives before they meet God and get eternally punished. The reason why people argue for homosexual freedom is because they don't understand what God is going to do with them on the day of judgment. This was my point to Vrai and, possibly, why she started this thread.

I know it's frustrating to a lot of people but, again, it's because they refuse to accept the truth and understand what's really at stake. Life is not a game. Everything revolves around what we do here and it all affects what we'll do on the "other side".

Further, do you then see how contradictory your comments are? Our opinions mean nothing...except for yours?

No, the word "our" includes me since these rules are not something I've made up.

Now, if you are not a religious freedom person, that there is and can be only ONE truth then, fine. I still support your right to your faith and...opinions.

Actually a true Christian doesn't believe in religious freedom in the sense that anyone's idea of God is ok. I know full well that no Christian could forbid the free exercise of religion in America. That wouldn't be true freedom. People can practice whatever they want but it doesn't make their beliefs right. There's only one true God; all others are simply not...

 

[JoeRider]

Why do I do it? I know it won't end well, nothing will be resolved, no questions will be answered, no discussion will be had, and I'll just end up getting ticked off. It happens every time, and it's always the same outcome.
Definition of insanity.

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?



And having said that, I don't know why I try to have a discussion with the religious types regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.

Hey, you for no discussing about abortion, too. I don't believe the law should sanction gay marriage or abortion. As for homosexuality, who cares, just don't market as natural to me. It has zero to do with religion.

 

[JoeRider]

Even if we lose and gay marriage becomes legal in Maryland, I was still required to have spoken out against it.

eh? Why are you required to have spoken out against it? That lighting bolt might take you out or you could be sent to hell for the rest of your death? Well gee, if that is the case, go for it since we all are going to hell! I guess I am a glutton and going to the cheese burger after all since I am not going to speak out against everything I think is not normal.

 

[acommondisaster]

Why do I do it? I know it won't end well, nothing will be resolved, no questions will be answered, no discussion will be had, and I'll just end up getting ticked off. It happens every time, and it's always the same outcome.
Definition of insanity.

Why oh why do I try to have a conversation with "progressives"?



And having said that, I don't know why I try to have a discussion with the religious types regarding homosexuality and gay marriage.

How much have they been able to change your opinion?

 

[ItalianScallion]

Hey, you for no discussing about abortion, too. I don't believe the law should sanction gay marriage or abortion. As for homosexuality, who cares, just don't market as natural to me. It has zero to do with religion.

Ok, so we agree on your point about not marketing it as natural to me. If it weren't for "religion", there wouldn't be much, if any, opposition to it. It has everything to do with "religion". Guess you don't understand either?

eh? Why are you required to have spoken out against it? That lighting bolt might take you out or you could be sent to hell for the rest of your death? Well gee, if that is the case, go for it since we all are going to hell! I guess I am a glutton and going to the cheese burger after all since I am not going to speak out against everything I think is not normal.

You're making my point for me Joe. If more people understood that I am commanded by God to oppose this practice, these threads wouldn't be happening. I'm sure you don't want a bunch of Bible verses quoted to you so enjoy that cheeseburger

 

[PsyOps]

I dont think any of us that post here have the ability to impose sanctions on anyone else.
I could be wrong, for all I know JPC is really Hoyer trying out new ideas.

Not that anyone person could have the ability to impose sanctions on someone else, but that they first have the desire to first and would try to put people in power to make it happen; sort of like the individula mandate in Obamacare.