Quote:

A pacifist is "one who believes that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully." 

---

Quote:

As far as the "try thinking" comment goes, now you're getting into ad hominen attacks

---

Quote:

If you're against peace, then you must be for war

---

Quote:

And I agree, we shouldn't stereotype. Wait a minute, in the very same post you said "You libbies like to read into everything without thinking." Talk about being hypocritical! 

---

I'd only be a hypocrite if "I" was the one who whined aboot people stereotyping.  If i recall it was you who did this.  I don't deny getting personal nor do i backtrack from my statement that libbies read into everything, mind you i'm talking aboot libbies.  I use Aristotelean law "a" is "a", a rose is a rose. You should try this, you're life would be easier and less conflicting.

Quote:

I try to throw in a few 's to show that I'm just having fun, so I hope I don't come across as being too much of a jerk.

---

Soory man, but the chance for you to not appear a jerk is long past!

Innvertigo said:

i never even mentioned war.  He was a pacifist in the way he always went the way of least resistance, domestic agenda, foreign. agenda etc.  Why are you making more aboot this then there is?  Move on.

---

Quote:

Sometimes someone has to just be honest in the way some people are.  I don't deny it nor am i ashamed.  As the old saying goes: "if the shoe fits....." you know the rest.

---

Ok, fair enough.  You're clearly the non-thinker here (personally, I don't think ad-hominen attacks are very effective, but I'll roll with it if you do). 

Quote:

That aboot sums it up in the la la libbie land.  Are you being sarcastic or do you actually believe this?  who's against peace?

---

Quote:

I'd only be a hypocrite if "I" was the one who whined aboot people stereotyping.  If i recall it was you who did this.

---

I was attempting to describe the difference between a liberal and conservative.  By your standards, this would be impossible without stereotyping.  Even if I attempted to define the difference, that would be stereotyping too, wouldn't it? 

Quote:

I don't deny getting personal nor do i backtrack from my statement that libbies read into everything, mind you i'm talking aboot libbies.  I use Aristotelean law "a" is "a", a rose is a rose. You should try this, you're life would be easier and less conflicting.  

---

Again, based on the dictionary definition of pacifist, my read was correct.  I see that you had a different definition in mind, so I apologize.     

Quote:

This link is for inny. He wanted an example.

---

Quote:

Gotcha. Sorry, I was using the dictionary.com definition of pacifist. You were using another definition. That makes all the difference in the world, and explains the confusion.

---

Quote:

Ok, fair enough. You're clearly the non-thinker here

---

Quote:

By your standards, this would be impossible without stereotyping.

---

Quote:

Again, based on the dictionary definition of pacifist, my read was correct.

---

pinksharkmark said:

One can be in favor of peace (as opposed to being "against peace") yet still not be a "pacifist".

Pacifists choose their stance based on how they think the world should be, not on how it is. As with all entities who misperceive reality, their continued existence is contingent upon the actions of those who do not.

---

Innvertigo said:

Carter wasn't involved in a war period (maybe the aftermat of Vietnam but nothing big).

---

Maybe because he was a pacifist??? 

Quote:

I said i didn't like Carter because he pacified every aspect of his presidency, if you disagree that's fine, just tell me where i'm mistaken.  If not the there really isn't much to discuss.

---

Quote:

If you'd like to send me a private message we can discuss my non-ability to think.

---

Quote:

I was showing an example of you trying to be self-rightous when you said that people who do this tend to be non-thinkers, if you want to do it then fine, just don't take the high road when it's convinient.

---

Quote:

my context differed, but my statement was true and within the realm of reality. 

---

st0nedphucker said:

A pacifier isn't neccessary someone who makes peace, sometimes they can be more like appeasers. A leader is someone who can stand strong in the face of adversity and stand up for what they believe is right.

And strangely enough, Bush does meet these criteria, he faced the September 11th tragedy (I dont mean on the day but as a whole) and he is fighting for a cause he believes to be right.

---

Quote:

Maybe because he was a pacifist???

---

Quote:

The only thing I disagreed with is that being a pacifist doesn't make you a bad leader (and I was specifically talking about pacifism with respect to war, and misunderstood that you took it to mean other things as well)

---

Quote:

I was making a joke. But you said you were "calling a rose a rose". Maybe you're right. If I'm a non-thinker, I'll apologize to you. Let's find out:

---

Quote:

Unfortunately, that's what caused this debate. And I apologized for misunderstanding your definition of "pacifier". I looked it up on dictionary.com before I replied and that's the definition I used.

---

Quote:

Cornholio still makes this topic a bit more interesting.

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Quote:

Cornholio still makes this topic a bit more interesting. 

---

Yes. That's why I'd miss him if he left.

---

Haha, thanks!  I so meant to be gone by now, but I'm a fuckin' addict! 

Quote:

It's a shame he's not right very often though. 

---

***Bitch-slaps lds***