Unbelievable

[RaverChankoMX3]

So does comments like Okay, Mr. 40-page Paper Man, I'm starting to be concerned about you.

Fair enough. I apologize for the uncalled for nickname, David.

Or, should we just tell these arguably innocent kids destined from brith to a certain S.E.S. status that we're "not gonna solve that [this] EVER!"..."there are no good solutions" ..."so screw [this] topic!"

That seems an extraordinarily stupid thing to tell them and even the suggestion to do so retracts significantly from anything sensible you had said.

~Dear Grant, you'll have to take that insensitive comment up with David. If you've had read David and my last post , you'd know that David offered that as his professional opinion.

Secondly, I'd love to hear your admonitions--not your ad hominem, please.

[Grants]

~Dear Grant, you'll have to take that insensitive comment up with David. If you've had read David and my last post , you'd know that David offered that as his professional opinion.

Secondly, I'd love to hear your admonitions--not your ad hominem, please.

The comment I'm referring to is your suggestion that you tell the "arguably innocent kids" that they have no hope. That seems to be your suggestion. I read David's remark as an opinion that he doesn't believe world poverty can be overcome, not a suggestion to inform young people that they have a future of poverty to look forward to. That would be counter productive and I'm suprised that any reasonable, responsible person would make it.

I thought David's comments "personal" opinions and didn't realise he was recognised in the field of world poverty as an expert. If your attacking him on the basis that he is a professional, thats understandable. But, as I said, I thought his opinions were his personal ones.

I don't understand why you'd love to hear my "admonitions" and not my "ad hominem". Are you sure thats what you meant? What admonitions could I offer you'd like to hear? As far as I can see, I've made no comment whatsoever regarding world poverty so I don't know what you're alluding to.

[RaverChankoMX3]

the "arguably innocent kids" that they have no hope. That seems to be your suggestion. I read David's remark as an opinion that he doesn't believe world poverty can be overcome, not a suggestion to inform young people that they have a future of poverty to look forward to. That would be counter productive and I'm suprised that any reasonable, responsible person would make it..

Dear Grant:

The fact we're having this conversation just blows my mind, however, it has been said that a big reason communication fails is because of clarification issues. So, let me attempt to clarify that off-topic point.

On the matter of international economics and poverty David made these sweeping statements on the issue:

"not gonna solve [this] EVER!"..."there are no good solutions" ..."so screw [this] topic!"

Now, let's generalize those comments to a politican.
1) This issue will NEVER be solved
2) There are no good solutions
3) Thus, SCREW everyone affected by this issue

Do you think this candidate would be more or less inclined to involve himself in solutions pertaining poverty levels? Do you feel this candidate would more or less capable at handling economic policy concerning globization? Hence, do you feel this candidate would be more or less apt at tackling an issue that leads to gang affiliation?

When I said that a person whom which is born into a family with low S.E.S. having no hope, it was a satirical reflection of David's response. To suggest that those comments above are beneficial; or positive; or insight hope! for the low S.E.S. family is gigantically certified INSANE!.

I don't understand why you'd love to hear my "admonitions" and not my "ad hominem".

Sorry, again. An admonition is a mild, earnst rebuke. An ad hominem is a personal attack. I was just curious what rebuttal (if any, heck you may agree with me) you had against my first, first, FIRST post. Instead of attacking me for the nickname and referring to [David's] extraordinarily stupid thing to tell them. (your words).

[Grants]

I guess I better say something here... mmm

I thinks David's comments ("But your not gonna solve that one EVER! and neither am I so screw that topic") were saying that he isn't going to start a whole new subject on the matter as it's too big to cover and sensibly debate within an auto forum. I don't think that:
"1) This issue will NEVER be solved
2) There are no good solutions
3) Thus, SCREW everyone affected by this issue"
is the correct interpretation of his comments and I hope David can confirm what he meant.

My understanding of an ad hominem isn't a personal attack. Its siding with an arguement with the intention to lessen the validity of the oppositions arguements without revealing that your actually hostile towards the criticised parties stance. Undermining with a secret agenda. (Wow hope that made some sense, hard stuff that Latin). That was never my intention, I just criticised the name calling and wondered why David's comment was taken out of context. Similar thought process to ad hominem perhaps? Bit of fuel for the fire?

Instead of attacking me for the nickname and referring to [David's] extraordinarily stupid thing to tell them. (your words).

All I did was point out the "nickname" (read name calling) detracted from your overall points and was unnecessary. I thought it anti-productive as I thought you had made valid points prior to that but they were tainted by it.
(My words) related to your suggestion to tell them so. They didn't relate to David's comments at all. They quoted, and are directly related to yours.

Maybe this thread shoulda been split from the original topic to follow the course of it???

[Mnemonic]

I wish guns were not necessary, but i dont want to take the chance that someone is going to take my life and take away what i've accomplished.

I personally own 2 pistols a glock 34 (9mm) and a Smith & Wesson SW9VE (9mm). I am very strict when it comes to them, i dont pull them out and show anyone, infact my 2 roomates of over a year have never seen them pulled out. As i learned from my father as a child they are not toys, and what i learned from the Navy i will not pull one unless i plan on using it, and it will be my last resort. I keep both in lock boxes one here at my house and the other one is at my mothers house (she is 53 years old and has been robbed 3 times since she's lived at her new place, twice has been while she was home).

I've had guns put in my face a few times by idiots who just wanted a quick buck, or were trying to prove that they were "cool". I've never once pulled a gun on a person and i hope to god that i never will, because if i do i will intend to use it, and thats only if my life is threaten. You have the right to protect yourself when your life is threaten, thats the right of every human on this earth.