Originally Posted By: NM LeonI do understand that the "church" is where things can get heated. Defending myself against you isn't too difficult.
Okay, but it's not not yourself that you need to defend, you are in no way being attacked. It's your statements and assertions that need defense here when questioned, not you. I have yet to see much of that.
My analogy wasn't a problem at all- except to you. If you don't have the personal integrity to admit that your real issue is with those who work the public sector, then you're not worth debating. You're not stupid. Hyper-argumentative, but not stupid.
I do indeed have a problem with public sector unions at a very fundamental level and have no problem "admitting" it (I think of it more as loudly and frequently exposing their basic flaws to anyone who will listen) as all who have frequented this forum for any amount of time over the years know full well, and I have a very huge problem with government education in particular. That does not mean that I have a problem with any individual who is a public sector employee (including teachers), in fact we need public sector employees.
I do take umbrage with my (public sector) employees when they start thinking they are somehow "special", and better than we, their employers (taxpayers) are, whether they are cops or school teachers. They (public sector) are no more "special" than any other profession except that they (collectively) often get special privileges the rest of us (who pay for it) don't.
Is that enough "personal integrity" for you to actually defend your statements Brendan?
By the way, to come to a forum ("the church") that is specifically designed for rigorous debate, and then to call someone "Hyper-argumentative" is pretty laughable, if not actually a compliment.
I was just going over some of your other posts. You like to needle people. Both subtle and overt insults. Just because you're long-winded doesn't make you correct. And my God, you are long-winded.
Thank you, it's flattering when someone does a little bit of research before engaging in debate, but if you'd gone just a little bit deeper, you'd have found that my "needling" and "insults" were responses-in-kind. If you would last long back here you should have the skill to give as good as you get AND to stay within the TOS. As long as it's well reasoned, well sourced, and perspicacious, being "long winded" back here is a plus, not a minus. Broaden your horizons and think Lincoln/Douglas, not MSNBC and 15 second sound bites.
Okay, enough with the fun stuff, now down to business.
You know the point I was trying to make
Did you mean this point?
Steve, I know you're trying to be fair to the guy and give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe in most jobs, that's all right. This is my take on it. Some jobs require a higher standard of self-control and ethical behavior than others- at least they ought to. Take me for example. I'm a teacher. In teaching, you only have to be accused of doing something inappropriate and you're pretty much done- if you get my drift.
Did I understand incorrectly that you were at least implying if not stating explicitly that teaching (in particular) is a job that requires "a higher standard of self-control and ethical behavior" than "most jobs"? I believe I've debunked that idea already (with no counterpoint forthcoming).
Or did you mean this point:
You're missing my point. My point is that some offenses deserve no second chance.
Again, in the "civilian" world "no second chance" is the normal standard for egregious offences (unless perhaps you were speaking specifically of parts of the public sector?). I personally (and I suspect most of the aware taxpaying public/employers), certainly consider the (sometimes years) suspension on full pay of our public employees after a credible accusation to be a "second chance", even though the eventual (even certain) outcome may be the loss of that professionals job. It's most certainly an accommodation that none of us would get.
If this gets me banned then I honestly don't care
Oh no Brendan, while ad hominem attacks get old after a while (and are a very poor and transparent debating technique), you haven't come close to the personal name calling or vulgarity that would get you banned.
Indeed, allow me to welcome you to "The Church Of The Painful Truth" where "You Shall Know The Truth, and The Truth Shall Piss You Off".
You are most welcome here, and I hope you will sit and jaw a while. (Just be prepared to defend your statements in detail, lol.)
P.S. And remember, just because you may be bested in a debate today, it's no reason to stay out of the one tomorrow.
YAWWWWWWNNNN.Thanks for illustrating my point. And have a nice day, if that's even possible for you.
