On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:50:41 -0300
Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2016 7:51 PM, "juan" <juan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > My position is radically different to that of quinn and his
> > mob
> and yet you think we are both 'likeable'? Your opinions here are
> absurd.
>
> Juan, you and Quinn are not my friends, but I appreciate both.
You don't know anything about me, apart from the political
comments I've made here. Same thing for quinn. All we know about
him is that he's a totalitarian american shitbag. Whatever your
personal connection to him is, (if any) it's irrelevant here.
It is absurd for you to conclude that I'm a 'good'
person and that quinn is a 'good' person too, since we represent
completely opposed views of what 'good' means.
Is this so hard to grasp?
> Certainly not enough to invite you to visit my house or to borrow
> money and books, but I like you both. :)
>
> A fool example, I have friends who believe in God in a blind way and
> also extremely Atheists friends. They are good persons and I
> sincerely respect all of them.
'Religious' liars are not good persons. Lying is not
good.
It's becoming clear that 'good' doesn't really mean anything to
you.
> They have different personal beliefs,
> but they all have good character and are intelligent.
>
> > Not to mention, again, that you think that a totalitarian
> > piece
> of shit like quinn is a good guy. Since you believe that, your moral
> judgements are a bad joke...which shows what you really stand for.
>
> He is a good person. Too moralist and intollerant for being my
> friend, but he is a good person.
OK. "Good" means nothing to you.
>
> You are a good person, but very aggressive in some moments and pretty
> intollerant too.
Tell me Cecilia, is it OK for governments to exist? You know,
the 'good' utopian governments that do stuff that you think is
'good', like, I don't know 'free' schooling for poor children.
If I recall correctly you said you are not an anarchist, but
I'm making sure...before pointing out that you are in no
position to call me 'aggressive' or 'intolerant'.
>
> Uff... Juan, you seem to know more about me than myself to judge me
> so bad in all the moments. Please, what do I really stand for?
See the stuff you posted and my comments...
>
> > Fine. I'm not tolerant either. I don't tolerate stupidity
> > and
> evil intentions or acts. As to being 'open minded', again, I'm
> certainly not open minded to stupidity. Being 'open minded' to
> stupidity is hardly a virtue.
>
> Juan, if I show you some truth and you don't like it, you simply will
> say it is stupidity because you are too proud and hard headed for
> admissing when are wrong.
What am I wrong about?
> I was not talking about nazism, only about extremely radical people:
> feminazis, vegan nazis, econazis, etc. Sorry, at least for me,
> radical people are always boring and/or annoing.
OK - and the relevance here is? Or was that just one more random
and irrelevant thought?
>
> > I don't think your explanation changes anything. You want to
> ignore this particular poll because it doesn't paint the americunts
> in a good light. But the poll is completely consistent with americunt
> 'culture'. If anything the real numbers are prolly higher.
>
> Juan, it hurts me a lot because it is a pool about my family's death,
It's not just about your family. It about the fact that TODAY
there are lots of people who support that kind of attrocity.
> not because "doesn't paint the americans in a good light". It would
> hurt me the same if it was a pool about French people opinion, if it
> was a pool about Chinese people opinion... The problem is thinking
> about people saying that it was correct to use nuclear weapons to
> kill people.
The ones who are saying it are the americans.
So tell me again about how good countries are and how much
respect they deserve?
>
> And, please, always remember that laws, sausages and researches are
> not made in a beautiful way. I don't trust in all researchers that
> I've knowed. I already saw some serious frauds in works and books.
