|
Post by nightangel1282 on Dec 11, 2011 7:34:49 GMT -5
I have lost all respect for Nightangel. This is ridiculous. You're acting just like the hysterical fundies who get worked up over what they think the "liberal atheist conspiracy" is indoctrinating children to believe. I can't believe that I would ever in my life defend Fox News, but why do I have a feeling that if any other news station had said this, the OP would be praising them for promoting critical thinking? Double standards are even worse when the side that is supposed to hold the moral high ground does them. Hey, if you wanna lose respect for a woman because of a few posts she made on the internet that you don't agree with, then you are a sad, sad little man. Quite frankly, I don't care if you like me. If you would read the last post I had made in this topic, you would notice I stated that I was dropping the subject and we could all just agree to disagree. Don't like that? Then quite simply... you can blow me. By the way, just to put this out there, the fact that any news anchor felt that they had to tell their target audience (adults) that Santa Claus is not real, is sad and pathetic. Period. And again... I drop the stupid subject. The only reason I'm responding now is to tell brendanrizzo to shove it where the sun don't shine.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Dec 11, 2011 8:47:30 GMT -5
I have to agree that this isn't a big deal.
I dislike the idea of Santa anyway. Why is it okay to lie to kids right to their faces like that? I have a lot of respect for my dad because he refused to tell us Santa was real. Mom played it like a joke; she would put coal in dad's stocking and we'd all have a laugh at his expense. But when I look back, I appreciate my dad a lot more for having enough respect for me not to lie to my face.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 11, 2011 10:38:28 GMT -5
I find the phrase "agree to disagree" cowardly.
|
|
|
Post by Sleepy on Dec 11, 2011 11:59:25 GMT -5
It's not always cowardly. There are actual cases where people have conflicting opinions on right or wrong, and sometimes an argument won't resolve that.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Dec 11, 2011 15:51:00 GMT -5
It's not always cowardly. There are actual cases where people have conflicting opinions on right or wrong, and sometimes an argument won't resolve that. Not always, but usually it means "I can't be buggered to try to defend my opinion in a debate, so lets call it a draw."
|
|
|
Post by Sleepy on Dec 11, 2011 16:56:27 GMT -5
Yeah, but you also have debates, most likely philosophical ones, where both sides can argue a point for pages without getting anywhere because of largely subjective issues. If two people can't agree to a set of terms, then there's not much else to be done with the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Dec 11, 2011 22:21:02 GMT -5
You seem to be of the opinion Vene's concerned with philosophy. Look at his posting history, he's no fan of irrational, unprovable assertions. And much of the time "agree to disagree" is what's said when someone can't back up their claim.
|
|
|
Post by Sleepy on Dec 11, 2011 22:48:57 GMT -5
I don't care what Vene is concerned with. I'm discussing general usage of that statement. And of course it's used a lot of the time when a person is simply unable to back up a claim, or wishes to bail on an argument. I'm not saying that's false. I'm saying that there are circumstances where it makes sense to use because of subjective matters. Whether that occurs 10% of the time or .000000001% of the time, it's still used sensibly in some cases.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 13, 2011 18:28:14 GMT -5
I have lost all respect for Nightangel. This is ridiculous. You're acting just like the hysterical fundies who get worked up over what they think the "liberal atheist conspiracy" is indoctrinating children to believe. I can't believe that I would ever in my life defend Fox News, but why do I have a feeling that if any other news station had said this, the OP would be praising them for promoting critical thinking? Double standards are even worse when the side that is supposed to hold the moral high ground does them. Uhm... Overreacting to an overreaction much? Oh I get it, he's trying sound like how Nightangel responded to the news Anchor!
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 13, 2011 18:31:51 GMT -5
Uhm... Overreacting to an overreaction much? Oh I get it, he's trying sound like how Nightangel responded to the news Anchor! Then he overshot the mark by about 20 miles.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 13, 2011 19:06:49 GMT -5
Ha ha ha, so true. And ironic considering he said he wanted to bomb some middle eastern countries. I have lost all respect for Nightangel. This is ridiculous. You're acting just like the hysterical fundies who get worked up over what they think the "liberal atheist conspiracy" is indoctrinating children to believe. I can't believe that I would ever in my life defend Fox News, but why do I have a feeling that if any other news station had said this, the OP would be praising them for promoting critical thinking? Double standards are even worse when the side that is supposed to hold the moral high ground does them. Quite frankly, I don't care if you like me. If you would read the last post I had made in this topic, you would notice I stated that I was dropping the subject and we could all just agree to disagree. Don't like that? Then quite simply... you can blow me. *Blow* You called the anchor an "inconsiderate, heartless bitch who has no regards for the feelings of children and their parents" Also she didn't tell adults that santa wasn't real, she told adults they shouldn't tell their kids santa is real. You disagree. But you don't respectfully disagree, when many of us did. That's where the problem is.
|
|
|
Post by tygerarmy on Dec 14, 2011 19:44:21 GMT -5
I read the article but couldn't see the video. I don't care that the reporter said Santa is not real. If it was part of news story/editorial piece there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now if it was an off the colar rant that might a professionalism issue regardless of the content.
|
|