Trump declares himself above the law.

[Cow Poke]

Most of my day is spent with family, researching, writing code, learning or singing music, cycling, hiking, reading, praying etc etc. I write in one forum here so as to limit its reach in my life. And I literally have far more concern for the effect of excusing Trump on the witness of the church in the world than I do on Trump himself. My appeals are always to the truth of scripture as it butts up against what compromises are required to support this man.

I can see that you are expressing concern for me though, and I do very much appreciate that.

I often found in nat sci that I would have more in common scientifically with the non Christian's than the christian creationists on that topic. And it is no different here. But dont forget I found myself in complete disagreement with all those same people on the issue of the artiste baker that would not create a specialty cake celebrating a gay marriage. I am motivated by what I understand to be truth, and I will stand with whoever is speaking the truth on a given topic.

We really should be of a similar mind on this topic too. That is, again, my primary concern.


Jim

OK, so let's start over.... on what am I wrong?

[oxmixmudd]

OK, so let's start over.... on what am I wrong?

Let's take that one step at a time. How about next time I raise a concern about Trump, instead of a conversation that is immediately cut off with attacks on my mental stability, let's just discuss the concern itself and what about it is or is not valid?

Sound like a plan?

Jim

[Cow Poke]

Let's take that one step at a time. How about next time I raise a concern about Trump, instead of a conversation that is immediately cut off with attacks on my mental stability, let's just discuss the concern itself and what about it is or is not valid?

Sound like a plan?

Jim

Okaaaaaaaaayyyyyy.... so, your first comment after me asking to start over is to accuse me of immediately cutting you off with attacks on your mental stability?

Perhaps I'll just go back to trying to ignore your posts.

[oxmixmudd]

Okaaaaaaaaayyyyyy.... so, your first comment after me asking to start over is to accuse me of immediately cutting you off with attacks on your mental stability?

Perhaps I'll just go back to trying to ignore your posts.

Cp, I'm sorry you misunderstood my intent in that response. I'm just suggesting that as an alternative to a direct answer to your question, which I believe would not be a net positive, the next time I bring something up that expresses a concern about Trump we focus on consciously maintaining a discussion on that concern rather than moving immediately into personal attacks.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

...the next time I bring something up that expresses a concern about Trump we focus on consciously maintaining a discussion on that concern rather than moving immediately into personal attacks.

This of course assumes that whatever "concerns" you happen to bring up are reasonable, rational, and supported by facts. For instance in this thread, you immediately agreed with Jimmy's false characterization of the story and then insultingly asked if those who disagree with your political opinions will "wake up now".

So, yeah, maybe think about that when you post in the future...

[Charles]

Let's take that one step at a time. How about next time I raise a concern about Trump, instead of a conversation that is immediately cut off with attacks on my mental stability, let's just discuss the concern itself and what about it is or is not valid?

Sound like a plan?

Jim

This of course assumes that whatever "concerns" you happen to bring up are reasonable, rational, and supported by facts. [...]

I assume you will see why your response does not adress his point. Like he said, he wants focus on the "concern itself and what about it is or is not valid?". So he is not saying, he cannot be wrong. He is only saying that he would prefer to be proven wrong by facts and reasons and not the ad hominem stuff.

[Cow Poke]

I assume you will see why your response does not adress his point. Like he said, he wants focus on the "concern itself and what about it is or is not valid?". So he is not saying, he cannot be wrong. He is only saying that he would prefer to be proven wrong by facts and reasons and not the ad hominem stuff.

We are SO VERY FORTUNATE to have a man of your caliber explain to everybody what everybody else means!

[oxmixmudd]

This of course assumes that whatever "concerns" you happen to bring up are reasonable, rational, and supported by facts. For instance in this thread, you immediately agreed with Jimmy's false characterization of the story and then insultingly asked if those who disagree with your political opinions will "wake up now".

So, yeah, maybe think about that when you post in the future...

Actually, there is no correlation between the percieved legitimacy of the concern and personal attacks. Personal attacks as a first response are never necessary.

In fact, if one attacks rather than first discussing. It prevents or at least makes very difficult any learning or correction if one is in error - on both sides.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

We are SO VERY FORTUNATE to have a man of your caliber explain to everybody what everybody else means!

?

He is correct in his explanation, and MMs response is not relevant to the point made.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Actually, there is no correlation between the percieved legitimacy of the concern and personal attacks. Personal attacks as a first response are never necessary.

In fact, if one attacks rather than first discussing. It prevents or at least makes very difficult any learning or correction if one is in error - on both sides.

Jim

I'm not sure if my point simply went over your head, or if you ducked.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm not sure if my point simply went over your head, or if you ducked.

I was addressing the part of your post addressed by charles. Your final comment is something I have no means to address at this point. It regards a comment not addressed to any specific person. Hence it is not relevant in the context of my response to cp which is a suggestion for a positive way forward regarding our one on one interactions.

Jim

[firstfloor]

The GOP and the Christian Right, have made Trump their god.

[Mountain Man]

The GOP and the Christian Right, have made Trump their god.

In Trump We Trust

[Sparko]

It doesn't mean anything here. There is some sort of very odd group think thing that goes on here within the subgroup I sometimes refer to as the peanut gallery. None of them can read my posts and understand my posts. It always gets twisted up in very bizarre ways. I rely on those I trust to read my posts and I ask them what I said. They usually tell me what I thought I said. They have also helped me to understand some of the things that have set you guys off, and I'm working to correct those as much as possible. But there is nothing I can do that will correct the sort of gross misunderstanding and/or distortions of my words that are reflected in MM's characterizations in the three examples and what I actually said.

Jim

You know how paranoid that sounds?

[oxmixmudd]

You know how paranoid that sounds?

Just read the three examples and MM's take on it. Any normal person I have asked to read it to check my own objectivity (now there is a thought - get an independent third party to look at what you've done) has seen exactly what I'm pointing out regarding them.

And I will continue to point out when you guys go into left field reading my posts. It's just a matter of being objective about it Sparko and taking the risk of finding out if there is something subjective twisting your understanding. The number of times I've been amazed at myself on this by revisiting my own words has been informative.

But it requires you take the risk of finding out you are wrong.

Jim