[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

pardon me, but you agreed that democracy was flawed and that's why you didn't support it. i asked you a couple of questions, namely, if there was something flawless in the universe (you said no) and i asked you what set government apart from other flawed things. but i did not take my reasoning any further, did i?. did i make a point you could reply to? no-- so you're replying to something that only happened in your mind. you were arguing with the mirror.


no, i didn't bypass it, i mentioned we'd pick it up later but let's stick to the basic now. to answer those points would have meant to side with the assumptions you had made about where i was going with this. which were totally wrong. you had no clue where i was going with my questions.


well, i think the long posts add more to the confusion because they answer the assumptions you're making about what i'm going to say rather than answer the simple questions i asking


maybe you trying to stereotype or label me is something you didn't realize, did it unconciously.

again, that's in your own head-- i wasn't thinking of your country. in fact, i was thinking about libertarians who believe that every government is essentially evil. so i was trying to ascertain if this was were you were coming from philosophically, and if not then i would pursue a different line of questions to clarify things.

maybe you're the one who unconsciously feels stereotyped?

as i said before, you're not arguing with me but with the projections of your own mind. i normally enjoy conversing with you, but please, this is past the point of absurd. you argue with things i might say, practicing bad telepathy. it gets really annoying, and it's a waste of time to attempt dialogue with someone who ultimately is only talking to himself. please, i give up on this discussion, we've wasted enough time on this already. yes?

i'm cool with you as far as other subjects go, but please, this one must die.[/quote]


ok, i agree this is getting past the point of confort, one of the reasons i don't like talking politics (i rather talk about turds, really). but i have one last thing to say.

i know that line of questions, what you were trying to do, prove me wrong by responding to the questions in stark answers, objectifying something fairly subjective (for the reason of this being a discussion), and by breaking the objectively nature of the sequence of questions, i kinda threw you off.

again, and this is becoming a slogan, but my point is to have a form of government that's best, not perfect.

you wanted to me to answer you that i didn't support democracy because it's flawed, and that i agreed that nothing is flawless yet we live and use those things and that i was just angry at any form of government, therefore, my plea for something new politically was a dumb one and i was just angry at something else and projected it to the government. but that was not the point.

the point is: democracy is flawed that's why i don't believe in it, nothing is flawless in the world YET we try to improve upon things instead of leaving them the way they are, even if they remain competent. i believe there should be a government and that democracy is a "good enough" for now form of government, i don't think government is evil and should not be.

and about the stereotyping, you said it: "in fact, i was thinking about libertarians who believe that every government is essentially evil. so i was trying to ascertain if this was were you were coming from philosophically, and if not then i would pursue a different line of questions to clarify things.", you can stereotype people for anything, especially for the way they think, perhaps more so than for race, culture or country of origin. that's what irked me, you tried to classify me and my thoughts and i didn't do that to you.