[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Not sure what was said. ^^ That aside, this same logic should be applied to Obama as well. There have been a lot of people being disrespectful towards him. Some towards Bush as well.

burkhartdesu, comment

http://www.japanforum.com/forum/gene...tml#post747396

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Which is my philosophy in general. Treat others the way you would want to be treated and try to be respectful of everyone, regardless. I don't know Palin, which is why I can't say I dislike her...just her views, which is normal anyway. She seems to be a far right Christian. I haven problem with Christians or anything...just those that might fit that particular category, but it's her prerogative to believe what she wants.

We agree.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I do agree she does get attacked unfairly, but, she has said/done things that made her come across as if she lacks knowledge, and the one that stands out for me, was when she couldn't name one single newspaper when asked to name what she read, after she stated that she read papers from all over. It was a simple, easy question, but managed to botch it. For something that's done on a regular basis, which she implied, seems she should've been able to name something right off the bat.

People debate this, that is what is happening here. Opinions collide and we talk. I should not be the only one to know this. You post what you think, I post in response to that, and it goes in the mirror direction that is normal.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

For me, I'm extremely calm, laid back, and nonchalant. This thread is nothing, and for the most part, there hasn't been anything here that's "upset" me. I wouldn't still be here if that were the case.

Yet, you are human. That was the point of that paragraph. Same for me.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

But that's just it, you really haven't come across as seeing the other side of the argument. You're just arguing.

Yet I don't dismiss the case at base value do I? I see what they post, look at the source do an little research then arrive at an conclusion.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Even though I don't agree with it (the hate thing), they have the right to dislike if they want. It's done so much and so often. Look at celebrities who get a lot of hate and stuff. It's to be expected, especially with someone in the spotlight. I know I can never personally dislike someone I don't know, but there are some who do. The only thing I personally do dislike about Palin are some of her views, but I don't dislike her.

I argue for the sake of the poster they shouldn't be that way. Very strong in that, at the end of the day they should know that they are entitled to that. I'm not debating that, what I have been saying all along is challange her political views not her.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

But the problem is how you're coming across and you seem to be spending more time attacking the poster than the actual post.

How so? I've only challenge the content of the post not the poster. I need more to go on then this.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

So how is my view wrong? I did say that imo Palin is coming across as a quitter. That's just based on observation.

I never said your view was wrong. What happen was I debated with you in two ways; one being her college life is an example of her being an "quitter" and two being what conclusion I came to by your writing. This is normal in every conversation.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

It can be defined as that, but I see opinions as more as "personal views". Just because you view a person in a certain way, doesn't make it a true belief.

True. I ask this, do I have to take your opinion without applying my own? Can I post what I think of what had been posted?

Originally Posted by SSJup81

Why should they support an argument if they don't have much to support it with? Let's say someone said, "I felt Palin wasn't very knowledgeable when it came to international relations because of an interview she gave." or "I feel that Palin truly needs to get out of Alaska more, because she comes across as living in a bubble." Both of these are opinions, but, they aren't stated as facts either, because of the wording and the context.

Then I would ask why she comes across as an bubble, and why you think she wasn't very knowledgeable. Point is they have to arrive at that conclusion some how and I want to have an conversation with them and because I don't know how they come that way it's hard to see there point.

Read these
Comments (Stating your Opinion)
Using Evidence to Strengthen Your Arguments

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I don't see anyone here gossiping. Just giving their opinions on why he/she doesn't like her or either why he/she doesn't feel she'd make a good President or why he/she felt she shouldn't have quit or how they feel since she did quit. In other words, I don't see anyone here stating their opinions as if they're facts. The posts are clearly subjective and opinionated.

gossip definition | Dictionary.com

You still don't get it, I have the same right to state how I feel about the subject. I also have the same right to comment on how others take it. there have been people her stating some things as facts and I challenged that.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

It's just an opinion though. If people go around saying, "I feel" or "IMO" and such, and then give a reason, it should be left at that...not demanded that the person elaborate more on it. IMO, Palin quitting her colleges, and having to go to so many just for a Bachelor's degree looks bad to me, and also, to me makes her look like a "quitter" and her quitting as governor makes her looks like an even bigger one. What can I say to back that up if this statement is based solely on how I feel? I didn't attack Palin, I didn't call her "stupid" or anything like that. I didn't bash her either. I just feel that quitting wasn't a good idea, especially if she does have aspirations for obtaining some other political office.

That's not how it works. Take me and what I have done her as an example. When you publicly state an opinion you put it out there so people may comment on it.

I just came across this gem of wisdom and greatly want you to read it (makes me think about some of my pre-held conceptions).
Stupid Opinion, Logical Fallacy: All Opinions Equal. Sure Sign of Not Thinking

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I'm not making accusations about anything or anyone.

saying she is an quitter because she didn't finish one college is an accusation, is it not?

Originally Posted by SSJup81

I suppose, but for what I was talking about, how Palin's quitting makes her look bad in general, just like the quitting of all the schools she went to, to me makes her look bad was pretty much my only, and main qualm. Why you can't seem to understand my point of view is beyond me, and with others, it doesn't seem as if you want to acknowledge another person's point of view. To me, you're attacking the poster more so than what's actually said.

I got it, that way I debated it with you. You don't think otherwise do you? So I still think you believe that way. What is happening is I'm debating her, and at the end of the day it's up to how you think and come to an conclusion based on what was written.

Originally Posted by SSJup81

You're still coming across as disrespectful, rude, and a tad big defensive...almost like one throwing a temper tantrum, but not really on that level.

You really are going to have to elaborate, I don't see this myself doing what your saying.

bELyVIS,
(I had to cut out your quote, sorry)

Did I say you have to take my word?

challenge - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
number 5a is what I'm looking at.

I provided an response of why someone shouldn't use the term hate towards another person.

You don't get it. Your not free to post your opinions without someone posting an response. You would say the same thing as well for my opinion correct? Then apply this, I have an opinion of what's being posted and I'm stating it. Well when you don't read what I write, it doesn't help. I hope that is sarcasm, if not I really suggest increasing your attention to an topic.

Barone1551,

Forgive me but I don't have enough space to quote what you wrote. If you knew so, how I"m I supposed to know that? Well, then I got the crowded part wrong (nowadays the phrase includes crowded).

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the quote hence why I posted that (to which turns out to be an bad link)

Well if there was no repercussions to shouting it, there wouldn't be much of an issue. The point of not being able to shout is the repercussions of what happens afterward.

Note what I just wrote. You said something, that I wanted to comment on, and I did. Now for you and everyone else who reads it, you can comment on it to (it's an example that I would like to make an point about this thread).