PeacefulWarrior Wrote:Please tell me you at least understand that you're being just as disagreeable towards my views. This is a two-way street. Yet you're acting as though I should refrain from providing my view on the situation just so that you don't have to see someone having a differing opinion.
For that matter, I've agreed with you on things in this very thread! And it's a little disingenuous to say "it doesn't matter what a person says" as though I'm chronically disagreeable with everyone. This is really only about you and me.
I have no issue with differing opinions, what I do take issue with is what you do when I have a different view to yours. You either disparage my view, or you become condescending or patronising. Sometimes you even put words in my mouth. This has been happening for quite a while now.
Let me give you examples:
Bizarre opening ceremony for Switzerland’s record-breaking railway tunnel
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:I mean, what, do we think the Swiss are Satanists now?
Can you see how that comment is disparaging? Can you also see how it immediately removes the harmony in the thread, and creates an oppositional environment, let alone that it also stifles conversation, which is why I said you display "thought police" tendencies in my earlier post which I accidentally replaced with another.
It mainly has to do with harmony, your delivery method is of such a nature that it immediately removes the harmony in a discussion.
Is the Pope influenced by Orion?
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:You are, of course, free to disregard any teachings of Ra which do not resonate with you, but on this matter, I do believe you are simply incorrect.
Can you see how this is condescending and confrontational? Let alone that in that particular thread your interpretation of the material is highly questionable.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:You do not roll your eyes at me, you roll your eyes at Ra.
Can you see how this is confrontational? That thread is also an example where I provided you with the relevant Ra quote to show your error, to no avail. And that's why I'm saying it looks like you're more vested in disagreeing than a sincere exchange of ideas.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:YinYang, if you read the news looking for confirmation that the world is doomed
Can you see how this is condescending and disparaging? It also shows "thought police" tendencies. The Ra material made it quite clear that conflict in late third density is of a pressing concern, so people can discuss that if they wish. Can you see how you stifle conversation? Can you see how disrespectful that comment is?
There are many other examples, but this little handful will suffice in making my point, which is that your delivery method removes the harmony and goodwill in a discussion, and creates an confrontational environment, which I certainly don't find enjoyable, because it's disharmonious.
There are ways to disagree with someone respectfully.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:So you think that simply posting a Ra quote means the discussion is over? And that if I disagree with your interpretation of it, I must be doing so solely for the sake of being disagreeable? And that if I disagree with your interpretation of it, I must be doing so solely for the sake of being disagreeable?
It definitely appears that way when I provide you with the relevant quote to show your error, and then it's completely rejected by you.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:At this point, you're basically calling me a liar by implying I'm arguing in bad faith. Which I'm not. I've even been explaining my motivations, but you're just ignoring that.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never alluded to you being a liar. My examples above show why I get the impression that you are more vested in disagreeing than an exchange of ideas. I have not been ignoring your motivations, I have responded to all of them.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:And I didn't write that line about 'looking for confirmation' in response to your Ra quotes, which I addressed in a different reply. I wrote it in response to a biased and inflammatory RT article, which I spent quite a bit of time deconstructing in hopes you would see how heavily-spun it was. Instead, you wrote an incredibly heavy handed reply telling me to "click the X in the corner" if I see something I disagree with, while simultaneously accusing me of trying to stifle discussion. Then you deleted that response's entire text and replaced it with a Hillary video after I replied to it.
I accidentally replaced that long post, for what it's worth. That was an honest boo-boo, and I just didn't have the strength to redo the entire post. You are also missing the gist of the RT article. You initially said in this thread that it's highly unlikely that Russia and China will form an alliance against the West, and my point is that in this overt display of joint strength, they can't make their message clearer to the US that they're together, given the current tensions over that marine territory. That's a clear show of solidarity on Russia's part. The sensationalistic style of the reporting doesn't negate my point. I could just as well have used a more neutral Reuters article to substantiate my point. I just didn't anticipate that my choice of news network would also lead to a point of contention.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:What really makes me sad here is that I thought we'd reached an amicable conclusion. You asked about RT and Al-Jazeera in America, I answered, and that was that. Then I go to bed, and when I wake up, I discovered you had continued the argument hours later with a post that was almost nothing but personal attacks against me.
Yes, that was actually an attempt to find some commonality with you, but then I was lying in bed and thought to myself if you and I don't address our grievances with one another, then it's just going to continue in the same fashion as it had been for quite some time.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:Yes, we clearly disagree on many things. The difference is, I still respect your right to hold differing opinions and I'm not going to take it personally that you're disagreeing with me.
I think you have been rather disrespectful and personal in some of your responses, as shown in my examples.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:And I certainly wouldn't accuse you of insincerity just for disagreeing! I'm simply posting my own honest views on these things. But your last reply to me makes it sound like you're taking it as a personal affront that I have other points of view on these matters and I'm capable of expressing them. We both have just as much right as the other to hold different opinions and post our views in a public discussion. And again I ask, what is a discussion if it isn't an exchange of different points of view?
As I've shown above, the issue isn't that we disagree, it's your delivery method. There are ways to disagree while remaining respectful of someone. I have also become sarcastic in my responses to you, but mostly as a result of a number of condescending posts by you.
PeacefulWarrior Wrote:It's entirely possible for us to agree to disagree without anyone calling anyone else insincere. And i really hope that if you pay attention to nothing else I say, you'll at least take THAT message to heart because, seriously, attacking my motives for having a different opinion than you is not cool.
I never questioned your motives due to the fact that you hold different opinions, I have no issue with differing views. I have explained above what I do take issue with; your delivery method, which immediately removes the harmony and goodwill in any discussion.