(01-30-2020 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, to be honest, perhaps we can parse this.

I brought up the issue of selective approval of Constitutional provisions only with regard to your very spirited defense of the voting right.

I understand how people can 'challenge in a discussion'; in that context I have zero issue. When someone holds down a position with vigor as did lad with his view of the role of state sovereignty and the actual history behind it, at some point that 'gee lets look at a different angle shall we' can be very easily interpreted as a spirited defense. It isnt like he charged that hill only once, it was kind of like the battle of the Somme in that regard. When the waves come, and come, and come, and come, at some point even the most objective person might conclude that that particular viewpoint is held.

As to my comment on the 2nd amendment, yes it was a 'challenge question' -- that was brought up only once or twice. And we discussed it.

Fair point that it was a small discussion. What bothered me is that I'm not anywhere close to a gun control extremist so it felt like you were calling me a hypocrite, rather than just disagreeing with an idea or policy.

(01-30-2020 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So what exactly is the difference between your 'model engaging challenge' ("Or maybe he is just an intelligent person who wants to have constructive and informative dialogue about a topic of interest?") which I have no issue with, and my apparent 'real bad' ungood non-engaging challenge with the question about the vigor in which you would defend other rights?

Not trying to be snarky here, and, if you read the above question with the 'this is a model engaging quetion' bias set, I think that might be a valid question. Just tossing it out there.

Context. I think the ranked choice voting thread is a good example. It started out as a completely apolitical discussion. I literally asked "any thoughts...?" as part of my short post to start the thread. Nothing in that post was negative toward conservatives. So in something like that, no reason to start throwing hand grenades at each other.

Word choice. Lad and I don't try and hide our beliefs. So if we don't state an opinion, there is no need to infer an opinion. When a person infers that we have an opinion and then start throwing hand grenades at the inference, the discussion devolves quickly. I've made the same mistake a time or two, making inferences about conservatives when they weren't trying to state an opinion. I'm trying to avoid doing so.