i guess i had hoped that you had a little more respect for my thought processes, political and otherwise. referring to my reasons for disliking jacques chirac, (and russia, for that matter) as "blustering" is unfair. just because my reasoning was not satisfactory to convince you that french foreign policy has been anti-american does not mean that it is somehow less legitimate than your own ideas on the subject.
we will always disagree but should always respect that there are other positions.
and in terms of making fun of the french, especially in terms of the maginot line, you need to separate your emotions and personal feelings from the discussion, else we become hostile for really no reason. in making light of the historical faux pas (even used some french for you, so there...), i tend to be satirizing the decision of the government therein, not of the courage of the everday soldier. not once have i ever referenced your great grandfather, and in mocking your being of french descent, i do not intend to hurt or offend but simply just to give you shit.
i find humorous banter between friends to be a far more acceptable pursuit than relegating an opposing position in a discussion to "bluster."
sorry to have touched a nerve ryan, but you touched one of mine as well.
im just saying that reasons for chirac being a dick were never explained, even when i asked.
and the banter went too far and i feel i have to make my efforts to explain it
i can dig some dick jokes or whatnot, but i think there is this tacit disrespect for the french that undergirds alot of the "harmless" insults thrown around.
i think i made good points the other night, and i think that (maybe just for your dad) there was palpable NON HUMOROUS opinions of the french.
if you are going to call the french anti american (and you seemed not to be joking) i only expect some solid evidence to that end.
i love you, paul and i didnt mean to be curt or demeaning.
it was really great to see you, despite any political tensions (point of fact, outside of francophobia, i didnt take any of our debate beyond mere rhetoric and fun)
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't "francophobia" mean "a fear of all things French?" If so, surely there exists no such term. ;) Ok, ok... that's the last one.
On a serious note, if you say there was "palpable" harmful intent, yet we say there is none... ah, fuck it. If it offends you for real, we ought to knock it off. But it is not for you to determine what the "intent" was, since you obviously have no way of knowing precisely what the intent is, you can only infer it from tone, etc.
And again, just trying to get you to use better techniques, so you don't come off as over emotional. Let me restate: calling someone's argument "blustering" is scarcely conducive to useful dialogue, no matter how weak their argument. peace.
we will always disagree but should always respect that there are other positions.
and in terms of making fun of the french, especially in terms of the maginot line, you need to separate your emotions and personal feelings from the discussion, else we become hostile for really no reason. in making light of the historical faux pas (even used some french for you, so there...), i tend to be satirizing the decision of the government therein, not of the courage of the everday soldier. not once have i ever referenced your great grandfather, and in mocking your being of french descent, i do not intend to hurt or offend but simply just to give you shit.
i find humorous banter between friends to be a far more acceptable pursuit than relegating an opposing position in a discussion to "bluster."
sorry to have touched a nerve ryan, but you touched one of mine as well.
glad to have gotten to see you nonetheless.
little smalls
Reply
im just saying that reasons for chirac being a dick were never explained, even when i asked.
and the banter went too far and i feel i have to make my efforts to explain it
i can dig some dick jokes or whatnot, but i think there is this tacit disrespect for the french that undergirds alot of the "harmless" insults thrown around.
i think i made good points the other night, and i think that (maybe just for your dad) there was palpable NON HUMOROUS opinions of the french.
if you are going to call the french anti american (and you seemed not to be joking) i only expect some solid evidence to that end.
i love you, paul and i didnt mean to be curt or demeaning.
it was really great to see you, despite any political tensions (point of fact, outside of francophobia, i didnt take any of our debate beyond mere rhetoric and fun)
anyhow.,
yeah
Reply
On a serious note, if you say there was "palpable" harmful intent, yet we say there is none... ah, fuck it. If it offends you for real, we ought to knock it off. But it is not for you to determine what the "intent" was, since you obviously have no way of knowing precisely what the intent is, you can only infer it from tone, etc.
And again, just trying to get you to use better techniques, so you don't come off as over emotional. Let me restate: calling someone's argument "blustering" is scarcely conducive to useful dialogue, no matter how weak their argument.
peace.
Reply
Leave a comment