So let's break your post down a bit without pointing fingers outward regarding ‘conflict’.
Your words.....”I usually get the best of anybody that comes at me”......”I do tend to finish them”
Sounds like you're on the defensive ready for combat and intend to ‘win’ the conflict including the cost of discovering truth. That isn't exactly debating now is it? After all you're after discovering truth are you not? Even in the face of insult?
How many hours, days and weeks was Kavenaugh questioned/ drilled 'without flinching'....as a good example of a man in control 'because' he knew he was right and confident in his positions.
You have reached the wrong conclusion, goodman.
Sounds like you're on the defensive ready for combat and intend to ‘win’ the conflict including the cost of discovering truth.
Does it? Or does it sound like I'm correcting your perceptions of reality? I never start conflict. Never. That's just science. I'm explaining to you that I respond when attacked.
You seem to be saying that defending oneself is a bad thing. Is it really? Don't you defend yourself? Aren't you defending yourself from boogie man Bagster and the evil Q demons right now?
You may be surprised to know that I much prefer reasoned discussion and debate, but the "environment" you mentioned earlier often doesn't lend itself to that type of discourse. Not when all around are ridiculing, insulting, mocking, and demeaning my way of thinking.
But I've had numerous discussions with skeptics that didn't result in ugliness. Maybe you just haven't seen them. What I'm telling you is that when provoked, I respond. Call that being defensive if you want. But it's not a bad thing.
After all you're after discovering truth are you not? Even in the face of insult?
Absolutely. The truth is the most important thing. And I am 188% sure that, given enough time and the proper "environment" I could and would convince most people of the truth as I understand it.
But there are so many that refuse to listen, which I have to say is pretty frustrating. But I'm learning to accept that as a reality. Can't teach old dogs new tricks sometimes.
How many hours, days and weeks was Kavenaugh questioned/ drilled 'without flinching'....as a good example of a man in control 'because' he knew he was right and confident in his positions.
See? Even on this we have different takes. Kavenaugh was excoriated by the derps for "flinching" during the hearing, in interviews, and writing an op-ed. And all he was doing was defending himself.
And they said that because he did, he didn't have the "temperament" to be a judge. Donald Trump is our hero because he defends himself like no other Republican ever has.
And that's a pretty good example of what's going on here. The "Q-pers" have the nerve to stand up and defend themselves and then their "temperament" is questioned. (Divisive, etc).
If I have to choose between defending myself like Kavanaugh and Trump or behaving like the Republicans of old, I choose the Trump/Kavanaugh option.
So, yea. Temperament. I guess mine sucks too.
But do you see my point, caww? Just like you misread the Kavanaugh situation, maybe you're misreading the Q/Bagster situation?
Is that possible?
I ask that with all due respect. And I ask anybody else reading this, as well.