[Vision2020] U.S. Approves Mexican Consulate for Boise

[Chasuk]

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> It is slanderous to lump all Latinos in with illegal immigrates.

Slander involves words being falsely spoken.  It is inarguable that
Mexican illegal laborers are a subset of Latino workers.  Please,
before you decide to argue the inarguable, read on.

The original topic here was Sali's attempt to delay the Mexican
Consulate in Boise.  You responded with:

"I am voting to reelect Bill Sali precisely because he is attempting
to keep illegal activities and illegal immigrants out of the state.
Idaho has enough problems getting enough funding for its schools, and
providing other social and medical services. Having to provide for
thousands of others who are not legal residents is to  much of a
burden for poor Idahoans. An influx of labor also reduces wages,
something we also can ill afford in Idaho."

Rainford was invoked solely to show that only a small percentage of
the Idaho Latino community were illegal laborers; that the majority
should NOT be judged, or punished, due to the minority.  You didn't
detect the inference, and hijacked the thread on a wild roller coaster
ride of unsubstantiated irrelevancy, as is your normal tactic.  To
explain this simply and slowly, Rainford's Latinos were introduced
only to show the larger context, but you conjured slander instead.

Hillary would do or say anything to win the Democratic nomination,
despite the destructive consequences.  Repeatedly, you have
demonstrated the same tendency on this forum, doggedly sticking to an
argument regardless of its merit, twisting and contorting like a trout
out of water, zealous to "win" at all costs.  You aren't stupid, which
is more the shame.  You have a good mind.  You have on occasion shown
great insight.  This forum -- and you, personally -- would benefit
from your intelligence if you were not so pigheaded.

No, there isn't a contradiction between showing "great insight" and
being "pigheaded."  I am often pigheaded.  That is why it is so easy
to recognize it in you, and so exasperating to observe.  That's why I
lose my temper and behave childishly when I shouldn't.  That's me,
being a pigheaded idiot.  I hereby formally and publicly apologize for
the name-calling.  I shouldn't do it.  It sabotages everything
reasonable and articulate that I might have said.

You aren't the only one with a behavioral disorder on this forum.  I
was diagnosed with Asperger's in 1993.  It used to be fairly
debilitating, but I have learned to manage it.  My best male friend
(we've been best friends since about 1991) suffers from Asperger's  to
an extreme degree, but he is still my best (male) friend.  I think we
probably taught each other how to cope.

One of the first, most important steps is always being honest with
yourself, which means understanding your own motivations as explicitly
as you are able.  When you contribute to a dialogue, on a forum or
face-to-face, ask yourself: what is my purpose for participation in
this conversation?  Is it to demonstrate my verbal or intellectual
prowess, or is it to share, to learn?  If the answer isn't the latter,
then postpone engagement until you are ready to be wrong, to lose.
Learning means being wrong as often as you are right.

I have addressed this matter publicly, and I ask for a respectful, but
public reply.  I'm not interest in any OFF-LIST dialogues.
Generally, they are the result of cowardice, and cowardice is
anti-educative.  As I've said many times, I'm here to learn and to
share.

Reread Keely's and Tom's and everyone else's contributions to this
thread, and it should be plain that they had some valid points.  If
you honestly don't discover a single valid point, I'll be suspicious,
but I won't call you a liar, this time.  If, after this debate, you
are still repeatedly and reflexively contrary, then I will call you a
liar, but I'll ask you to remember the last preceding paragraphs and
ask what the purpose is of lying to yourself.

Chas