Gentleman angry in court

Why do people say this? What does it even mean?

Disagreement is not a form of agreement. And “we’ll have to”? It’s required?

What if I disagree about agreeing to disagree?

5 Likes

This has already been hashed out here, before. Just because you see an asshole, doesn’t mean they are mentally ill. There are already enough stigmas associated with mental illness. No need to propagate them here. Even with your “maybes” and “sortas,” you are still jumping to the conclusion that asshole = mentally ill. That’s against the guidelines.

6 Likes
4 Likes

“I’m not changing your mind, you’re not changing my mind, let’s part peacefully until the next time we clash.”

Then things move to the next step. Pistols at dawn, good sir!

12 Likes

And if that doesn’t work, Cannons at noon, asshole!

7 Likes
5 Likes

It sounds like a pathological aversion to conflict to me, and a failure to comprehend others as separate people who will continue to disagree with you even after you’re tired of talking about something.

3 Likes

Always the sign of someone who’s made lots of smart life decisions.

4 Likes

When men get hormonal. It’s called testosterone, the asshole hormone. And for some people, “that time of the month” is all year long.

2 Likes

The defendant was in court on the charge of making death threats. He literally proved the prosecutor’s case.

11 Likes

I wonder how that attitude will work for him while in prison. And for how long.

Yes but then you used that annoying phrase so that’s all I took away from your statement.

Bless his heart. I think somebody needs a nap. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes

Since you’re unfamiliar with the meaning and use of the phrase, I could see how you may jump to that conclusion. However, it could also be employed to indicate that reasonable people acting in good faith are capable of disagreeing about something without insisting that an argument continue with diminishing returns, and without a substantive disagreement turning into personal sniping. Essentially the opposite of what you imply, in that it is an explicit acceptance that someone else will continue to disagree with you on a certain point.

Hope this helped.

3 Likes

This type of guy is why I got out of social work and human services.

2 Likes

Never trust a reader.

No.

Maybe you guys can agree to differ on this point? Or do you insist that you two have to absolutely work it out amicably?

4 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.