SUMMARY of interaction: For those who want to TLDR this wonderful comment thread....

Silver: Freemasons? The issue is not as simple as people think. Definition of enemy: "Everyone working against that (our remaining stuck in the Matrix), no matter their association or even what they have done is not our enemy"

Dear Leader: There can be no distinction. I only think in terms of groups, and associations, and there can be no variance on that point. Therefore, "The Freemasons" are by definition NOT working against our remaining in the Matrix. Not a single one. They are all rotten, and there can be no doubt that NONE of them are not working to undermine us.

Silver: I think we should take a more nuanced approach to how we evaluate who or what our enemies are.

Dear Leader: No. I refuse. And because you are even attempting a more nuanced examination of the issue, you are a SHILL, and evil. Begone!

Silver: dude... Open you're mind a bit here. Can't you see that you're so identified with what you think is evil that you have pigeon-holed your own thinking? That's not helpful.

Dear Leader: whaa...? how dare y... ! You are.....!!! Well, you're an idiot! So there.

Silver: Hey, comon. Can't we at least have a rational discussion?

Dear Leader: well, you're a poopy head! And I hate the Freemasons, and you are defending them, so you're a double poopy head!

Silver: Damn, man. I'm NOT defending them. I'm saying, there's more too it. Anyway, <facepalm>. Jerk.

Dear Leader: Yeah, well my argument is better than your argument, so there. Dad said so.

Silver: No it's not.

Dear Leader: yes it is.

END.

See? This is how to have a productive interaction. Siblings will be siblings....

Edit: Dear Leader could have easily avoided this entire back and forth argument by simply agreeing with Silver's definition and then stating, well, in my opinion NO freemasons are working against us staying in the Matrix.

Instead, Dear Leader decided to attack Silver's line of thinking (seeking greater nuance) and completely avoided the reasonable yet uncontentious difference of opinion on whether or not ALL freemasons (or the ENTIRE freemason community as a whole) are working against our being freed from the Matrix.

He chose to argue the line of thinking, in order to defend his position (opinion).

Conclusion: Silver wins the argument by virtue of the fact that Dear Leader's approach was not so much based in reason as it was in a defensive attitude, instead of simply owning the disagreement.

8 points to House Lone Ranger, 5 points to House North Korea.

SUMMARY of interaction: For those who want to TLDR this wonderful comment thread....

Silver: Freemasons? The issue is not as simple as people think. Definition of enemy: "Everyone working against that (our remaining stuck in the Matrix), no matter their association or even what they have done is not our enemy"

Dear Leader: There can be no distinction. I only think in terms of groups, and associations, and there can be no variance on that point. Therefore, "The Freemasons" are by definition NOT working against our remaining in the Matrix. Not a single one. They are all rotten, and there can be no doubt that NONE of them are not working to undermine us.

Silver: I think we should take a more nuanced approach to how we evaluate who or what our enemies are.

Dear Leader: No. I refuse. And because you are even attempting a more nuanced examination of the issue, you are a SHILL, and evil. Begone!

Silver: dude... Open you're mind a bit here. Can't you see that you're so identified with what you think is evil that you have pigeon-holed your own thinking? That's not helpful.

Dear Leader: whaa...? how dare y... ! You are.....!!! Well, you're an idiot! So there.

Silver: Hey, comon. Can't we at least have a rational discussion?

Dear Leader: well, you're a poopy head! And I hate the Freemasons, and you are defending them, so you're a double poopy head!

Silver: Damn, man. I'm NOT defending them. I'm saying, there's more too it. Anyway, <facepalm>. Jerk.

Dear Leader: Yeah, well my argument is better than your argument, so there. Dad said so.

Silver: No it's not.

Dear Leader: yes it is.

END.

See? This is how to have a productive interaction. Siblings will be siblings....

SUMMARY of interaction: For those who want to TLDR this wonderful comment thread....

Silver: Freemasons? The issue is not as simple as people think. Definition of enemy: "Everyone working against that, no matter their association or even what they have done is not our enemy"

Dear Leader: There can be no distinction. I only think in terms of groups, and associations, and there can be no variance on that point. Therefore, "The Freemasons" are by definition NOT working against our remaining in the Matrix. The are all rotten, and there can be no doubt that NONE of them are not working to undermine us.

Silver: I think we should take a more nuanced approach to how we evaluate who or what our enemies are.

Dear Leader: No. I refuse. And because you are even attempting a more nuanced examination of the issue, you are a SHILL, and evil. Begone!

Silver: dude... Open you're mind a bit here. Can't you see that you're so identified with what you think is evil that you have pigeon-holed your own thinking? That's not helpful.

Dear Leader: whaa...? how dare y... ! You are.....!!! Well, you're an idiot! So there.

Silver: Hey, comon. Can't we at least have a rational discussion?

Dear Leader: well, you're a poopy head! And I hate the Freemasons, and you are defending them, so you're a double poopy head!

Silver: Damn, man. I'm NOT defending them. I'm saying, there's more too it. Anyway, <facepalm>. Jerk.

Dear Leader: Yeah, well my argument is better than your argument, so there. Dad said so.

Silver: No it's not.

Dear Leader: yes it is.

END.

See? This is how to have a productive interaction. Siblings will be siblings....