Then again, the third possibility - excluded in your attempt to formulate a false dilemma - is that one who disagrees with you is neither a fanatic nor a sadist, but, rather, possesses at the least an elementary knowledge of economics.
You know, if people look at you askance, my dear Fabio - and they do - it's not what you think. No, literally: it's not What You Think, which, bar the 'social conservatism' on abortion and sexual morality, is quite surprisingly congruent w the sodden and undigested mass of Euro-socialist, er, thought (to use the term loosely). It's the unnecessarily rebarbative fashion in wh you so often say it.
I'm commonly quite tolerant of this, but then, I'm a bird of rare plumage; others may be less so. I merely implore you, in a friendly manner and for yr own advantage, to consider a different rhetorical mode. It wd serve you better, and yr causes w it.
One must, then, either be a sadist or a statist?
Then again, the third possibility - excluded in your attempt to formulate a false dilemma - is that one who disagrees with you is neither a fanatic nor a sadist, but, rather, possesses at the least an elementary knowledge of economics.
You know, if people look at you askance, my dear Fabio - and they do - it's not what you think. No, literally: it's not What You Think, which, bar the 'social conservatism' on abortion and sexual morality, is quite surprisingly congruent w the sodden and undigested mass of Euro-socialist, er, thought (to use the term loosely). It's the unnecessarily rebarbative fashion in wh you so often say it.
I'm commonly quite tolerant of this, but then, I'm a bird of rare plumage; others may be less so. I merely implore you, in a friendly manner and for yr own advantage, to consider a different rhetorical mode. It wd serve you better, and yr causes w it.