The reason the thread is problematic is that when debating his OP you have two choices: 1) reject his strawman presentation of the point he is trying to socratically disprove (which will be off-topic and inappropriate in a GD thread) or 2) dispute his plainly ridiculous arguments to no one’s benefit. It’s a disingenuous waste of time.
In those two threads, to borrow some absolutely brilliant words, I "…framed the debate fairly, and … argued it using rhetoric that passes without comment all the fucking time on this board. "
Many people that responded in those threads were “…incapable of debating the issue and [couldn’t] rebut [their] own rhetoric when it’s used against [them]…”
Then stay out of the thread. Simple enough.
Ha ha, quoting while using “…” to modify the quotes. Very clever. :rolleyes: At least my technique is not skirting the rules.
Now, I would like to point out, that while you can not tell good debating from bad, you were unable to show how the opposite side in that debate was wrong, bad debaters or not.
That’s fine, I have stayed out since I became certain you weren’t being sincere there. But “stay out” is hardly a defense of your thread. Do you not care that you aren’t making the point you hoped to make?
I disagree.
That’s not “framing a debate”. Them’s fightin’ words. You can see that, right?
I think the “gotcha” technique is beneath you. And so does almost everyone else.
There is something else besides simple immorality and practicality that you know needs to be present before something should be illegal. Why don’t you just tell us what that is?
Or, answer why “cheating on your spouse” should not be illegal. It’s meets the exact same criteria as you outlined in your OP.
More and more I see how shallow Bricker is.
Why does anyone take him serious at all?
Because he is intelligent and articulate and is takes positions that are frequently in the minority on this board.
Just because he made a mistake by posting an insincere thread doesn’t mean he isn’t a valuable poster.
First I’m going to say I am not singling you out or picking an argument. Second, I don’t want this to turn into a deflection from the main gist of the OP or the thread.
It is just a clarification of some of the Catholic official view, as it pertains to our own government’s actions - not as friendly as you might think…
The Church is against the death penalty.
It is against pre-emptive wars and wars of aggression.
It is against the Schiavo “life at all costs” circus.
It is against Intelligent Design and is able to separate religious faith from science; they say there is no conflict, no “either/or”.
It says, just saying “I accept Jesus” is not enough - actions and the gift of grace freely accepted count too (no magic words will give a free ride).
It is against torture.
Many of these positions come from its own checkered and stormy past and hard learned lessons. They ain’t perfect ( don’t I know it), but the can learn from experience (eventually).
Therefore, being an apologist (or not) has nothing to do with any church teachings.
Fuck you, Scott Plaid. Learn to read. Those quotes are not taken out of context.
:rolleyes: So I didn’t go back to the train wreck, and see what the wreckage looked like. Big deal. It was a natural assumption.
Now, if you are going to get to that level of debate, then fuck you too. Fuck you (Hmm…, what the most bizarre thing I can thing of? Ah, I have it!) Fuck you sideways with the Washington Monument.
I never said he wasn’t a valuable poster. God knows I get lots of laughs from his posts. And I need those laughs.
He’s still a shallow idiot.
I have to say, Bricker, I agree with this. You’re using this tactic more and more frequently lately, and when I know that you are fully capable of arguing the issue itself, to see you doing this is dismaying.
It’s apparent to me that as the bubble bursts around Bush his apologists are going crazy.
Bricker is a great example.
Not true. Bricker can certainly defend himself on this, but he’s disagreed with Bush on a number of issues. SSM is one very obvious, and very significant one.
Some applications of the Socratic method would indeed be trolling.
Forgive me if I’m wrong.
But are you saying that SSM is more important than spying on US citizens?
I’m not comparing them at all. I said SSM is a “significant” issue in the sense that it’s “big”, and that being in favor of SSM is a significant departure from Bush’s politics. Mot many people who voted for Bush would favor SSM. **Bricker **migh be the only one! 
BWAHAHAHA!!
My God, what a moron you still are. That quote is perfectly in context, you idiot.
Stay in forums where you can handle discussion without looking like a moron. This isn’t one of them.
SteveG1: no argument. I’m friendly at work with a person who is as devout a Catholic as they get, and who despises this President because of this whole Iraq mess. He can’t believe that he’s so cavalier about all this death he’s caused for no good reason.
However, to a conservative Catholic, to whom its positions on labor, torture, war and the death penalty are important, but not as important as its position on abortion and homosexuality, the Bush Admin is overall a good thing.
Put it this way: anyone reading the Federalist Papers has no doubt what was intended by all of the restrictions placed on the President’s power to wage war, in the Constitution as originally framed. Therefore, one would expect that a self-styled strict constructionist would be absolutely livid over this whole wiretap mess, as is, for instance, as was pointed out I believe in the wiretap thread, Bob Barr.
Obviously, one would be wrong. And the reason would be that the person in question’s agenda has nothing at all to do with the Constitution.
But of course, most strict constructionists have some other agenda than the Constitution in mind when they call themselves that, so he’s pretty unremarkable in that way. Banal, even.