Bricker, in both this thread and the other you have demonstrated your contempt for quite a few people, either by personal insults (here in the Pit), or by disingenuous debating tactics (in GD).
Yet, amid all this, you have taken the time to say that you have “a great deal of respect” for John. And it seems to me that, even when he disagrees with you, he makes the effort to give you every possible benefit of the doubt.
So why won’t you respond to his question in either thread?
Good grief no. Starting a thread in another forum whose purpose is not to discuss but to parody is not a “rhetorical device.” It’s starting more trouble than it solves. Bricker is completely capable of pointing out perceived hypocrisy or faulty arguments in a straightforward manner as he has proven over and over.
People RARELY get the best of Bricker in arguments. He has no need to resort to bizarre tactics to make his points in roundabout fashions.
The SSM issue is a red herring. It’s a look here!! While we do all sorts of stuff behind your back.
Bricker can be against it all he likes.
But then again he says he is a practicing Catholic.
And what is the RCC’s stand on SSM?
So he is either ignoring his church or he’s a liar.
Fuck yes I am willing to call Socrates a troll. Smug know it all motherfucker. Should have made the son of a bitch down that hemlock way sooner. My only regret is that they didn’t take everything that piece of shit wrote, piss on it, cram it into his lifeless corpse and then feed it to the fucking carrion birds.
Is that a moral stance? I say that the majority of people sick to fucking death of that Greek goat fucker (on the Left and Right) agree, so it must be moral.
Discuss:
What’s the difference betweeb a “gotcha” technique and Socratic method? Is it that one is used by disinterested educators to draw people into an exploration of the issues, whilst the other is mere advocacy?
Stupidity, verily it flows from your very pores.
There are certain things that MUST be believed by every practicing Catholic.
There are a much greater set of things on which the RCC has taken a position, but which are not mandatory belief for Catholics.
For example, the Church has certified that the appearance of Mary at Fatima was a miracle. But there is no bar against a practicing Catholic believing that all those people were halluncinating. See how that works?
Now, focus your tiny, tiny brain on same-sex civil marriage. Which I favor. And which the Church opposes.
But … wait for it… here’s the kicker… the Church does not mandate that its members oppose civil same-sex marriage. So my stance, while it’s not the same as the Church’s, is not a violation of the Church’s rules. I’m not “ignoring” the Church. I have, with a fully-informed conscience, reached a different position than the Church.
Get it, you festering gob of malodorous pus?
Grits and Hard Toast: Perhaps you should consider reframing your question in a way that invites a shorter, less ambiguous answer than ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Or repost it in bolded or extra large colored text or something, so it’s not quite so easy to overlook.
I did respond. I pointed out that, at least in Virginia, it IS illegal.
I like you. You are funny.
You are funny too.
And by “funny” I mean “stupid”.
Now you tell me. Are those the words of an adult in complete control of his senses?
Or are they the words of a childish idiot completely losing it?
John Mace: Under the rules of this board, perhaps. That might be a fault in the board rules, perhaps.
And, erm, Binary Drone, there is a such thing as Preparation H. Or perhaps it’s a Motrin you’re looking for. Or a decent cabernet. Something.
BTW, John, the cheating spouses question was an excellent little “gotcha” right back.
But this is hardly the answer to the question that John Mace was asking you. In fact, it is little more than another disingenuous debating tactic on your part.
Merely pointing out the Virginia law on this particular issue completely ignores the fact that John was asking you to give an opinion on whether it should be illegal, based on a set of crtieria that you had previously outlined as informing your position on prostitution.
Say what you want to, but the fact remains that Socrates was a disingenuous know it all piece of shit. He wouldn’t make it to 100 posts on the board before being banned. Seriously, this business of making a point through some tortured and convoluted back door where you try to prove that people are morally inconsistent makes me want to puke. It assumes that you somehow know what is best, that others have not given the attention that it deserves to the development of their won moral compass and it reveals a sneering contempt for points of view that differ from your own. Fuck that.
Well smack my ass! I wish that words alone could show the extent of my surprise.
And yet those rules are what they are. It makes no sense to judge the appropriateness of the OP except by those board rules.
I don’t like the answer I gave earlier. Actually, I said what the problem was in the OP. I’ll rephrase the issues:
You can’t honestly say that you weren’t trying to make some larger point about morality and the law in that GD thread. So, just come out and make the point!
The way you’re going about it doesn’t work. Look at what a trainwreck that thread turned into.
I want to save your ass from being banned.
Me too.
Dammit, Bricker, I value your contributions. I am not sure what is precipitating this behavior, but please take a break if you can’t stop it.
I think the Socratic method is a valid one-but not all the time. It’s a good method for teachers to get their students to THINK about their answers, to examine their beliefs and come up with WHY they believe the way they do.
As for Bricker, it pains me to see him stooping to december’s idiotic tactics, because I truly believe he’s better than that. He’s becoming insufferable lately.
Gah. Posts like this make me want to register Republican. You can disagree with his politics and his actions; but calling him a shallow idiot is like calling a Ford Ranger a swaybacked mule. It’s just flat-out wrong.
Hang out a bit more, show a bit more depth and intelligence in your posts, and maybe someday you’ll be able to offer Bricker some useful feedback. But right now, you’re just painting a big bullseye on your forehead, putting a “Kick Me!” sign on your pants.
I wish Bricker would post a clear statement about his motives in posting that OP, all his motives. Frankly, if such a post gets the thread shut down, it won’t be any great loss. But if he doesn’t? Meh: so it goes. In that case, Bricker, I gotta say, your argument style in that thread is reminding me of Reeder’s style, one-line unsupported assertions. Possibly good as a parody, but if that’s what it is, let us in on the joke.
Daniel