It’s impossible to change anyone’s mind if they refuse to let it be changed. Really, of course, only the mind’s owner can change it, not **Bricker **or anyone else.
Your sig line about Schroedinger’s Pizza is funny.
Yes, that’s true.
But – and this is a point I’ve discussed before on these boards – the automatic inference is that my disagreement on any given issue is a result of political disagreement. The reason I ask for others who see an unjust attack to step in is not because I can’t defend myself, but because their defense tends to refute the idea that the contentious behavior is based in political disagreement. It’s for that reason that I try to call out Terr, to pick one example, when I see a flaw in what he’s saying: as a general rule, he tends to defend conservative positions, and my willingness to smack him down shows that ideology is not the problem.
Obviously I can’t be everywhere, and on this board, there is no shortage of ammunition to attack the conservative view anyway. But… I’m asking because I think it goes a long way to focus discussion on the issue and not the personality and ideology.
Thank you for your concern.
But I no longer practice law.
Says the guy who has called me, because I had the audacity to point out when you’re being disingenuous, a herd member, a bad loser, “fucking stupid”, that I have a “whiny mouth”, a “moral vacuum”, and "a “bitch”.
You must be so proud.
There are many ethical systems in which…
:d&r:
: shaking fist while chasing :
ANDROS!!!
: huffing and puffing, out of breath :
And these insults were unprompted, were they? The worst thing you said to me was that I was disingenuous, huh? And then, apropos of no further provocation, I started spewing insults worthy of a Tourette’s sufferer? Is that how you recall it?
Post 785, you tell me I have to be lying. I reply calmly, not returning any insult, in 787.
Post 791, you tell me, “Stop being dumb.” I reply in 792, again civilly, with a post that would not ruffle any feathers in GD.
And it escalates from there, with you out in front on the insults, and now shocked, shocked, that I would be so crass as to serve back some of your shit?
How dare I? I should have just taken it, and kept smiling?
Yes, I usually do. Not today. Not on this issue, where you trotted out your idiotic maladroit attempts to understand how the Supreme Court would rule, and utterly failed to correctly do so. And rather than just saying, “Yes, Bricker, you were right, and I was wrong,” you charge right ahead, incredibly trying to finesse the impression that you were right in the midst of losing the fucking bet we made to settle the issue!
No, no. The next time you have the temerity to open your idiotic pie-hole about something, let’s see how it works out for you.
You were lying, and even admitted it. You posted something that you knew was factually wrong. You went on to claim it was because it was too hard to type out the actual truth, but you did post something that was untrue.
Because you, once again, insisted on spreading falsities. You even admit to it. It wasn’t the first time, when I was much more civil and pointed out your “mistake”, but even in the posts where I pointed out you were lying, I also pointed out that this wasn’t the first time you were corrected, so it wasn’t a mistake.
I cut you slack, and you continued to mislead. It’s a bitch when I called you on it.
Oh, it just magically “escalated”, did it? I pointed out that you were deliberately making false statements, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of lying. You were the one who then devolved it into the name calling. In post #794 you called me a bad loser and wished you had caused me more pain personally. From there on, all the quotes I posted earlier were all yours. Own it like a man.
I said you were lying when you were lying. That hurt your feelings, so you wished you had caused me more personal pain, called me a bad loser, that I was just part of a herd mentality, that I was a moral vacuum, and the rest.
And you have the balls to come in and play the martyr?
Yes, I said you were lying. Because you were. And you admitted to it.
Then you personally insult me over and over and over. And now you want to claim the high road?
Sad. Very, very sad. Sometimes I wonder what happened to the Bricker who I first met in a Iron Chef thread cooking, IIRC, with rosemary against Scylla. Then I read what you have turned into currently and I just shake my head. Pity, not anger, is what I have for you.
It doesn’t appear that the SCOTUS expanded it’s Hobby Lobby ruling. The SCOTUS notified the lower courts that they should consider, or reconsider, their rulings based on the latest ruling of the SCOTUS.
*The day after handing down the Hobby Lobby decision on Monday, the court issued orders pertaining to six pending cases in which employers claimed religious objections to all contraceptive services required under the Affordable Care Act. The court either ordered appeals courts to reconsider their rejection of the employers’ claims in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, or let stand lower courts’ endorsement of those claims. *
This notification will save the lower courts and litigants time and be no different than when the SCOTUS remands a pending case back to it’s lower court for a proper consideration.
The accusations of lying are pretty over the top. Bricker has been posting about this topic at length so it’s not expected that every post be the paradigm of succient wisdom. It was pretty clear to me that the RFRA was being discussed in conjunction with the Dictionary Act. It seems that should have been resolved much easier and more quickly than the petty sniping that followed. Egos it seems.
That being said the reason it’s remarkable that Bricker lowered the bar in response is because it typically doesn’t happen. That being the case it’s all the more jarring. I prefer it when the posts stay above the fray - much more persuasive that way.
Hamlet always struck me as a fairly intelligent decent person whom i disagree with on many things. Bricker has been one of the most logically consistent posters on the board who seems to have an odd fixation with Voter ID laws. You’re both better than this - for whatever my worthless opinion is worth.
I personally think the case was correctly decided based on the law and simultaneously think the law is asinine. Then again I’m not too fond of the ACA either nor do I think there should be any special treatment between for profit and non profit corps. So I’m not heavily invested either way.
Politically, I’m dead center, so (like most controversial issues) I have no deep-seated personal opinion on this matter. I’m also uneducated on the specifics of this matter, and, therefore, am in no position to judge how viable evidence/cites are, and, therefore, believe that anything not contested is just that. Further, I’ve not been around here very long, so I have no personal feelings about any of you.
All that said, of the 3 of you, from my position, Shayna has the weakest arguments. It feels like every sentence is just another personal attack (fuckwad, dipshit, etc.) that turns me off to the evidence presented in those posts. It may not have been incoherent babble, but it definitely seemed to hinge more on ad hominem than actual refutation. If anything was actually refuted in those posts, it got buried under a mountain of snark and ad hominem, which, I will admit, did cause me to start skimming for relevant details, as opposed to reading the whole post.
All that said, it can’t be said that Bricker wasn’t guilty of the same, though it was done to a far lesser extent, and the majority of posts were focused on clearly and succinctly addressing points made. That isn’t to say, though, that two wrongs make a right. Bricker does strike me as the kind of person who would know that ad homs hurt, rather than help, one’s argument, though it’s also true that we all have a breaking point and all will lose our temper eventually.
I also, for what it’s worth, understand and agree with the logic of calling a law unambiguous if it was written and worded like it was so that any ambiguities would be cleared up by a law that was already in effect, and I wouldn’t call said assertion a lie, especially if it was made with the understanding that those reading would understand that…shall we say, caveat.
I will, however, say that stating that the court didn’t find the bill to be unambiguous because it stated, in part, that the bill didn’t define a certain word is skewing of fact, as it seems said statement was made in the interest of being thorough, not in the interest of highlighting a point of ambiguity.
Additionally, I think that we, as a society, would be best to remember that Judicial Review exists to overturn only laws that are unconstitutional, not those that are stupid or based in ignorance. If the law exists as constitutional, then I would think that we as a society would welcome courts settling disputes upon it, regardless of their feelings towards it, and leave it to Congress to decide, once they see the law interpreted as it will be, whether or not to amend or repeal it. Otherwise, all power goes to the court, and we the people are further removed from the legislative process. As an aside, if there any threads discussing the morality of “legislating from the bench” (besides this one, of course), I’d love reading those if you can point me to them.
So to answer the original question, no, it doesn’t just feel like a back and forth. There are obvious differences in the arguments and their strengths. But that doesn’t mean that I came away siding with Bricker or that I found no flaw in his arguments, as I already stated that neither are true.
Sure, if it happens once. Or twice. Or after being corrected, it doesn’t happen again.
That’s not what happened here. In this thread, he repeated the same misinformation over and over, even going so far as to pretend the Supreme Court agreed with this misleading statement.
He lied. I called him on it.
Thank you.
And I think the law was expanded well beyond its clear legislative intent. We can disagree, civilly. Even in the Pit.
I want to dip this post in bronze and preserve it like baby shoes.
Thank you – your criticism of my descent into ad hominem is precisely accurate and precisely deserved. And your summary of the other matters is much appreciated. As a participant in these conversations, I realize there’s essentially no chance of swaying most of the other participants. But I harbor the fantasy that there is a cadre of readers who do not typically participate but read the debate and are potentially swayed, or at least edified, thereby.
As I should have. It’s rare for me to lose my temper here, no matter the provocation. I should not have here. Obviously I still find your position unpersuasive, and specifically I still reject any accusation that I lied, but I apologize for the invective I used in conveying that rejection.
Thanks very much for this summary. I truly appreciate your words.
C’mon people now
Smile on your brother
You’re all shitheads.
Everybody get together
Try to love one another
Except bup
Bricker, I’ve lurked here for years and feel that I know at least your SDMB persona rather well. I lean liberal these days, and disagree with you most of the time. I don’t much care for your debate style, and think you purposefully ignore the overall point of those you are debating so you can frame the question as a legal one instead of an ethical or moral one.
That said, you convinced me on this HL decision, so there are readers who can be swayed. I was fully expecting SCOTUS to decide against HL, and when they didn’t I had many enraged discussions about how partisan the justices are. I decided that with all the frustration I should at least be better informed, so I read this thread and many other articles. Your contributions in this very long thread informed me that many off my assumptions about the case were wrong, and in the end I was forced to reconsider. I think it’s terrible that this decision is legally correct, but at least now I know that it is, and that congress should update the law to invalidate it.
You still haven’t come anywhere close to convincing me that voter ID laws are anything other than thinly veiled disenfranchisement and are unconstitutional. Even though you are the token respected conservative on this board, I think you might benefit from dropping the partisanship on some issues.
Disagreements aside, the board would be a lesser place without your participation.
Hugs all around?