Does it? Who does that post attack, specifically?
I named no one.
Sorry, my flawed morality made me do it.
I believe you.
Now go congratulate the folks who believe that exposing a child to organized religion is potentially far more dangerous than porn. Their morality is also top-notch.
Right?
I’m unaware of any porn zealots who have holed themselves up in an armed compound to avoid complying with the government.
For the record, if someone said that my morality would doom the country, there’s no way I’m going to send that person a PM. That’s like going to the door of someone who writes a letter to the editor instead of writing your own letter.
Someone needs to get a room.
Well, I didn’t think this needed to be in the Pit qua Pit, but I guess it does. Because, boy howdy, that’s such a gratuitously wrong reading of everything I’ve been saying in threads with you, that it’s hard to regard it as anything less than bad faith.
Which makes your pre-emptive pity party even more amusing: trash someone else and whine that everybody’s picking on you.
Yeah, that’s a good way to show that you’re not the jerk, it’s all those other people who are being jerks.
Anyhow, I want to make a basic point about the law, since you claim that I regard it as a mere annoyance and obstacle:
I respect the law, but I don’t believe it’s always right.
Not only am I not alone in this attitude, but our government, along with every other democracy, is structured around that very attitude.
That’s why we have legislatures that are empowered to change the laws, and do so on a more or less continuous basis. If the law was always right, then it would never be wrong, and only in need of being changed to apply to things like the emergence of new technology.
Sorry to get all Civics 101 here, but it seemed to be called for. Saying “I think law X is wrong,” as I’ve been known to, shouldn’t get anyone’s panties in a wad.
I see no reason to accept your personal fantasy as my own. I will, however, give your request to stop doing “that” all of the consideration that it deserves.
Objection your honor. If it please the court…
Defendant has pre-emptively painted any respondent that objects to his morality as “mouth breathing idiots” while in the next breath attempting to deny doing so based on a disingenuous pretense of not having named anyone specifically.
Because I was expecting the answer to question 1 to be ‘yes,’ as it in fact was, which meant that it wasn’t as much about me as about liberalism in general. Why Bricker believes that liberalism will destroy this country in due course seemed like a matter for open debate.
Besides, he made his statement about the destructive power of my beliefs publicly; it seemed fair to ask for an explanation publicly.
No. Learn to read, come back, and try again:
The only ones preemptively called mouth-breathing idiots are the ones who participate in a pile-on of me, hurling the most vile insults they can.
Isn’t that what it says?
Why did you misrepresent it?
So the test was positive huh?
I think that both the left and right could, in their own way, ruin America if they were given absolute, unrestricted, unchecked power.
Oh yeah: in the original thread, I asked you to *read *my OP in this thread. And in this OP, I gave you plenty of room to choose not to respond, and if you decided not to, I was going to have the mods close this thread just to keep it from being a pile-on. (ETA: And I did my damnedest to couch my OP in the most non-inflammatory language possible. Wasted effort, apparently. Such is life.)
Look, I can’t stop you from being you. And in this thread, you’ve shown your true colors in spades. You’ve got no one but yourself to blame for who you are and how you act.
I like to figure odds.
And I figure, generously, that there’s maybe a 10% chance you believe that.
So speaking to that 10% probable version of yourself: really? If you truly simply sought information from me, then a PM serves that need. Why did you roll the dice on how long it would take the mods to respond, whether or not they’d accede to your request to close it, and set up a series of raw-meat treats for the vultures to start feasting upon?
And speaking now to the 90% probable version of yourself: it’s not credible to me to think you believed that your OP was not inflammatory and you didn’t know the flame bair you were posting. Indeed, despite your demurs, you posted in the Pit.
You really are a humorless pedant of questionable paternal heritage. :rolleyes:
At least you’ve already established what that makes me. 
Yes, that’s accurate.
Which makes my statement about RTF more a truism than a truth.
That seems fair to me. If an accusation is made publicly, it’s surely reasonable to ask for clarification/explanation just as publicly.
C’mon folks, almost forty posts and where are the vile insults? I want to see some vile insults, dammit.
So far, Bricker has actually come closest, but “you’re a mouth-breathing idiot if you end up hurling what I deem to be a vile insult, although no one one has actually done that yet”, is pretty weak tea, IMO.
It’s a good thing that no liberals on this board ever say bad things about Conservatives and the results of their concepts of morality.
:rolleyes:
Of course an ultra-liberal government run according to the uber-leftists that post here would result in ruin. Is that even remotely debatable?
For the record, I wouldn’t want to live in a one party state of either party. But just look at California if you want to see the result of Democrat only rule.