Just 'cos I like money wrenches in general. 
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17377426&highlight=abortion#post17377426)
Well, he doesn’t like the whole “Rich people should pay more in taxes because they benefit more from the society” argument.
He supports the Keystone Pipeline
He’s no fan of gun control
He is a fan of Sheriff Joe.
So that’s some stuff, I guess.
Well, looks like I was wrong. He is pro-personal responsibility. He is not a liberal after all.
First of all, I’ve never in this thread said that he should be criminally prosecuted by any secular authority. I’ve essentially said that if the Catholic church wants to distance itself from being pedophile enablers it should cleanse itself of them.
I initially started out thinking that the pope could do whatever he wanted because he was the chief god talker. god talkers traditionally aren’t ones who like their power limited so it made sense that he could kick anyone at his whim from the club regardless of what is written down on paper. Further investigation bears that out. He is only limited by the dictates of what is known to have come from god previously. Anything written on paper eg. Canon Law, can be ignored if the pope says different.
Bricker got on a side track about my comment about that the pope should lie and say god told him to kick out Law. According to club rules, he doesn’t even have to do that. And every club should have ‘don’t be a dick’ rules regardless. So, they should implement them now and make them retroactive (another thing the pope isn’t limited by).
Regarding my conservatism. I’m not from the US where being a conservative equals religious whackadoodle. I believe that people should be helped when needed as that is every citizens responsibility to help their neighbours. The government is the proxy for doing that and is responsible for ensuring that the money we give them in taxes is spent wisely, not frivolously. While that sounds altruistic, there is another reason less so. Starving and sick people tend to pick up rocks and sticks to get food and help which causes all sorts or nasty consequences. I much prefer prevention than suppression. I also care little what consenting adults do in their spare time as long as they are only minimally affecting my enjoyment of same.
I doubt that is a conservative philosophy in the US.
Not for some time. I’d say since 1978 or so.
See, if Bricker posted something like that instead of being his usual obfuscatory self, we’d have moved past this point.
Doesn’t change that fact that his entire sentiment is idiotic regardless of Uzi’s political affiliation, since there is no evidence that the alleged position Uzi took is liberal, and since it appears the position is a strawman that Uzi never took in the first place (sorry, Uzi, for calling your position stupid–my bad!)
Seems like you’ve been wrong about a lot of things.
Also,
[QUOTE=Bricker]
If I offer up a confident declaration, with no caveats about possible error, and I am wrong, you are welcome to skewer me. I will deserve it.
[/QUOTE]
So, we got the confident declaration and we got the wrong. And you could have looked up Uzi’s posting history for yourself, so we also got the wilful ignorance.
Is there anything you’ve accused other people of doing here that you yourself haven’t done more of?
Good show.
Remember when Bricker wasn’t a scumbag? No?
Bazinga! to both of you, thanks.
I do seem to recall him being less scummy before my ten-year hiatus, actually.
Then why did you chose to nitpick with distracting and delaying questions? Why didn’t you show good faith by saying, “since this is an unfounded rumor, I assume you are talking about the blogger and not the alleged actions of the Governor. Here’s what I think…”
I know the answer, by the way. You’ve realized that you screwed up by baselessly stating a certain position was “liberal,” and have no actual evidence to support your position–but rather than admit you’ve made a mistake, you are stalling as hard as your JD will let you.
Honestly, so do I. I was looking at old threads a few weeks ago, and I was shocked at how reasonable he was.
You know how old people watch nothing but FOX News and RW media and become bitter, seething assholes? I think that’s what’s happening to him.
-
I see what you’re saying, but you’re absolutely moving the goalposts from where they were in post #440 … a post in which you complained about someone moving the goalposts.
-
I assume you’d dispute the above charge, but, regardless of how they got there, the goalposts are now on Neptune. I can search for people throughout the political spectrum saying stupid things about people they think should be arrested, but please demonstrate how one is supposed to search for (a) someone rejecting (b) a clear & specific refutation to (c) this specific type of claim from (d) people of particular political persuasions.
-
And, anyway, is it honestly your supposition that both of those bloggers would change their tune if only someone would explain to them that no applicable law has been broken? Or how about the commenters under the article from the second link I posted, eagerly signing on to the idea that Holder is criminally culpable? Surely a reasonable post in their midst refuting the notion would have them all conceding the point, yes? If you think it’s likely, I encourage you to try it. (But, of course, you don’t think it’s likely, because you’ve been on the internet for more than a week.)
-
And, if I were to find what you now ask, what difference would it make? What would your response be? You’d have to be an idiot not to stipulate that, somewhere out in the wide, wide world, there are some conservatives who are guilty of the error you’re accusing people here of. If I found an example it shouldn’t convince you of anything, for the same reason that a single poster in this thread is really terrible evidence for liberals hating the constitution. So why not just stipulate it already and then make an actual argument instead of this farce of setting up meaningless hoops to jump through?
-
There isn’t *that *much shame in just saying the following: “I’ve noticed that liberals tend to [disparaging generality about liberals’ personalities or thought processes]. I don’t have any evidence for it, of course; it’s just my subjective impression.” That’s what your argument is going to boil down to, anyway, since you can’t possibly believe that “These two guys said something stupid and they were liberals” is meaningful evidence for a sweeping indictment of millions.
I’m actually a pretty big fan of yours, as far as these things go: you bring a lot more facts than most to your discussions, and you’re occasionally willing to concede a point, which is (sadly) rare. But – and I hate to repeat myself – you’re engaged in a really dumb argument here.
Hey, birds gotta swim, fish gotta sing, Bricker gotta Bricker…
Not really. That post includes this line:
I have bolded the section that is relevant to this discussion.
Implicit in that statement is the requirement that the person advocating for jail understand that there’s no applicable law.
If that requirement is erased, then I could include many more people on this board who started out by suggesting that Law be jailed, but retreated from that position when they learned there was actually no law that would allow it. But I think every reader here understands that it’s reasonable for someone to say, “That bastard should be jailed for what he did,” because we’d expect that his conduct would be illegal. My objection has never been to that sentiment, but only to someone who maintains that sentiment in the face of clear evidence that there’s really no law to apply.
Well, I found my examples in a message board context, where people engage in conversation.
You’re asking that I argue in good faith instead of demand that every point be proven?
Meanwhile, my opponents are permitted to continue their unsupported, bad faith tactics? Why aren’t you asking Elucidator or Evil Economist to cease their bad faith tactics?
Perhaps this argument will turn out to be unsupportable.
But in exploring why that’s so, perhaps it will highlight the fact that you expect me to argue in good faith, but aren’t extending that expectation to the whole thread.
Why are you insisting that my stalls and nitpicks are worthy of condemnation and ignoring other stalls and nitpicks?
Well, I suppose we could treat your arguments with the same seriousness that we treat Elucidator’s arguments. But think that would be a step down for you.
Alternately, we could treat 'luci with the same seriousness we treat you, but that would be absurd. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression that 'luci is mostly just dicking around. And that’s fine. If that’s how he want’s to act on the board, so be it. I can’t change that. But I don’t think he cares too much about being taken seriously, so I don’t. And engaging in a serious argument with someone like that won’t get anyone anywhere.
The question is, do you want to be taken more seriously than Elucidator? Or not?
What specific bad faith tactics of mine are you referring to? With cites, please. Just so we’re clear, beating you with your own words isn’t a bad faith argument, even if you might wish it were.
In Post 405, I showed that while I had spoken of posters who implied, you suggested I had claimed that those posters made explicit claims.
And when called on the strawman substitution, you did not acknowledge you had done it, but simply moved on.
Nope, I acknowledged it and changed the wording of my question, in post 408:
And, just so we’re clear, the accusation you just made, that “when called on the strawman substitution, you did not acknowledge you had done it, but simply moved on” is a “a confident declaration, with no caveats about possible error.”