The problem is that elucidator remains welcome to pollute threads with his nonsense. And it’s not at all clear to me that his posts are regarded so lightly by the reading public.
Sure, I could take the high-minded approach and say, “Yes, I’m sure there’s a conservative out there who does the same thing.”
But the difficult I have with making such concessions is the same courtesy isn’t extended in reverse. If I am required to prove every assertion I make, am confronted with “Cite?” demands for things everyone ought to know, and am ALSO expected to concede points without making my opponents do the leg work, then it becomes trivially easy to price me out of threads. How long does it take to type the word “Cite?” And how long does it take to do the research necessary to provide the cites?
Again turning our attention to Evil Economist: he’s demanding that every single statement be parsed and proved to an exacting detail.
Why in the world would I be in a thread with that kind of nonsense and simultaneously graciously concede points?
“Very well,” is not an admission of either error or wrongdoing; it’s simply an acceptance of the new standard. You acknowledged my post; you did NOT acknowledge you manipulated “implied” into “explicitly.”
Yes. And so it was. Because you did not acknowledge THAT YOU HAD DONE IT. “Very well,” is not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or error.
Asking that you provide evidence for your claims isn’t arguing in bad faith, it’s just arguing.
And the subsequent direction of the thread showed that I was right to demand cites, because it turned out you had no basis for your statements.
You’re not upset that people are asking for cites: You’re upset that you couldn’t provide them. I guarantee that if you could have shoved a cite down my throat you would have done so with glee.
If I made that same post to you, you would argue 'til you were blue in the face about the meaning of “very well.” Since I’m not you, I’ll say this instead: I apologize for saying “explicitly” when I should have said"implicitly." I was in error to do so.
Not at all. You demanded a cite for a strawman statement, as opposed to the actual statement I made.
I was certainly able to cite a poster who appeared to be a liberal, and who implied clearly that Law should be criminally prosecuted regardless of the existence of laws. Subsequent evidence convinced me that he wasn’t a liberal: he believed in personal responsibility, which is of course not a liberal trait. I was unaware of that belief of his, but that certainly made me wrong about Uzi.
But not wrong about the original claim. ElvisL1ves is a liberal, and he implies that Law should be criminally punished even though no laws exist to do so. Cite.
Everybody is allowed to dick around if they want. And they will be treated like they are dicking around. I think his arguments are taken less seriously than yours. Alternately, I think people like 'luci better. Which of those are you interested in?
Are there conservatives who do the same thing? Yes or no? Are you interested in the truth or not?
I avoided mentioning EE because I have a lesser sense of his debate style. You compared yourself to 'luci so I went with what I knew. If you wish to revoke that comparison, then we’re done here.
You want the freedom to be wrong simply because you’re a conservative? Or you want the freedom to say wrong things without being called on it simply because you’re a conservative? You don’t need freedom, you need to stop being wrong.
This post is a perfect example. You want the freedom to make a stupid statement about liberals. You think, regardless of what ElvisL1ves said or is, that will give you that freedom? How about, instead, just not saying stupid shit about liberals? And if you do say stupid shit, and you get called on it, acknowledge your error and move the fuck on.
Is this the record? Whereby we have two concurrent Pit threads that have veered away from the trivial concerns of the OP and have finally arrived at the all important issue of liberal hypocrisy and the brutal oppression of Bricker?
And just so that not everything I say sounds angry and combative, I will say that you provided convincing evidence that Cardinal Law can not be prosecuted under Massachusetts, Missouri, or Vatican laws. I have changed my opinion based on posts you made.
Just for laughs, in all U.S. government records about Bernard Law that list his religion, change “Roman Catholic” to “Atheist.” Its a purely symbolic gesture, of course.
Just FTR, I in no way mean or imply what the lying weasel Counselor thinks. My view of Law’s potential criminal culpability, and civil liability too for that matter, is that the subject has not been fully explored to its limits, and it may in fact exist despite the protestations of cult loyalists. Bricker’s own “analysis” claiming that it has is not convincing, it being his habit to present advocacy as such, he not being a member of the Massachusetts Bar at all, and especially since his absolute loyalty to his cult is obvious to all and blinds him to alternatives.
Now, how about discussing what to do to help Law’s victims? And Wesolowski’s? James Carroll’s advocacy that the organization relinquish the anachronistic nation-state status of Vatican City, on the basis that it continues to warp the group’s moral judgments and actions, often to the point of directly contradicting the teachings of its nominal guiding spirit, is very relevant but probably deserves its own thread.
I did not say anything about discussing another afterwards. I said we would be done. I chose to talk about that which I know and not to talk about that which I don’t. And I feel I have been fairly polite about it.