You didn’t “find” them. They were part of a conversation *you *were having.
On the increasingly slim chance you’re being completely sincere about your charges: this is selection bias. You engage in a lot of arguments about the law, and you engage in a lot of arguments with liberals. You also have a lot of poisoned relationships here with people who would be loathe to admit to you they were wrong. You are therefore not infrequently going to come across liberals who are demonstrably wrong about the law and refuse to concede the point. I don’t have such a repository to draw from, and trying to extrapolate from your experiences as you are is akin to a racist police officer who deals with black criminals all day and can’t imagine that his experience might not be representative.
Am I to receive bad faith arguments in retribution for the deficiencies of others?
I’ve been *far *more dismissive and disrespectful to the other side of the Cardinal Law debate; the first thing I posted in this thread was the implication that **Elv1s **is a retard (sorry about that), and mostly my posts have explicitly assumed that certain other posters are not worth talking to. I don’t try to correct **elucidator **for the same reason I don’t yell at my cat when he coughs up a hairball. Evil Economist I don’t know from Adam, and I was not exactly riveted by the debates over the deeper mysteries of the adverb “directly” and whether **Uzi **is a liberal, so I may have skipped over most of that discussion. At first glance it doesn’t look *too *far out of line with board-standard. I don’t know, maybe it is. I can’t fight every battle at once, and at the moment the battle I’ve chosen is that you’re wrong about the larger point regarding “liberals,” because that’s an unusually bad mistake coming from you.
And, anyway, “two wrongs make a right” is a lousy controlling ethic.
Fine, I’ll try to chime in more often when people are responding to you with idiocy. There’s often not much to add, however. For instance, I didn’t really have any new substantive arguments to add to yours on the question of Law’s legal culpability. “Your arguments are really unconvincing in light of Bricker’s cites” – I don’t know what else to say about that.
Let’s take a moment to examine what a colossal, sniveling pussy Bricker is.
In threads where he’s losing because an argument, like in the voter ID thread, and this one, the liberals are out to get him, because liberals don’t flock to his defense when someone says something that Bricker finds distasteful, or that he feels lacks intellectual rigor.
It’s self-pity and a victimization mentality. He’s as bad as any of the “welfare cases” he disdains so much. Nothing is Bricker’s fault.* Look at those liberals trying to keep me down!*
Bricker doesn’t want society to be an even playing field, since he supports attempts to keep poor people from voting. He even laughs about it. But he simultaneously wants this board to treat him equitably because he deserves it.
Of course, in reality, the board does treat him equitably, except when he makes arguments that amount to drivel. Like in this thread where he pretends that most liberals want the tyranny of ex post facto laws, or in the voter ID thread where he argues that a solution that makes the problem worse is good policy.
Bricker, buddy, someone pointing out a shitty argument you made isn’t the board oppressing you. It’s an attempt to work reason into that vapid skull of yours. <3
In truth, he’s not being treated fairly. This is largely because he’s outnumbered 10-1 in every debate here (which, if you think is fun, you should try it), but also he’s much more even-handed and magnanimous to the other side than most posters: acknowledging the limits and uncertainties of his position, pointing out ways in which his argument could be shown to fail, seldom *overtly *dismissive or rude absent a lot of provocation, etc. It’s not at all unnatural that he’d be annoyed when others don’t treat him as well, even if in a perfect world he’d take it with total equanimity and spend more time dealing with the less unreasonable posters.
You’re really all over the place here.
You can favor a reduction in entitlement spending without hating poor people, and Voter ID laws, while being a solution in search of a problem – and even largely tied to suspect motives on the parts of legislators who support them – are prima facie not unreasonable. If I’d spent my whole life in this society but somehow had absolutely no idea how voting worked, I would assume you had to show ID. I’m not in favor, but you hardly have to be a cackling monster to think that people should have to be able to demonstrate their identity in order to vote.
But it’s nice that you’ve developed a Grand Unified Theory of Bricker, I guess.
You’re right: I have treated you poorly, and I apologize.
The answer to your point is: although I don’t see it happening much here in the SDMB, in the greater outside real world I grant that conservatives will also call for criminal sanctions even absent an applicable law. It’s not simply a liberal tactic; it’s a tactic for self-righteous idiots, and that population knows no political stripe.
I’m confident I’ve done right by Bricker. Any time I said he was being stupid was adequately preceded by him being stupid. I consider it a matter of honour.
He is like that sometimes. Other times, on certain issues, he’s a crazy person.
This is probably a true thing.
You can. Certainly. Bricker, however laughs when you suggest poor people have to spend hours getting an ID. He disdains them because he thinks he’s well off because of hard work, and they’re poor because of laziness.
I’m not against voter ID. I’m against voter ID implemented in a way that gives electoral advantage to one party. Make an honest effort to get IDs in hands first, and I’m fine with it.
Voter ID itself isn’t bad. But the way Bricker approves of its uses is bad.
One part arrogance, one part meager ability, forged in the crucible of FOX News.
I don’t want to spend too much more time talking about Bricker, but I guess the larger point would be:
Sure, some of his posts and arguments are not as good as some of his others, but that’s the case with everybody. I assure you, I’ve occasionally been less than impressed with your ideas over the years. The difference is that when you, or I, post something that’s arguably stupid, we don’t immediately have 20 people jumping up & down on us, 5 of whom are bleating borderline incoherent anti-facts. I probably wouldn’t last long in that situation, and it’s not surprising that sometimes a debate will tend to degrade under those circumstances. There’s also the well-established tendency for people to assume the worst about people they disagree with, which means we should treat as suspect any such judgment and try to self-correct.
So, I think it would be best to try and cut **Bricker **some slack. I mean, we should cut almost everyone some more slack, but you gotta start somewhere.
I want a poster, or a wallpaper, King Leonidas kicking the Persian ambassador into the Big Hole and screaming “THIS…IS…THE PIT!!!”
We got a tended reservation for the relentlessly polite, GD, mods on duty armed with well-worn Sister Mary Censorious steel rulers. The snotty pedant is safe there, to sip tea with pinkies akimbo and murmur polite disagreement.
And, yeah, I can do that but its a strain and it don’t come natural.
So, fuck that shit. Close enough for rock 'n roll, let 'er buck!
I think he would prefer a place where it’s not a choice; where people who make serious arguments, even when unpopular, are appreciated and valued for it by the vast majority.
I can relate, because I would like that, too; however I think he’s in error thinking he’s going to find it on the SDMB. Outside of a formal debating society, a few parts of academia, or a meetup group devoted to debate, I’m not sure we’ll find it anywhere. It’s simply not something most people are interested in; for good or ill, human beings are created/evolved to operate much more on emotion and group identity than on pure reason. You’re definitely not going to find it by engaging with the elucidator types, who, as you say are clearly operating with a different agenda.
Hmmm … this just gave me an idea; I looked it up and found a IRL debate meetup in my area. Gonna check it out.
Erm, no. I blame the cover-up on the closed community that happened to be Muslim, and more specifically that identified more as Muslim that British, and I blame the failed investigations on political correctness. It’s really irrelevant that it was Muslims, it could be any minority group that refuses to integrate, and gets unwarranted protection.
That’s part of it sure. But as much as I like to see the reasoned debate, I don’t think that a reasoned debate necessarily means that nobody gets to have any fun. Speaking for myself, the board would be poorer without people goofing off and dicking around a bit. But at this point I’m not sure Bricker can tell when someone is offering a serious rebuttal, when someone is dicking around, and when someone is occupying some grey area in the midst of all that.
And if my memory is at all reliable* I think Bricker has offered some posts in the past that came from a place more of emotion than reason. That’s cool. We’re all human and (again, speaking for myself) I LIKE to see the human behind the poster.
*Disclaimer: My memory may not be all that reliable.
You do know everything you post is still accessible, right?
Post 203:
Post 227:
Post 229:
Post 246:
You sad, sick, stupid little bigot. kaylasdad, do you also praise a retarded kid for finally wiping his own bottom? That’s what you’re doing with Bricker.
And I’m sorry to have given you a hard time over this whole thing, I know that can be drag.