To our poor little bigoted para-illegal David42.

First off, I blame myself for this pitting. A big part is that I try to give everyone a reset from thread to thread. I tend to skip over usernames and go for the post instead. The fact that the board doesn’t have avatars really helps with this. That said, it also means that when I come across a crazy bigot, that 8 months later, I might have forgotten that said person is still insane and still a prejudice piece of shit.

Case in point, David42. About 10 months ago, I was posting here in the pit about a thread where he was citing a hate group (the Family Resource Council) to bolster his argument against gays all while comparing them to pederasts. In fact, I even said “I’ve been on this message board for over 10 years now and have never blocked anyone. I’d love to keep that going but this man is just a waste of time”. So yeah, this is where I take the blame for circling down the stupidity drain with him in the latest GD thread regarding gay marriage.

In the Predict how the Supreme Court will Decide the Same Sex Marriage Cases, we see some of his special reasoning. What’s odd is that he can’t seem to maintain his POV.

[QUOTE=David42]
Isn’t marriage for financial security too, and a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with sexuality?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=David42]
Perhaps you would like to explain how marriage is fundamental to our survival and existence if not procreative?
[/QUOTE]

Within 40 posts, he says that the reasons for marriage are numerous and can have nothing to do with sexuality, then he flip-flops and argues on the side that marriage has to be procreative. :rolleyes: There’s more instances of this kind of panicked scrambling in the thread, but there are also the wonderful gems like:

[QUOTE=David42]
You’ll have to think more broadly than just homosexual desire.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, it’s our continued job to fight his ignorance. And he must be PROUD to be ignorant as he keeps repeating it:

[QUOTE=David42]
You also forgot my other question, which you must satisfactorily answer as well to fight my ignorance:
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=David42]
And here I thought that the purpose of SMDB was to fight ignorance,
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=David42]
Now, back to the idea that I am wrong, that Warren did NOT draw a connection between the fundamental interwtwining of procreation and marriage, if you would care to fight my ignorance instead of taking this so many places it does not need to be
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=David42]
If you amke it convoluted and hard to follow enough, you MIGHT just prevent ignorance form being fought
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=David42]
How about answering those pertinent qwuestions that would fight my ignorance?
[/QUOTE]

Speaking of ignorance, Aristotle once said: “Nemo censetur ignorare legem” which roughly translates to “nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law”. Which brings us to the point in the thread where I experience a rush of Schadenfreude I don’t think I’d ever felt before. Post 494, David42 comes clean and says that he’s a “paralegal and (he has) to law school”. Here he’s trying to show how awesome he is in knowing the law. This is quickly followed up by the funniest thing in the whole damn thread:

[QUOTE=david42]
Today I am a small business owner; I buy and sell used books, which I financed from the two years of “freelance” paralegal work I did for clients who had been repeatedly let down by lawyers. My state AG shut me down for “unauthorize practice of law,” but of course I worked under the umbrella of attorneys for twelve years before that. They didn’t pay me enough. I made my wad my own way and bought a building and opened a used bookstore. And the people I helped for much less than lawyers would were usually more satisfied.

Is that enough tooting my own horn for you?

[/QUOTE]

It still makes me giggle. But what doesn’t make me giggle is this (uncited) post that shows his old FRC-style:
[QUOTE=David42]
Gay suicide went up in Holland after gay marriage passed. Seems counterintuitive, and its nearly impossible to tell specifcially why people kill themselves. There could be a connection to gay marriage, should we try to find out, or do all the same things holland did while saying “You can’t prove that!”

Maybe we are wrong and there is something deep seated involving emotional trouble with homosexuality that is not caused by societal disapproval–Holland is great to test that theory because disapproval of gays is virtually non-existent in Holland. Perhaps the absence of animus leaves a gay still depressed but unable to blame something other than himself? Thus more gays feel it is hopeless and off themselves than in a country featuring easy-to-blame Westboro Baptist Church which actually gives them strength to fight? That would be irony of the highest order–“Westboro–Keeping gays from committing suicide since 1991!”

It could be, and sound explanations for the rise in gay suicide haven’t been proven.

Holland, also, has set the world’s record for the increased rate of out-of-wedlock births–in the seventies in was at 4% and today that number has risen over 100%The graphs showing the upward curve pretty closely match the graphs for acceptance of homosexuality rising. It’s so close a match that nearly anyone ought to think it is at least worth looking into the correlation, which sometimes IS related to cause and effect.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

At the end of page 13, we get a simple message which tipped me off about the poster:

[QUOTE=Marley23]
I don’t want to discourage anyone from pursuing this discussion, but I think it’s worth pointing out that this thread has followed the same pattern as several other gay marriage-themed discussions **David42 **has posted in. The same arguments, the same cites, the same results.

[/QUOTE]

To which David42 shows his true bigoted colors in his feet-stomping response (which is really the second funniest thing in the thread). I won’t quote the whole thing, but when he said:

[QUOTE=David42]
This is abusive horseshit, so once again, chilled because I do not want to see your abusive threats of banning me for disagreeing with gays, you have once again suceeded in NOT allowing the free exchange of ideas.
[/QUOTE]

I was reminded what a bigoted piece of shit this guy is.

You make a compelling case.

Could someone summarize the case for and against SSM? I’m confused. Why has this never been addressed on this MB???

The OP is a racist asshole piece of Nazi shit for calling David42 illegal. The OP and his fascist racist code can go to hell and fuck a cactus.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16117058&postcount=85

Hey…I used a hyphen.

I haven’t paid that much attention to David42 but if Drunky Smurf is fer him, I’m probably agin him. It’s a useful rule of thumb.

However, the OP is a bit all over the place. Can I have a shorter version of why we’re supposed to be hating on David42? Is it that he’s anti-gay or a bad paralegal or inconsistent in his arguments or a bookstore owner or what?

I’m going with bookstore owner. Commie bastards!

Yeah, my OP was a bit TL;DR. The gist is:

  1. He’s consistently homophobic and blames the board for not letting his hate flag fly.
  2. He’s a wannabe lawyer but doesn’t know what he’s talking about and has actually gotten in trouble with his AG for practicing law without a license.
  3. He’s really “ignorant”.

Isn’t there some other hot-button issue the subject of the OP is an irrational whackjob about? I can’t be arsed to search and wade through all the crazy.

All four, as near as I can tell. It appears to me that he claims to not be homophobic, merely concerned with the appropriate applications of legalese with interpretations that no one else appears to buy. Basically a GLBT oriented concern troll/JAQoff.

Oh yeah, you did. My apologies. Everyone please ignore post 4. Sorry to waste your time.

Well, I am happy to go on the record as being against those things.

Considering how quickly my eyes glaze over when I encounter one of his posts, I have to say that’s about the most interesting thing I have ever read about him.

I’ll confess that I feel just a little tawdry to be asking for it, but may I trouble you for a link?

Like I said, the thread followed the usual David42 pattern: looking over the latest couple of pages of the threads, his statements get weirder and weirder, he gets more focused on procreation until it becomes a little creepy, and he gets more frustrated with the people he is unable to convince and starts making comments are are more overtly anti-gay or at least anti-change for no logical reason.

I think you guys should let me handle it. If I can get him to gay marry me, then I’ll turn him to the gay side of the force. I’ll strike him down with one, or multiple, blows.

Sure, it’s post 494.

If **Drunky Smurf **is defending you, your cause is lost.

He isn’t defending David42, but the cause is lost all right.

Here’s a query for the legal types: If someone gets in trouble in your state for practicing law without a license, what’s their realistic chances of actually being admitted to the Bar later in life, presumably after they’ve earned a law degree and/or passed the Bar exam?

Like the old proverb says: he who uses **Drunky Smurf **for his lawyer has a fool for a client.