Why? I responded to his OP in the way that he responded to my closing of his thread: I reponded to the point that I found interesting. He ignored two of the three points I made when closing his thread to nitpick a single arguable definition. I am ignoring his whining to focus on the one point that I felt was worth addressing.
I have found, over the years, that people who make a big deal about “honor” in the second person are nearly always really describing hubris in the first person. A person who chooses to refrain from an unethical act may legitimately describe his or her actions as arising from a sense of honor. In nearly all cases, a person who describes another’s behavior as lacking honor simply means that his or her feelings are hurt.
You chose to initiate a Pit thread over one comment I made based on the actual words of Justice Scalia (and those of Bricker) over several years while completely ignoring the other points I made. Tough. I gave you the opportunity to actually address what I had said and you chose, instead, to run to the BBQ Pit and whine. * ::: shrug ::: *
Please do, it would improve my chances of taking over the country. I want to see zombie hordes swarming the Champs Elysees (well, what a change would that be…).
Fair enough, but I note that there are other threads that have multiple questions which could get differing answers .
Notice how the entire basis of the validity of this “point” is based on what you have incorrectly identified as my error of perception.
The first “point” was the essential “point.” Take away the incorrectly identified error of perception, and your house-of-cards reasoning for closing the thread crumbles (like a house of cards).
Well, since you are usually wrong when you moderate and usually right when you just post, could this be a rare instance when/where those sets intersect? And since Scalia is a legal hack and full of shit (see Bush v. Gore and Citizens United) does it matter?
I thought changing the name of the poster in quotes was against the rules, even in the pit. I seem to remember that rule coming about when people were changing the name of Liberal in quotes to his old name (Libertarian) (and also calling him that, long after his name was Liberal).
Guess I’m wrong.
