Non-partisan fence sitters. Won’t lead, won’t follow, won’t get out of the way.
Because he didn’t consider gambling immoral, or indicative of a lack of virtue.
You may disagree. And more in tune with your distress, many others who agree with Bennett on other things ALSO disagree, which I suspect is at the root of your distaste. You think his scolding resonated with other people, people who ALSO dislike gambling, and it was somehow dishonest for him to never mention gambling.
Whatever it was, it wasn’t hypocrisy. Hypocrisy has a meaning. Bennett’s conduct doesn’t fit that meaning.
Call him any one of a dozen other words, call him holier-than-thou, call him judgmental, call me smug, call him overweening, call him prideful. I won’t dispute that.
But stop insisting on the one charge that is manifestly untrue.
Unlike you, Luci, who doesn’t have the ability to lead and only follows idiots, thereby firmly placing your ass right in the way.
Do you do vanity searches for the word “stupid”?
No distress involved, unless from laughing too hard. Your dodge 'em attempts were comical too, only less so with repetition.
I’ve heard rumous that’s what Bricker does to kids in the woods, after he drugs them. :eek:
Amazingly idiosyncratic definition there, innit?
Can you or can you not understand how it may not look that way to most people? People who, unlike you and Bennett, do not have gambling habits that they desperately need to excuse away? :dubious:
Please tell me he didn’t say that.
Can you or can you not understand how this is just an argument from popularity?
I swear one of these days, we’re going to see the following sentence posted by pal Bricker:
“But that’s not hypocrisy because *he *killed prostitutes with a butcher knife, not a chain saw.”
Nope. Morality is a group-defined virtue, or set of virtues.
Bricker is also claiming, transparently falsely and desperately but as a self-appointed defense counsel and loyal partisan he’s forced to, that Bennett was preaching about a few individual actions and not about moral conduct in general. Come on now. :rolleyes:
Its like, all the “Great Debates” usual suspects got tired of the same old circle jerk of semantic petty arguing, and decided to all come down to the Pit, where they could poke each other with bad language instead of rules lawyering.
You all having fun fellas?
No, we got tired of Bricker’s semantic petty arguing and rules lawyering. Notice what the thread has been all about, Chief?
I told you guys, invite him to the circle jerk this time, and he won’t feel left out. And remember, no pointing and laughing. Shouldn’t even have to say that…
Well, I read pages 3 and 4 of the thread linked in the OP (god help me), and I would like to offer you (Bricker) the following unsolicited advice: you should be more mindful that arguing in Great Debates (and on the internet more generally) is an activity for your own amusement only.
The likes of WaM and TSS and Luci are never ever going to read your posts (or anyone else’s posts) and realize that they are spouting complete nonsense and couldn’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag. So there’s no need to spend a lot of time trying to make them see that they aren’t making any sense.
Just state your point, show why they aren’t making any sense (in one brief post), and move on.
You got a mouse in your pocket (with the royal we)? The truth is that you don’t know the first thing about how the Constitution or our system of government in general works, and you are incapable of matching Bricker’s intellect or arguing ability, so you instead complain that he’s “rules lawyering” (thus showing yourself to also be a D&D retard).
Aren’t you the one that responded “of course it can :rolleyes:” when the topic was whether the US federal government can do anything it wants (or was instead bound by what the Constitution says it can do)? I rest my case.
Oh, goody! Thank you, Jesus!
You talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded.
Oh,** Elvis**, you can be such a little bitch, sometimes…
Another value add from you. Thanks.