Bricker’s “position” is a reflection of poor upbringing.
Do you mean an upbringing “amidst minimal economic resources,” or “neglected or wrongly instructed by adults”? Serious question. I’m guessing the former.
Bricker’s position is consistent with the accepted legal principle of proportionality. It’s the basic idea that the punishment should fit the crime. No surprise.
Toppling a statute was done in a manner that contravened law. Blowing up the federal building in OKC was done in a manner that contravened law. Pointing out this commonality in no way implied that the penalty imposed should be the same for both offences.
Right, but Bricker’s argument isn’t about the penalty. It’s about the distinction people make between small crimes and major crimes. He’s saying - Hey, this small crime and this big crime are both crimes, therefore, if you hate the big crime, then you’re a nasty liberal hypocrite for applauding the small crime.
The problem for that argument is that it’s a false equivalence to pretend that their aren’t any moral differences in knocking over a racist statue and blowing up a federal building & preschool, killing and injuring hundreds of people.
Bricker isn’t arguing that we should impose the same penalty, but that we should impose the same moral condemnation equally, regardless of intent or body count.
If you made three trips to Las Vegas last year, losing $3000, losing another $3000, then winning $2000 you are guilty of tax evasion if you didn’t report the $2000 winnings whether the casino filed W-2G or not. Yes, you can then deduct the losses — Did you keep receipts? Did you ask the casino for your estimated loss forms?
In many jurisdictions it is illegal to turn right at a stop sign unless you first come to a complete stop.
It is absurd to imagine that all crimes can be compared morally.
That Bricker made an equivalence between petty vandalism and mass murder to make a claim of liberal hypocrisy demonstrates that he has completely lost his grip on reality.
To be fair to Bricker, he did post later in the thread…
I haven’t followed the whole thread closely, don’t know if he’s withdrawing his entire argument from the start, or just some portions or details thereof.
Yep. He’s a lying hypocritical douchebag. Fuck him.
- Especially when they don’t jive with your heartfelt feelings. Nitpick all you like. Sorry Bricker makes you feel inadequate. Too bad you don’t get to have your own version the facts.
Rage against factual impingement upon your fantasy world util you’re blue in the face, but it ain’t Bricker’s fault. Now let’s see how shooting the messenger proceeds…
I’m sure that somewhere in the recesses of what’s left of his soul, even Dear Counselor comprehends that petty vandalism and mass murder are different crimes qualitatively.
It’s his eagerness to accuse liberals of hypocrisy, and his Pavlovian recourse to Tu Quoque (“Your ilk condones vandalism but condemns our ilk when we express annoyance at the pernicious federal government, annoyance so severe we resort to mass murder”) that nauseates us, that makes it hard to see how American democracy can be salvaged when his ilk continues to spread lies and hatred.
And notice how reluctantly he comes to the defense of McVeigh’s victims — mostly government workers (so incompetent lazy Democrat-voting scum I’m sure) — (and presumably celebrates the separation of toddlers from their parents to discourage asylum seeking) while he pontificates over and over and over until we want to retch about his deep love for the Christian foetuses Democrats apparently enjoy murdering. :eek: “My ilk reluctantly killed 169 in Oklahoma while Democrats murder millions of babies! We win!! We are more moral!!!”
He cackles with glee like a constipated whore-monger when his precious Republicans cheat to win an election, but scolds like a constipated preacher if the Dems find a tactic to recover and he thinks he can dredge some counter from a tired old lawbook. The only consistency in his arguments is … ***the constipation!
Indeed, he had the presence of mind to realize his position was becoming untenable and chose not to keep building on it. That makes for a nice contrast from the people on this board who seem addicted to doubling down as if it was a heady mix of cocaine and meth.
Indeed, the almost self-abasement I feel upon encountering his most edifying picayunery. Hate it when my heartfelt feelings are jived with.
Fantasy world? Explain.
In some it isn’t? (in our parts we call that a California turn.) < (heh, did I just answer my question?)
Cop to citizen: Sir, you failed to stop at the “Stop” sign.
Citizen: Well, I slowed down!
(Cop removes baton, begins bashing citizen about the head and shoulders…)
“You want me to stop? Or just slow down?”
I didn’t see anything atypical about it. Someone had put forth principled reasons for a moral stance that defies the law, and Bricker is just ignoring those and pretending that morals are entirely arbitrary. He doesn’t actually argue why the principles are wrong or invalid, because “he doesn’t do moral arguments.” So he’s limited to arguing that the rule of law is necessary, and thus claiming his opponent does not believe this, whether directly or by implication.
I mean, LHOD specifically cited the lack of any particular harm to others as part of the reason he supported the statue being demolished. That alone was enough to show that McVeigh’s actions and the actions of those tearing down the statue were not analogous under the framework given. But that’s what Bricker claimed.
I wouldn’t have cared if he actually tried to argue that LHOD’s criteria weren’t good enough. Instead, he tried to change the argument so that he could win. I’m not saying Bricker is alone in this, but I do notice this from him more than others. Though I do note that I usually disagree with him, which makes it easier to notice.
That is his secret sauce. He is able to recognize when pushing a position is on the verge of making people disregard him. Being disregarded would mean that he could no longer throw sand in the gears, making people tired, grinding down opposition to his tribe (whichever of his tribes happens to be in question). Don’t mistake it for changing his mind or position. That “nice contrast” is a tactical maneuver to keep you listening to him.
I’m sorry** Bricker** hurt you, Septimus, but it’s not really his fault. He’s just not that into you. You need to move on, all this dwelling on what might have been is unhealthy. There’s plenty of fish in the sea.
Your role on the board, in contrast, is to make everyone else feel like a fucking genius.
Oh, I’m not holding any particular regard for Bricker and I am certainly not complimenting or congratulating him. I have no doubt at all that he still seeks the magic formula that forever proves that all liberals are hypocrites. It’s just that he knows, at least some of the time, when an argument is a loser and should be abandoned. Of course, he still hasn’t done so for the voter ID thread so I make no assumption that this is a general character trait of his, just that in this one particular case he recognized discretion was the better part of valor. The OP of this thread can find many better examples to pit Bricker for.
Thread title is not valid, the guy has always been a cunt. The only mystery is why people continue to engage with him.
He is a less reptile-brained than most of the other Republican/conservative members of this board, and thus a greater challenge. It’s no great victory to recognize when HurricaneDitka, Starving Artist, or Fotheringay-Phipps are talking out of their asses (i.e. almost always), so they hardly seem worth the effort.
Occasionally, one can use a conservative poster to help one organize one’s own thoughts in a pleasing manner. I enjoyed arguing abortion with **Omg a Black Conservative **and arguing same-sex marriage with magellan01 not because either of them are intellectual giants, but because they spurred me to articulate my thoughts in a way that I am confident was particularly well-reasoned. I had a similar experience with Bricker during a discussion of no-knock warrants.
Sorry–there wasn’t any message, except to point out the obvious: both acts are technically illegal. That’s it.
The starting point of the thread was entirely beyond that trivial observation, and it was just gratuitous noise to present it as though it were some kind of incisive expose.