The nuance being that because an individual didn't coin the term they themselves use to describe their position, one can not question the term? Like, if I were to say something about the primary election process of the democratic party being undemocratic, I'd be in the wrong because living democrats didn't name the party?
Are those people judgmental, hypocritical shit heads posing as some sort of progressive provocateur? If not, it doesn't really compare to your situation.
You're the label maker. I'm not posing, just posting. I've not made any personal claims of grandeur whatsoever. The personal bent going here is kind of disturbing. All because I think it's wrong to make laws targeting transgenders.
I dont think he feels "bad" about his position because of your response. That's what I'm getting at. Did you piss him off? You may have that.
That is not what it is "all because" at all. This is all because you hide behind allegations of bigotry when somebody disagrees with your position. This is because you show nothing but disdain for anyone who has an opinion different from yours, so I have chosen to have nothing but disdain for you. The personal bent is because I find you to be a self-righteous, sanctimonious ass clown who does nothing but disparage under the guise of debate. And if you don't like labels, you shouldn't issue them. EDIT: forgot to add, "you misogynistic phony" at the end.
Bullshit, Cotton. As I said, I brought that word up once in the last 4 years. Once. And I absolutely meant it. As far as I can tell, folks disagree with my positions as fast as they come up. Your claim doesn't hold up. I don't have disdain for anybody here. That's why you won't see me calling folks names. You know, kind of like how I never called you a bigot, I referred to a law as protecting bigotry. See the difference? I'm talking about a law on which the thread is discussing. You take it personal. I can't control how you find me. I will point out that what you claim I do doesn't match the posts on this forum.
Bullshit, Cotton. As I said, I brought that word up once in the last 4 years. Once. And I absolutely meant it. As far as I can tell, folks disagree with my positions as fast as they come up. Your claim doesn't hold up. I don't have disdain for anybody here. That's why you won't see me calling folks names. You know, kind of like how I never called you a bigot, I referred to a law as protecting bigotry. See the difference? I'm talking about a law on which the thread is discussing. You take it personal. I can't control how you find me. I will point out that what you claim I do doesn't match the posts on this forum.
I like that song. I won five thousand fake dollars on a bet with someone who thought it was buffet or Kenny Rogers or Jim Stafford or someone. Five thousand fake dollars!
That's cowardly horseshit. And I don't care how many times you used it, you used it with me because I disagreed with you about the law, which infringes on nothing by bigotry--you know, like mine. You don't debate, you pronounce. You've pronounced me "bigot." You've pronounced religion stupid and dangerous. You've pronounced where life begins. You are certainly arrogant enough. You are also certainly anti. Anti religion. Anti capitalist. Anti bigotry, which obviously doesn't extend to beliefs, and pro tolerance, but only for the things you like. It must be nice to have such certitude about everything, that dissent can only be because of ignorance or greed or bigotry and not because reasonable people can disagree or because you are wrong. The problem is, though, I think most of your positions are dumber than shit and hold contrary to the good of me, my community, my country, and the whole of the human race. So, you see, you have drawn a line, and I find myself on the opposite side of it from you. You are the intolerant tolerance guy, and I am the ignorant bigot. So keep posting your bumper sticker slogans and snide comments about the values of others. Most people will probably ignore them or debate them on their merits. I won't. I will call you what i believe you to be and point out what I believe are your motives, at least when it suits my mood and schedule.
And I really can't comment as much on this, as I don't venture much into the political threads, mainly because I wind up in arguments with pharisaical idiots like you. A quick survey of any thread seeming to be religious, political, or economical in nature, though, gives an impression different than the one you are trying to present. I also still think your demeaning comments about women are offensive, hypocrite.
If I may interrupt this mutual admiration exchange, and get back to the op. Why cannot you be pro-life and pro-gun? Just because I have guns doesn't mean I wish to use them to harm. I am not necessarily pro-life btw. I always thought a rule of debate was not to make personal insults, but then I was never much of a debater, or a rule follower.
Pro-gun is a nice term to imply that all people in favor of gun rights want children to die at the hands of those guns. No different than the issues raised by IP against the term pro-life.
There have been pages-long discussions on what life is, when personhood begins, etc. I didn't pronounce anything, I posted on what the definition of life is, on when personhood begins, etc. Boiling it down to an image of me handing out pronouncements when the reality is dozens of back-and-forth posts including stating that I don't know precisely when, but providing my rationale for the constraints I think are right? Yep, verify away.
