The Glade 4.0

Why bother? I'm not interested in dialogue. The Left clearly isn't. they weren't when they were in power and aren't now. Everything is "scary" and "nazis" and "hate " and all the rest of the bullshit.

Endless histrionics are good for continued Republican dominance, so I don't mind provoking some. It's just judo.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm old enough to remember all the way back in 2013 when obstructionism was considered to be anti-American, and the nuclear option was the newfound right of the patriotic majority.

It's almost as if Democrats believed they'd never have to suffer another Republican executive because of an "unavoidable, rapidly approaching demographics shift".

Oh... wait...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I've never called Trump a Nazi. Also, the recent leftist "protests" really bother me, quite frankly I think the Berkeley cops should have started shooting the rioters when it became clear they were actually attacking people.

The reason people are panicking about Trump is because he combines far-right social conservativism with far-left economic liberalism, and people don't know what the **** to make of that. Middle-class young people/college students are rioting because, as middle class college students that have probably never had a real job, they aren't affected by economic issues at all yet. They only see Trump's official stance on social issues, which of course causes an extreme reaction because quite frankly it's to the right of Nixon and comes close to Eisenhower in how far-right it is. Whether you agree with it or not, seriously suggesting a complete ban on the world's second most popular religion from entering the US for any reason is an extremely right wing social stance. The same goes for suggesting that outright racial discrimination is acceptable. (As long as you only do it to noncitizens)

On the other hand, when it comes to economic issues, Trump is basically, like, 90% Bernie Sanders. Historically, the "border wall" is something the left wants, not the right. Clinton's administration actually started building one before the neocons defunded it, and there was another push for one by the Dems in 2006 which was, again, blocked by the Republicans. The largest illegal immigrant amnesties were under Reagan and Bush. "Free trade" and "open borders" are also traditionally-conservative stances. The reframing of the illegal immigrant problem from an economic one about jobs to a social one about racism is recent and I can't really pin down when it actually happened or why. The same goes for trade protectionism and tariffs aimed at protecting middle class workers, these are liberal stances, not conservative ones.

This is also why I talk about things like gay marriage when I talk about what worries me about Trump's administration. The Republican Congress isn't going to get in line with Trump's liberal economic policies. The Freedom Caucus, for example, has just declared they will oppose any initiative on Obamacare short of a full repeal, which completely **** over Trump in his promise to repeal Obamacare while preserving the pre-existing condition provision. Combined with unified Democratic opposition, this means it's now full repeal or nothing for Trump.

Trump, however, has definitely showed signs that he does not really care all the much on social issues and might be inclined to just rubber stamp them all through without even considering them much.

In other words, you're more interested in a a particular party and your representation and that party that you don't care what anyone else thinks.

Why would you even bother posting on a message board and responding to others if you have no interest in dialogue? That pretty much means you're either trolling, or love the sound of your own posts.

This "mandate" bullshit that both parties have used to declare dominance when they win by a slim sliver is getting old, fast. And both far left and far right are being hypocritical, judgemental tyrants when they feel like they can get away with it.

What bothers me more about the far right is they try to say they're standing on morals, frequently Christian, when justifying bad behavior with "but they did it first", which is a pretty damn un-Christian thing to do.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I hate to break this to you, but ANY sort of discrimination is 100% acceptable when it comes to noncitizens, especially those that have not yet come to this country in the first place. The INA gives the President the power, in his sole discretion, to determine that any alien or class of aliens is a threat to the United States. This is 100% Constitutional too, because it is inherent in the nation's sovereignty. This is also why the 9th Circuit studiously avoided mention of the law actually governing the case.

Just throwing the word "discrimination" at something does not make it "extreme right wing". This is something the average center-right person is completely ok with; its only in the portrayal of the press that all discrimination is completely impermissible, and wherein niceties regarding ethnic heritage supersede any and all other concerns.



These are also reasons why Republican politicians got in trouble with their own base. These were not traditionally conservative stances; they were stances used by Republican politicians to appease the "Latino vote" and the press.

.

It's bizarre that you shift from gay marriage in one sentence to Obamacare in the next without even the pretense of a logical segue of any kind. Moreover, your portrayal of this as "completely **** over" Trump when work has barely started on this issue is demonstrative of your habit of portraying all politics as stark black-and-white choices. The Freedom Caucus, much like Democrats right now, is saying what it needs to in order to appease its base. Down the road it will find it convenient to play ball with Trump and other Congressional Republicans to get some of what it wants.



That's actually pretty unlikely. Even if he did, however, the Left needs a good hard kick in the balls on social issues. The lest few years - as in, basically Obama's second term - has seen a marked, and unacceptable shift on social issues, most notably on college campuses, but far from exclusively. The fundamental fact is that there are almost no equality battles left to fight, and the Left has transitioned into trying to use anti-discrimination measures to police attitudes it finds unacceptable while using this imaginary threat of some 1950s rollback to pretend there's endless battles left to fight. Meanwhile due process and property rights are trampled underfoot - and often with the applause of people that are all about those rights up until people they've deemed "bigots" are targeted at which point such protections are right out the window.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I certainly care what other people think - just not the certain crop of Glade leftists who think it's in fashion to pretend some horrible oppression is about to befall them or their favorite victim groups. I'm even going to the trouble to explain how the mentality expressed in this hysteria is only counterproductive to the Left. A more strategic thinker might step back and say "gee, maybe endlessly alienating people isn't a good idea", but apparently those are in short supply.



What business of that is yours? It is not in your purview to evaluate my motivations. I've written some damn long, and pretty involved evaluations and analysis over the years and given some pretty lengthy responses to serious questions and all that comes back is "lol TLDR DE wall of text", or else someone simply not bothering to even respond after they asked a serious question and promised "oh yeah I'll totally have a serious reply later".

You've got 4 lines of lazy-ass judgemental ism here and a high horse about how disgusted you supposedly are, and you think that's a higher quality response?



The Republicans did not win by a slim sliver. They control both houses of Congress and the vast majority of statewide offices. Trump's election is a "slim sliver" only in the sense that California's population distorts his overall success - which is exactly why we have an electoral college. A variety of interests across the country are represented; narrowly-focused ones in particular areas are not allowed to dominate just by running up the score in high population areas. That's also, incidentally, why the Senate exists.

One could reasonable argue that the Republicans do not have a "mandate" but if so, that has to be argued in the sense that their voters foisted a candidate on them that they didn't actually want. The Republican mandate is not to go whole-hog movement Conservative wild; it's to curb the excesses of the Democrats, and a reminder that the voters do not answer to the press establishment, and that the sensibilities of coastal leftists do not determine where the boundaries of acceptable politics are.



The right is not by any means exclusively Christian, and to the degree it is there is considerable disagreement on what that means.

However, you are in no position to declare what is and isn't "Christian". This was pretty unattractive when Beryllin was doing it and it doesn't improve when anyone else does it. You're in no position to pass judgement on that, any more than you are to concern yourself with my posting habits. You can add this sort of unwarranted entitlement to pass judgement to the list of reasons why its not productive to engage in actual dialogue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So how is it OK for you to pass judgement on other posters (frequently), but not OK for anyone to pass judgement?

You have certain posters that you hang a particular label on, and judge them as such. How is that any different? Heck you even do it in your critique of my post "4 lines of lazy-ass judgementalism". Are you honestly being judgy about your perception that other people are being too judgmental? That's all kinda hypocritical.

It's very much within my purview to say that I don't think something is in line with a specified belief system. As to the right not being exclusively Christian- it's not- but the prevalence of a particular religious doctrine among the republican party is something that is relatively new. It's grown hand-in-hand with prosperity gospel doctrine, and I would say the two are almost impossible to separate these days.

As to "what business of mine" it is how you post, I asked a question. You didn't have to respond. But honestly, you're coming across more and more like a troll over the years- not interested in talking to anyone other than people who agree with, and talking over and/or insulting everyone who doesn't. Capped with a statement that "you're not interested in dialogue", I think asking why you're posting here is a legitimate question. Just like it's within your rights to post here even if you don't want dialogue, it's within my rights to ask "why?".

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

The EO was never actually found to be unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit basically only ruled that the claims about violations of due process weren't frivolous, and as such the temporary stay on the order stays in place until whether or not it is constitutional is actually decided in court.

In my opinion, the entire EO was only thrown out there to inflame popular sentiment against the courts. Having his lawyer actually tell the 9th Circuit that, in his opinion, they're not allowed to review the EO at all is a clear shot at the court system. He could also easily have made it pass even 9th Circuit muster by amending the EO and making it clear it doesn't apply to permanent residents, rather than having the White House Counsel issue an ambiguous interpretation for him. In the actual decision, they say they're upholding the stay because the White House Counsel technically has no authority to amend Presidential EOs and as such they can't consider the EO to not apply to permanent residents. There's also the fact that the order itself only lasts for 90 days, and he had to know when he set that time limit that the inevitable court challenges would take longer than that to resolve.

I'm not sure how you can consider Trump's immigration stances to not be extreme right wing. Even the Republican Party blew up on him when he suggested a complete Muslim ban or when he gave that interview where he made the "rapists and murderers" comment.



I mention Obamacare as an example of an economic issue that Trump is going to be fighting with mainstream Republicans over. Gay marriage is an example of a social issue that Trump will probably let slide if it ever comes down to making it illegal again. While Trump himself probably doesn't care about gay marriage too much, opposition to it is still his official stance and this aligns with the official stance of mainstream Republicans. I also mention gay marriage a lot because it's one of the most odious mainstream Republican stances left, re-banning gay marriage would pretty much only be attributable to the RNC's remaining theocratic elements or to extreme pettiness. Even though something like abortion would actually be far more likely to get addressed if the Republicans ever got into a position to amend the Constitution, I avoid mentioning that one because while I would oppose an abortion ban, I don't see actually see one as morally reprehensible.

While this is true, the INA is clear, well-established, and has been used by Presidents in the past. Failing to mention the most relevant law is rather telling.



This is an interesing theory, and I don't disagree on the timeframe aspect, but I attribute it much more to a combination of haste on a campaign promise with an inexperienced staff. One drawback of outsiders is that the actual "control levers" of the White House take some getting used to.



Easily. The actual order is not at all extreme. Neither of those things you mention is germane to the order published.



Both sides will find it convenient to compromise and pass something while they have the chance.



Trump's official stance on it is just that: an "official stance" to avoid offending supporters. It behooves him more to avoid the issue because his opponents make themselves look stupid calling him homophobic when he A) leaves alone LGBTQ protections in the Federal workforce and B) has a long history of being LGBTQ friendly. More importantly, Trump will have no direct and little indirect say in the question of legality.

The only ways it could be illegal would be A) a Constitutional amendment, in which the President is not involved or B) a repeal of the ruling which would kick it back to the states, not render it illegal. You would find far more states would decide to keep it legal than it already was legal in prior to the USSC decision simply because it's now status quo. The remaining states would suddenly find that social and economic pressure to legalize is quite high.



Given the pettiness, odious behavior, and attempts to make end runs around the Free Exercise clause in the wake of the 2015 decision, the Left and the LGBTQ rights groups have little to complain about. Had they proclaimed victory and simply relied on enforcement after that there would be no issue, but running around trolling for Christians to force to participate in weddings via lawsuits is absolutely despicable, and not even remotely defensible on the same grounds as bus or lunch counter seats. It is forcing people to participate in a religious ceremony they don't agree with.

On top of that, it's stupid. If my daughter wants a wedding cake, I am not going to threaten some bigot with a lawsuit to get one; I'll find someone who wants to make it, or make it myself. This is not about any distress these couples are actually suffering; it's about finding Christians and using the courts and the law to rub their noses in it and dressing it up as "equality". Leaving these people the **** alone is both the only acceptable thing in terms of religious liberty, and the only thing intelligent in terms of denying them victim status.



the left is losing this fight after having previously had the upper hand by defending despicable practices such as partial birth and late term abortion (anyone defending either practice is a **** barbarian) and because they pretend planned parenthood = abortion rights. Planned Parenthood is a Democrat slush fund. There is no reason it needs to be the lynchpin of abortion services.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You just attempted to compare a criticism of your post, specifically, with your criticism of what you imagine to be my motivations for posting. It is certainly my place to criticize what you right, it is not your place to concern yourself with why I pot here in the first place (and the reverse would also be true). Do you actually not get this distinction, or are you just going to any length necessary to play the hypocrisy card.



You are looking entirely at a convenient caricature of the Republicans then. Furthermore, while you can technically say that you don't think sometihng is in line with a certain belief system, but there's no actual reason for anyone to take this sort of shame attack seriously. This is entirely self-serving behavior. I am not going to waste time with a lengthy theological rebuttal of this combination of simplism and unwarranted condecesion; I'm going to sum it up as your theology is ****. It's not worth an hour of typing.



First, "Why are you posting here?" is never a legitimate question - at least, unless that particular poster is the topic in the first place, which also shouldn't be happening. This is a form of ad hom distraction technique. If you want to complain about dialogue, you don't get to at the same time ask questions transparently designed to place people on the defensive. Come on, that's what 16 year old girls do when they're losing an argument in Social Studies class.

Second, if there is one thing this board has had over the years, it's been endless pearl-clutching as if every event in the world that offended the poster's sensibilities was the most stupid, most insane, most tyrannical thing to happen in human history. Libertarians have done it, Liberals have done it, people have done it over not-explicitly-partisan pet peeves and I have, no dout, done it myself at least once or twice.

That said, I have argued with all sides. When the libertarians were being idealisitic idiots I argued with them. When the liberals did it, I argued with them. When the fundamentalist(s) did it, I gave them hell too.

Yet all of us are Westerners. We don't know oppression. We have never felt it. The worst oppression in living memory for us, or our elders, pales in comparison to what other people in the world have to deal with. Yet people on this board always feel they're one step away from disaster - but they go right on with their lives and content themselves with internet meltdowns. Very few people here - midgen, Timmit, a few others that no longer post - have ever done anything besides live well and armchair quarterbacking.

The Left is just the latest in response to this election. Most of the Liberals here are more fearful they'll be wrong about Trump than right. It is not worth engaging with this.

I need to see some sense of reality. RD is, so far, the only one that shows much of any (although Xeq is doing better lately). The rest of it is people more afraid of being wrong than they are of the consequences of being right.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So in your opinion, there's no correct time or point for someone to say actions don't fall in line with a given belief system?

Or you just don't believe I have the right to do so?

How is it "self-serving behavior" for me to say that I don't feel like a movement in my own party aligns with the religious ideas that they espouse?

As for an "ad-hominem distraction technique", how is "your theology is ****" really any different? It's ad hominem, and meant to place someone on the defensive. Asking you why you're posting shouldn't have put you on the defensive. I'd imagine it was a relatively easily answered question about your motivations here. Is it to change minds? Is it as an outlet for your ideas and thoughts? A way to pass time?

The fact that you're so defensive about it makes me wonder why it's not something you want to answer, personally. It's not a question I'd have any problem asking.

Far from being "never a legitimate question", I think asking what someones motivations are is one of the most legitimate questions you can ask, and should be an easy question for the other party to answer.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

If you don't hold to that belief system, I don't see that as anything other than self-serving nonsense. It's like calling ISIS un-Islamic. When we do that, it's entirely self-serving and transparent that we're trying to drive a wedge between them and the rest of the Muslim world - but we aren't doing so based on any deep understanding of Muslim theology, but on our desire for that theology to be something we want it to be. It's not as if ISIS lacks learned Muslim clerics, extreme as they may be. Saying that just makes us look as if we consider Muslims to be credulous idiots; "we won't insult you by claiming you're terrorists; we'll insult you by claiming we get to decide what is and isn't Islamic."



You've got the right to be as self-serving as you want. No one's ever claimed you don't have the right to speak. Whether you have the "right" is entirely beside the point. The right you do not have is to be taken seriously.



I don't think it's very hard to understand why "I understand your beliefs better than you do, and you aren't following them" is fairly obviously self-serving and condescending, especially when not accompanied by any serious effort to demonstrate that. If you want to know what a "serious effort" post looks like, look back at my discussion of the future of the carrier-based Navy in a thread with the word "Navy" in its title - should be on the first or second page of Hellfire. This is a pretty non-political example. IF you want discussion, start a discussion with something serious of your own. I grew tired of writing lengthy posts and complex point-by-point rebuttals and just getting "lol TLDR wall of text" in return.



Because by "your theology is ****" I pretty clearly was referring to your theological evaluation of the people you're complaining about - if we look at the entire sentence and not just that snippet. Come on, do you seriously think I forgot what I wrote when it's two posts up?



It didn't, because I'm comfortable with telling you "that's not for you to concern yourself with", which it isn't. That doesn't change the fact that it's an attempt to make the discussion about me, rather than Neil Gorsuch or any related tangent. There's no particular reason my motivations should be of any more interest than anyone else's.



Don't you worry about it. You're welcome to talk about why you choose to post, if you wish. You don't need to concern yourself with my motivations.



I'm not you. Furthermore, saying "you're being defensive" is simply more of this distraction technique. This is exactly the sort of thing kids in high school engage in; accusing other students of being "defensive" when they're assertions are called into question.

There's three problems with this - one it's not a "fact" that I'm being "Defensive" beause a person being "Defensive" can mean almost anything and two, why do we think there's anything wrong with "being defensive"? Claiming someone is "being defensive" is a way of well-poisoning.

The final problem is that I already essentially told you what my motivation is - I feel like more liberal histrionics will be to the strategic advantage of Republicans in the future, so as long as liberals prove themselves unable to stop engaging in hysteria, I'm more than willing to play along. I made that fairly clear. If you don't happen to like that or feel it's a problem, well - too **** bad.



I don't think you would get very far in any formal debate setting with such an approach. It's interesting that you disagree with a fundamental basis of the concept of abstract discussion. You may like the idea of it, because then no matter what the other party's motivation is you can criticize it with some air of concern for them while deftly avoiding evaluation of your own motives - and the actual matter at hand, in the process.

Let me demonstrate:

U mad bro? U sound mad.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So only Scotsman can claim no-true-Scotsman? By this logic I cannot claim that a rock is not a piece of wood, since I belong to neither the class of "things that are wood" nor "things that are rock"

Wait, why are you assuming I'm not Christian?

Your entire argument about me not judging it is based off an assumption you're making about me, one that is not correct.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Technically, I didn't say you were defensive. You said I asked a question designed to put you on the defensive.

If it's not something that makes you defensive, then you're assuming my intent. If it is something that put you on the defensive... Then I'm not the one claiming it, you are. It's a pretty obvious inference from your statement.

You keep going off on tangents deflecting from ever having to answer the questions I ask by saying "I'm debating wrong". You also seem to have a problem with me discussing points that you are the one who brings up.

Moreover, you seem to assume many things about me, and then use them to back up your claims (i.e., you can't talk about Christians because you're not a Christian). It's a silly argument to say you can't talk about something you don't personally espouse anyway, but that point aside- I am Christian, therefore by your logic I can say something is un-Christian, and it's not self serving.

So maybe you should stop assuming things about me and basing your arguments on those assumptions? It's kind of interesting that your point in this thread is literally to troll (to stir up liberal histrionics), but you're the one getting visibly bent out of shape. So yes- Y U mad bro?

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

omfg.

I am alternately despairing with this thread and the lack of friendliness compared to the glade of yore, and finding myself making snork noises at the extreme snarkidelity of some of y'all.

Wish we could go have a beer and defuse.

(Also, TLDR, ofc.)

Bro, do you even English?

_________________
The Dude abides.

Haven't you seen the new tagline for Hellfire?

"You're all kind of being assholes and it seems you're okay with that."

Hellfire has never had this "friendliness" you speak of.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I was English, but now I live in Jersey City I American instead ;p

He was the first President to enter office publicly supporting LGBT people.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Bit of a hike but you can come to my bonfire this year in October. Ever shot a flametrhower?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

after first naming a VP candidate that is vehemently anti LGBT, and then once in office selecting a slew of cabinet members with vocal Anti-LGBT stances. I honestly think Trump doesn't care much about LGBT one way or another, (other than he doesn't value women who are off his sex-menu) but he's willing to throw them under the bus to keep the religious-right appeased

And he won with that strategy.

There are more people on the religious right than there are LGBT people, and they are a group with high voter turnout. There is nothing you can do about this, short of trying to take away their right to vote - which I don't advise, partly because of their numbers and partly because of their high correlation with those people that are trained to fight and own weapons. You can't even Constitutional-Amendment them into irrelevancy because guess what? They have a lot more influence over the Constitution for the same reason.

People around here are very good at complaining about the existence of the religious right. Some people have even called (tacitly) for their extermination, hidden behind a desire for the "stupid people" as the writer sees it. Disregarding how appalling this view is in the first place, how does that work exactly? I don't see too many of you even knowing how to start belling that cat.

There is a marginal portion between the religious and non-religious right, and between the religious right and the religious center that is convincible on LGBT issues. That portion, will, over time, creep farther and farther right. There is no wall between the "religious right" and everyone else, just a murky swath which millions of people inhabit.

No amount of complaining about Mike Pence will make him or his constituents go away. He is not stupid or foolish and he is not, some pretensions to the contrary, irrational in every way just because he holds this viewpoint. Thinking this not only comes across as being barely in touch with reality, but its wildly underestimating a canny, smart, and clever opponent. If you are on the Left, or even just opposed to the Trump administration, regarding them as stupid fools is the last thing you should be doing. That view is how he won in the face of everyone (me included; I am as guilty as everyone else of underestimating him) thinking he could not. If you think that your position is so intellectually and morally superior that only the stupidity and cretinism of everyone else is what's caused your present situation - then I suggest preparing to remain in the political minority. You live in a state, or at least did, that went for Obama twice before going to Trump. Your neighbors did not suddenly become idiots, and they never were idiots.

These are the people the Left keeps alienating. It doesn't matter if you alienate the deeply-committed religious right; it matters that you alienate the convincible ones, because when you do that you move that line in the opposite direction. Perhaps you feel you shouldn't have to appease or avoid alienating these people because your side is morally right. Well, sorry. You do have to, if you actually care about addressing what you claim to want to address. Or do you really just prefer that the religious right remain a strong anti-LGBT faction so that you have someone to point at and feel superior to? Do you really want change? Or do you only want to complain on the internet? Or do you only want change when you get to shove it on people under threat of lawsuits and fines and rub their noses in it, because you care more about winning than you do about the goal of the victory?

Oh, by the way.. aren't you supposed to be pointing out that "it's the culture, not the religion?" Amazing how quickly that stance disappears when it's not the abstraction of overseas Muslims that can be held at bay with the ocean.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Technically, you did:





I don't need to assume your intent. You started questioning me about why I'm posting rather than anything relative to the topic at hand or any related tangent. That's the purpose of questions like that - it's why, in formal debate, they are considered an error. This isn't hard to understand.



Well, stop debating wrong then. Or else, if you want to talk about formal debate rules (which we aren't using here) we can if you wish to cite some where switching the topic to your opponent is legitimate and accepted- debate rules being based on principles of reasoning, and all. I thought you lied reasoned discussion, and wanted me to engage in it? It's unclear why you are complaining so loudly now that I'm not entertaining your desire to do the opposite. As for discussing points, I don't see you discussing anything, just complaining loudly that I won't subject myself to your self-appointed position as determinant of acceptable posting motivation.



Actually I made no such assumption whatsoever - I merely did NOT assume your were a Christian, and now you are taking that lack of assumption as me assuming the contrary.

You know how you can tell? When I first brought it up, I compared your behavior to Beryllin's, who was undoubtedly a Christian; it would be very hard not to be clear on that if you had ever talked to him.

Moreover you are strawmanning what I said. I did not say you could not discuss beliefs you don't hold; what I said was you can't tell people who don't hold your beliefs how to hold their beliefs or in what way it is acceptable to do so, and expect to be taken seriously. To go back to the ISIS analogy, we could discuss whether ISIS was Islamic if there were legitimate reason to question whether they were Islamic in the first place (for example if they rejected large portions of the Koran, or did not hold that Mohammed was the Prophet) but since they do, in fact, hold to fundamental tenets of such theology, they're Muslim. We can call them un-Islamic until we're blue in the face but we sound stupid doing it and its rather transparent that "us-Islamic" happily comports with the interests of the West.

(That, by the way, is what discussion looks like)

Now, as for you being a Christian, you're on somewhat stronger ground there, but Christianity has its own internal divisions and there is room for debate on many points of doctrine. Simply telling someone "well, I'm a Christian and I disagree with what you're doing isn't Christian" isn't making any progress. That's what Beryllin did, and part of the reason he was so intolerable was that the obvious response: "Well, so am I, and I think it is" not only didn't phase him but he apparently couldn't even understand that it was possible for other Christians to disagree with him. He would, to be fair, try to back it up with Scripture occasionally, but that was generally debateable as well, or it was simply Scripture warning of divine punishment for those who err, without even the slightest attempt to demonstrate that it was me (or whoever else he was talking to) that was in error rather than him.



Since I'm not, and I jut gave you a lengthy and concrete explanation as to precisely why and how I am not making such assumptions, maybe you should get off your high horse about it. You started off complaining that I wasn't interested in discussion with people and just snarking at them (or words to that effect) but I see a lot more effort in my posting than yours. All you seem to want to do is continue to defend your right to conduct your own little inquisition into my thinking.



A troll doesn't explicitly tell people he's trying to provoke them. There's a message there for the left - this country needs two viable sides to political debate. When one side is engaging in shrieking hysteria and the other side is backing away eyes wide there's a serious problem. The solution is to stop the shrieking. It's really not unlike why someone wouldn't want to engage with Beryllin - the Left is terrified of admitting that they are not in the utter moral right.

As for getting visibly bent out of shape - ok whatever. You're the one who is complaining about adhering to a fairly basic principle that ad hom is form of error, and you just don't want to let this line of reasoning go. You're the one all upset that someone might "assume what you think" or whatever it is. I just finished giving you a good explanation of how my point about self-interested critiques of other beliefs fail, but I predict you'll just gloss over that as if I didn't even post to (for all intents and purposes) just repeat yourself again in different words.

It's definitely not me bent out of shape here. I don't need your approval.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Just in case you missed it in the other post, I'm not, My initial comparson of your behavior was to Beryllin, inarguably Christian. Later I switched to other comparisons. What I was doing was making no assumption either way, but I can't say I'm shocked that you founbd some way to pretend I was making such an assumption.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."