Four Good Reasons Why I Am A Conservative - Page 3

Dr Adequate · 28th December 2009, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by GreyArea

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. Let me try again.

It sounds like you are making a distinction between your views and those of self-described conservatives who think that government shouldn't do any regulating, intervening, changing, or "doing" * at all.

But I have tried to make a clear distinction between me and them. This is why in my OP I said about every point: unless you have a good reason.

A good reason always trumps an abstract principle: that's what makes it a good reason rather than a bad one.

Arcade22 · 28th December 2009, 01:37 PM

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons?

Piscivore · 28th December 2009, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry?

Yes.

Quote:

If so, what are these good reasons?

It's a non-bigot thing; you wouldn't understand.

KingMerv00 · 28th December 2009, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons?

Equal application of the law is always a good reason.

Dr Adequate · 28th December 2009, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons?

Because it would annoy you. That's an excellent reason. Now get off my thread.

Arcade22 · 28th December 2009, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Yes.

Such as?

Quote:

It's a non-bigot thing; you wouldn't understand.

Now now.

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

Random · 28th December 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Now now.

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

Churches in the US already have the right to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for couples they do not approve of.

AWPrime · 28th December 2009, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Now please stop posting on my thread.

I don't think its your thread anymore, your noted principles were so empty/meaningless that something else filled the void in this thread.

In short: It's your fault.

Piscivore · 28th December 2009, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Such as?

Instead of me giving you reasons you can contradict or argue against, why don't you try and think of good reasons someone might hold that view?

Quote:

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

Why?

KingMerv00 · 28th December 2009, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

Now that you've said it, I'm considering changing my position.

Dr Adequate · 28th December 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by AWPrime

I don't think its your thread anymore, your noted principles were so empty/meaningless ...

* drums fingers lightly on desk, waits *

Snide · 28th December 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons?

The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene.

Arcade22 · 28th December 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Instead of me giving you reasons you can contradict or argue against, why don't you try and think of good reasons someone might hold that view?

That's not the way it works.

Quote:

Why?

Primarily because i don't want an largely ineffective form of sexual morality to decide who can marry.

Arcade22 · 28th December 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Snide

The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene.

Sure, the Conservative question is 'well we haven't allowed gays to marry before so why should we allowed to marry now?'.

Piscivore · 28th December 2009, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

That's not the way it works.

Not if one is committed to never changing one's mind, no. So if you are unwilling to consider my point of view, I'm disinclined to tell you about it.

Quote:

Primarily because i don't want an largely ineffective form of sexual morality to decide who can marry.

What do you mean by "ineffective form of sexual morality"? Ineffective to what end?

What is the difference to you between "marriage" and a "civil union"?

Dr Adequate · 28th December 2009, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Snide

The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene.

Someone got this thread back on topic!

Arcade22 · 28th December 2009, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Not if one is committed to never changing one's mind, no. So if you are unwilling to consider my point of view, I'm disinclined to tell you about it.

I'm not a mind reader. Just give me your reasons.

Quote:

What do you mean by "ineffective form of sexual morality"? Ineffective to what end?

Ineffective in the sense that it isn't related to what human beings really are and thus is ineffective in generating healthy family's, or at least not as effective as the religious are trying to make it out to be.

For example, if i remember correctly, 'atheistic' family's had lower divorce rates than Christan ones. So much for the god-fearing nuclear family.

Quote:

What is the difference to you between "marriage" and a "civil union"?

Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept.

Dr Adequate · 28th December 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I'm not a mind reader. Just give me your reasons.

Ineffective in the sense that it isn't related to what human beings really are and thus is ineffective in generating healthy family's, or at least not as effective as the religious are trying to make it out to be.

For example, if i remember correctly, 'atheistic' family's had lower divorce rates than Christan ones. So much for the god-fearing nuclear family.

Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept.

If you go on trying to divert this thread into a discussion of your obsessions I shall break the habit of a lifetime and report you to the moderators.

Arcade22 · 28th December 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

If you go on trying to divert this thread into a discussion of your obsessions I shall break the habit of a lifetime and report you to the moderators.

The thread is actually about conservatism. Besides, i have actually reported this thread already.

Dr Adequate · 28th December 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

The thread is actually about conservatism.

But not about your bizarre and unpleasant obsessions. If you were to decide that hitting aardvarks with hockey-sticks was part of conservatism according to your definition of the word, then that subject would not magically become relevant to my OP.

Quote:

Besides, i have actually reported this thread already.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Piscivore · 28th December 2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept.

Really?

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? (Note that I suggested you present some, you remain unwilling to do so. This suggests you oppose it)

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.

This also wants its own thread.

Random · 28th December 2009, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

But not about your bizarre and unpleasant obsessions. If you were to decide that hitting aardvarks with hockey-sticks was part of conservatism according to your definition of the word, then that subject would not magically become relevant to my OP.

Unless there was a "good reason" for it.

GeeMack · 28th December 2009, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Besides, i have actually reported this thread already.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Here's how it worked out.

KingMerv00 · 28th December 2009, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Here's how it worked out.

Woah.

recursive prophet · 28th December 2009, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

The thread is actually about conservatism. Besides, i have actually reported this thread already.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Let me know how that works out for you.

Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh?

David Wong · 28th December 2009, 11:47 PM

I never did figure out what this thread was about.

Piscivore · 28th December 2009, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh?

That's just classy.

Fiona · 29th December 2009, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Caw Caw Caw Caw :d

ftfy

lionking · 29th December 2009, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

That's just classy.

Dancing on someone's grave is always a good look. Well done RP.

recursive prophet · 29th December 2009, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Random

You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative".

Ah yes, such ambiguity in our terminology. Conservative is the handle embraced by those who fight any actual conserving at every turn.

Reagan and Bush both cut taxes while dramatically increasing spending. They also fought all attempts at confronting overpopulation, which is the greatest problem facing us and the root cause of global warming and countless other issues. Our current debacle is their legacy. Only under our newspeak version of conservative could either be considered as such.

While I disagree with the decision to ban drad, I'm about as sad to see him gone as he would have been if I were banned. (And I'm certain he would have taken a parting shot.) The very fact so many in FM have voiced their dismay over his departure, along with the disparaging, OT comments made in response to my reply in this thread, simply reconfirms my impression there is a cult of incivility on this forum. Surely none would argue drad was known for his civility or humility.

KingMerv00 · 29th December 2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

The very fact so many in FM have voiced their dismay over his departure, along with the disparaging, OT comments made in response to my reply in this thread, simply reconfirms my impression there is a cult of incivility on this forum.

Way to rise above your own conceptions of incivility:

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh?

Darth Rotor · 29th December 2009, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Way to rise above your own conceptions of incivility:

King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait.

See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story.

DR

KingMerv00 · 29th December 2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait.

See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story.

DR

Please don't tell me the Swedes have a nuke.

KingMerv00 · 29th December 2009, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait.

See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story.

DR

If recursive prophet is going to call the forum a "cult of incivility" and then be uncivil, the classy thing for him to do is to don the cult robes.

Darth Rotor · 29th December 2009, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Please don't tell me the Swedes have a nuke.

No, but it was a small mind/nation that was the victor over a larger mind/nation, as I tried to apply that coarse analogy.

Also, if the Swedes have nukes, good. Makes the game far more interesting.

DR

recursive prophet · 29th December 2009, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

If recursive prophet is going to call the forum a "cult of incivility" and then be uncivil, the classy thing for him to do is to don the cult robes.

I didn't say the forum constituted a "cult of incivility" KM. I said there IS one here. Big difference. And would you really compare the level of incivility in my reply regarding a non-member as even approaching that regularly exhibited by drad during his tenure? If you went back to my first posts on this site you would find some unprovoked comments by him directed at me far more uncivil than anything I have stated in this thread. And I'm a member.

Might I suggest any who have similar comments as those made by Fiona, LK and KM, post them on the FM thread started to discuss drad's banning? I'm not part of the 'in crowd' at JREF. Therefore I won't respond to any further insults wrt my initial post based on rather droll, melodramatic presuppositions, less I get an infraction for doing so.

KingMerv00 · 29th December 2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

I didn't say the forum constituted a "cult of incivility" KM. I said there IS one here. Big difference. And would you really compare the level of incivility in my reply regarding a non-member as even approaching that regularly exhibited by drad during his tenure?

It was still uncivil. I'm sure I've been uncivil at times but at least I don't get on my high horse and act like I am outside of the "cult".

Quote:

If you went back to my first posts on this site you would find some unprovoked comments by him directed at me far more uncivil than anything I have stated in this thread.

Wouldn't surprise me.

GreyArea · 29th December 2009, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Please don't tell me the Swedes have a nuke.

No, they chose a fighter jet instead.

whatthebutlersaw · 30th December 2009, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Damn elves infecting us with their borg-like socialism. GO WORSHIP YOUR RED MASTER ELSEWHERE! FIND A NORTH POLE SERVER!

Oh, this guy is NOT red. By any standard known in Sweden. -Brownshirted more like.

I find him just as stupid as you do, but kindly do not lump myself and other decent Swedes in with him, even if you get angry. With my background in antiracist organisations I actually feel quite hurt when you - and other people in this and other threads - do that.

KingMerv00 · 30th December 2009, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by whatthebutlersaw

Oh, this guy is NOT red. By any standard known in Sweden. -Brownshirted more like.

I find him just as stupid as you do, but kindly do not lump myself and other decent Swedes in with him, even if you get angry. With my background in antiracist organisations I actually feel quite hurt when you - and other people in this and other threads - do that.

I wasn't being serious. I was parodying him by being racist against the elf he posted. ("Red Master"...North Pole...get it?)

I have nothing against Swedes I promise.

28th December 2009, 01:37 PM	#82
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,834	Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons?
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

28th December 2009, 01:42 PM	#83
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,484	Originally Posted by Arcade22 Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Yes. Quote: If so, what are these good reasons? It's a non-bigot thing; you wouldn't understand.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

28th December 2009, 01:45 PM	#84
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Arcade22 Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons? Equal application of the law is always a good reason.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

28th December 2009, 02:12 PM	#86
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,834	Originally Posted by Piscivore Yes. Such as? Quote: It's a non-bigot thing; you wouldn't understand. Now now. I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose.
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

28th December 2009, 02:23 PM	#87
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,464	Originally Posted by Arcade22 Now now. I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose. Churches in the US already have the right to refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for couples they do not approve of.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

28th December 2009, 01:36 PM	#81
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by GreyArea I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. Let me try again. It sounds like you are making a distinction between your views and those of self-described conservatives who think that government shouldn't do any regulating, intervening, changing, or "doing" * at all. But I have tried to make a clear distinction between me and them. This is why in my OP I said about every point: unless you have a good reason. A good reason always trumps an abstract principle: that's what makes it a good reason rather than a bad one.

28th December 2009, 02:27 PM	#88
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Now please stop posting on my thread. I don't think its your thread anymore, your noted principles were so empty/meaningless that something else filled the void in this thread. In short: It's your fault.
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	__________________ Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "

28th December 2009, 02:30 PM	#89
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,484	Originally Posted by Arcade22 Such as? Instead of me giving you reasons you can contradict or argue against, why don't you try and think of good reasons someone might hold that view? Quote: I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose. Why?
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

28th December 2009, 02:32 PM	#90
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose. Now that you've said it, I'm considering changing my position.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

28th December 2009, 02:43 PM	#91
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by AWPrime I don't think its your thread anymore, your noted principles were so empty/meaningless ... * drums fingers lightly on desk, waits *

28th December 2009, 03:09 PM	#92
Snide Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 3,187	Originally Posted by Arcade22 Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? If so, what are these good reasons? The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene.

28th December 2009, 03:09 PM	#93
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,834	Originally Posted by Piscivore Instead of me giving you reasons you can contradict or argue against, why don't you try and think of good reasons someone might hold that view? That's not the way it works. Quote: Why? Primarily because i don't want an largely ineffective form of sexual morality to decide who can marry.
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

28th December 2009, 03:12 PM	#94
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,834	Originally Posted by Snide The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene. Sure, the Conservative question is 'well we haven't allowed gays to marry before so why should we allowed to marry now?'.
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

28th December 2009, 03:16 PM	#95
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,484	Originally Posted by Arcade22 That's not the way it works. Not if one is committed to never changing one's mind, no. So if you are unwilling to consider my point of view, I'm disinclined to tell you about it. Quote: Primarily because i don't want an largely ineffective form of sexual morality to decide who can marry. What do you mean by "ineffective form of sexual morality"? Ineffective to what end? What is the difference to you between "marriage" and a "civil union"?
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

28th December 2009, 03:29 PM	#96
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Snide The distinction between your question and Dr. A's questions is of course that yours does not ask for a good reason why the government should intervene, but rather it asks, in effect, for a good reason why the government should not intervene. Someone got this thread back on topic!

28th December 2009, 03:34 PM	#97
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,834	Originally Posted by Piscivore Not if one is committed to never changing one's mind, no. So if you are unwilling to consider my point of view, I'm disinclined to tell you about it. I'm not a mind reader. Just give me your reasons. Quote: What do you mean by "ineffective form of sexual morality"? Ineffective to what end? Ineffective in the sense that it isn't related to what human beings really are and thus is ineffective in generating healthy family's, or at least not as effective as the religious are trying to make it out to be. For example, if i remember correctly, 'atheistic' family's had lower divorce rates than Christan ones. So much for the god-fearing nuclear family. Quote: What is the difference to you between "marriage" and a "civil union"? Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept.
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

28th December 2009, 03:38 PM	#98
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Arcade22 I'm not a mind reader. Just give me your reasons. Ineffective in the sense that it isn't related to what human beings really are and thus is ineffective in generating healthy family's, or at least not as effective as the religious are trying to make it out to be. For example, if i remember correctly, 'atheistic' family's had lower divorce rates than Christan ones. So much for the god-fearing nuclear family. Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept. If you go on trying to divert this thread into a discussion of your obsessions I shall break the habit of a lifetime and report you to the moderators.

28th December 2009, 03:39 PM	#99
Arcade22 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 1,834	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate If you go on trying to divert this thread into a discussion of your obsessions I shall break the habit of a lifetime and report you to the moderators. The thread is actually about conservatism. Besides, i have actually reported this thread already.
	__________________ The habit of the religious way of thinking has biased our mind so grievously that we are — terrified at ourselves in our nakedness and naturalness; it has degraded us so that we deem ourselves depraved by nature, born devils. Max Stirner

28th December 2009, 04:00 PM	#100
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Arcade22 The thread is actually about conservatism. But not about your bizarre and unpleasant obsessions. If you were to decide that hitting aardvarks with hockey-sticks was part of conservatism according to your definition of the word, then that subject would not magically become relevant to my OP. Quote: Besides, i have actually reported this thread already. Let me know how that works out for you.

28th December 2009, 04:10 PM	#101
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,484	Originally Posted by Arcade22 Where have i discussed civil unions? Personally i am against the whole concept. Really? Originally Posted by Arcade22 Just a question Dr Adequate, are there any good reasons why homosexuals should be allowed to marry? (Note that I suggested you present some, you remain unwilling to do so. This suggests you oppose it) Originally Posted by Arcade22 I actually support giving homosexuals the right of civil marriage but only as long churches have the right to not wed homosexuals if the choose. This also wants its own thread.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

28th December 2009, 05:27 PM	#102
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,464	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate But not about your bizarre and unpleasant obsessions. If you were to decide that hitting aardvarks with hockey-sticks was part of conservatism according to your definition of the word, then that subject would not magically become relevant to my OP. Unless there was a "good reason" for it.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

28th December 2009, 05:35 PM	#103
GeeMack Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,187	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Originally Posted by Arcade22 Besides, i have actually reported this thread already. Let me know how that works out for you. Here's how it worked out.

28th December 2009, 05:45 PM	#104
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by GeeMack Here's how it worked out. Woah.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

28th December 2009, 10:05 PM	#105
recursive prophet Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: Escondido, CA Posts: 1,135	Originally Posted by Arcade22 The thread is actually about conservatism. Besides, i have actually reported this thread already. Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Let me know how that works out for you. Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh?
	__________________ Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

28th December 2009, 11:47 PM	#106
David Wong Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,768	I never did figure out what this thread was about.
	__________________ Author, John Dies at the End. Available now in hardcover. Editor, Cracked.com.

28th December 2009, 11:50 PM	#107
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,484	Originally Posted by recursive prophet Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh? That's just classy.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

29th December 2009, 03:40 AM	#108
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238	Originally Posted by recursive prophet Caw Caw Caw Caw :d ftfy
Fiona Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,238

29th December 2009, 03:57 AM	#109
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,688	Originally Posted by Piscivore That's just classy. Dancing on someone's grave is always a good look. Well done RP.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

29th December 2009, 12:35 PM	#110
recursive prophet Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: Escondido, CA Posts: 1,135	Originally Posted by Random You haven't really taken a stand you know. You have listed a bunch of extremely broad priciples that nobody disagrees with, and declared them "conservative". Ah yes, such ambiguity in our terminology. Conservative is the handle embraced by those who fight any actual conserving at every turn. Reagan and Bush both cut taxes while dramatically increasing spending. They also fought all attempts at confronting overpopulation, which is the greatest problem facing us and the root cause of global warming and countless other issues. Our current debacle is their legacy. Only under our newspeak version of conservative could either be considered as such. While I disagree with the decision to ban drad, I'm about as sad to see him gone as he would have been if I were banned. (And I'm certain he would have taken a parting shot.) The very fact so many in FM have voiced their dismay over his departure, along with the disparaging, OT comments made in response to my reply in this thread, simply reconfirms my impression there is a cult of incivility on this forum. Surely none would argue drad was known for his civility or humility.
	__________________ Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

29th December 2009, 12:41 PM	#111
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by recursive prophet The very fact so many in FM have voiced their dismay over his departure, along with the disparaging, OT comments made in response to my reply in this thread, simply reconfirms my impression there is a cult of incivility on this forum. Way to rise above your own conceptions of incivility: Originally Posted by recursive prophet Well, now you know drad. Looks like it worked out fine for Arcade. Is it working out for you? Perhaps you should have been a little more conservative with your insults, eh?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

29th December 2009, 12:48 PM	#112
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Way to rise above your own conceptions of incivility: King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait. See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

29th December 2009, 12:51 PM	#113
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait. See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story. DR Please don't tell me the Swedes have a nuke.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

29th December 2009, 01:00 PM	#114
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor King, it is actually funny as hell, in a macabre sort of way, that Dr A was done in by Arcade22's bait. See "The Mouse That Roared" for a somewhat similar story. DR If recursive prophet is going to call the forum a "cult of incivility" and then be uncivil, the classy thing for him to do is to don the cult robes.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust? Last edited by KingMerv00; 29th December 2009 at 01:01 PM.

29th December 2009, 01:57 PM	#115
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Please don't tell me the Swedes have a nuke. No, but it was a small mind/nation that was the victor over a larger mind/nation, as I tried to apply that coarse analogy. Also, if the Swedes have nukes, good. Makes the game far more interesting. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 29th December 2009 at 02:01 PM.

29th December 2009, 01:59 PM	#116
recursive prophet Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: Escondido, CA Posts: 1,135	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 If recursive prophet is going to call the forum a "cult of incivility" and then be uncivil, the classy thing for him to do is to don the cult robes. I didn't say the forum constituted a "cult of incivility" KM. I said there IS one here. Big difference. And would you really compare the level of incivility in my reply regarding a non-member as even approaching that regularly exhibited by drad during his tenure? If you went back to my first posts on this site you would find some unprovoked comments by him directed at me far more uncivil than anything I have stated in this thread. And I'm a member. Might I suggest any who have similar comments as those made by Fiona, LK and KM, post them on the FM thread started to discuss drad's banning? I'm not part of the 'in crowd' at JREF. Therefore I won't respond to any further insults wrt my initial post based on rather droll, melodramatic presuppositions, less I get an infraction for doing so.
	__________________ Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.