Social Justice Warrior strikes LONDON train - 22 injured

God bless America said:
I shall preserve this statement in amber for future reference, with the added note that I asked you to condemn Islamic terrorism unreservedly and without equivocation, and you did not.

Zappacrite and some others say that using threadbans makes you a coward who fears honest discourse. Are they wrong?
Click to expand...

Is honest discourse calling women the "C" word, yes or no. It's a simple question.

Do Islamist terrorists commit Islamist terrorism, yes or no. Another simple question.
 
Yaya said:
Christiefan doesn't want to answer these two questions, I wonder why.
Click to expand...

Muslims fought others to expand their territories after Muhammad. Did Christians and pagans do the same, yes or no?

You completely ignored my link showing that Muslims and Christians made Jews wear something to distinguish them.

That's why you're so dishonest and why you get on everybody's nerves, Yurt.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
Is honest discourse calling women the "C" word, yes or no. It's a simple question.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Use of a vulgar expression, while offensive, has nothing to do with honesty or logical validity.

It's a distraction which you've seize upon as an excuse to engage in behavior that your fellow progressives condemn when others do it.

It's perfectly possible for people to use profanity and be entirely honest in their discourse. I try not to do it myself, but I have slipped in the past, as you know, and I am sorry for it. That's an individual decision dictated by conscience. I won't say that someone else is refusing to engage in honest discourse because I don't like a word they used.

The reverse is also true. The fact is that logically, use of vulgar insults do not invalidate the veracity of a statement.

For example, if someone says "Yo, cunt, the earth is round, ice is cold, and water is wet", are any of those facts nullified by the use of a vulgarity?

You're a highly-selective little snowflake when it suits you.

If profanity is so unacceptable to you, why aren't "progressives" like Evince on your threadban list?

You won't call out Zappacrite and the others who claim threadbanning = cowardice because you are a hypocrite, and they won't acknowledge that their generalized statements apply to you because they are hypocrites too.

christiefan915 said:
Do Islamist terrorists commit Islamist terrorism, yes or no. Another simple question.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Now, do you condemn Islamic terrorism unreservedly and without equivocation?

It's a simple question.
 
1. All profanity isn't unacceptable to me, just the "C" word.

2. You are asking me to call out Zap for his comment on threadbanning, yet I have noted your own generous use of the thread ban, contrary to your statement that it shows cowardice. Care to explain this inconsistency?

3. Thus it appears that you, Zap and I are all guilty of hypocrisy, according to your criteria.
 
christiefan915 said:
1. All profanity isn't unacceptable to me, just the "C" word.
Click to expand...

How convenient.

Like I said, your poutrage is highly selective, Christiecrite.

What makes "cunt" a valid justification for a threadban when a conservative uses it, but not when a liberal does?

christiefan915 said:
2. You are asking me to call out Zap for his comment on threadbanning, yet I have noted your own generous use of the thread ban, contrary to your statement that it shows cowardice. Care to explain this inconsistency?
Click to expand...

There's none to explain. I have never stated that "it shows cowardice", have I?

christiefan915 said:
3. Thus it appears that you, Zap and I are all guilty of hypocrisy, according to your criteria.
Click to expand...

If I had called others who threadban cowardly, as Zappacrite has, you'd have a point.

Since I didn't, you don't.

Thus, you have failed again. You really should study logic. Jesuits are good at it. Maybe they'd teach you, if you don't mention your ardent support for abortion on demand.
 
God bless America said:
How convenient.

Like I said, your poutrage is highly selective, Christiecrite.

What makes "cunt" a valid justification for a threadban when a conservative uses it, but not when a liberal does?
Click to expand...

As I have stated many, many times before, I threadban those who call ME the "c" word, and they have never been liberals. Anyone who's been called that by a liberal has the same remedies that I use. And for the record, which liberal here has used the word?

There's none to explain. I have never stated that "it shows cowardice", have I? If I had called others who threadban cowardly, as Zappacrite has, you'd have a point.
Since I didn't, you don't.
Click to expand...

It appears you've been offended by Zap's comments on the threadban, perhaps because they hit too close to home. I don't care if Zap or anyone else criticizes the use of it; all I care about is not to give vulgarians the chance to use the "C'' word in my threads.

Thus, you have failed again. You really should study logic. Jesuits are good at it. Maybe they'd teach you, if you don't mention your ardent support for abortion on demand.
Click to expand...

Threadbanning vulgar language is not a question of logic. It makes the forum experience better for everyone when nastiness isn't part of the topic being discussed,

Speaking of logic, your strawman re: abortion on demand is noted.
 
christiefan915 said:
And for the record, which liberal here has used the word?
Click to expand...

The fact that you pretend not to know is telling.

christiefan915 said:
I don't care if Zap or anyone else criticizes the use of it; all I care about is not to give vulgarians the chance to use the "C'' word in my threads.
Click to expand...

My, how selectively moral you wish to appear. :rofl2:


christiefan915 said:
Threadbanning vulgar language is not a question of logic. It makes the forum experience better for everyone when nastiness isn't part of the topic being discussed,
Click to expand...

According to you. :rofl2:

christiefan915 said:
Speaking of logic, your strawman re: abortion on demand is noted.
Click to expand...

Strawman? :dunno: I suggested a Jesuit tutor to help you raise your game and cautioned you not to mention your support for abortion on demand.

Maybe you don't know what a strawman fallacy is.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes, I do. And you could too, if you used the random insult generator.

If you don't think IHA writes gross stuff you haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you can post here at all since you are so mightily (and selectively) triggered by nasty talk, you delicate little snowflake, you. :rofl2:

 
God bless America said:
The fact that you pretend not to know is telling.
My, how selectively moral you wish to appear. :rofl2:
According to you. :rofl2:

Strawman? :dunno: I suggested a Jesuit tutor to help you raise your game and cautioned you not to mention your support for abortion on demand.

Maybe you don't know what a strawman fallacy is.
Click to expand...

A strawman fallacy is you introducing a topic that wasn't under discussion, pretending it's the real argument here, and attacking me for a position that you think I hold.
 
christiefan915 said:
Feel free to disagree, and to defend a vulgar, foul racist and bigot who's go-to insults include wishing death and illness on posters, and making fun of those with serious health problems.
Click to expand...

Who is this vulgar, foul racist and bigot of whom you speak? Evince? :dunno:

Do you think I defended someone wishing death and illness on posters, and making fun of those with serious health problems?

Please, link up.
 
Thanks for the correction that "who's ≠ whose." I'll be sure to contact you the next time I have a grammar or punctuation emergency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top