I disagree and cite this thread as evidence
So, ask the guy who is still here how he was drummed out?
Like I said, we shouldn't be surprised that you skipped out on the detail.
Seriously, it's one thing if you disagree, but the coincidence between what you skip and what you don't get looks like either a reading comprehension problem or just plain rudeness.
To wit, as evidence:
Why? I have already answered.
Why are you asking me to repost what's already posted? Like I said, it's one thing if you disagree, but skipping the detail and then turning around and asking for what you skipped? A'ight, dude, whatever.
Anyway: …
remember that part of what complicates his answer is that he has, as Administrator, so constrained use of the word racist. While, normally, I find Trek's post an exercise in supremacist futility, the coincidence with James R actually makes the inquiry kind of interesting: He's being asked to give the kind of answer he normally criticizes of others, and, moreover, by one of the people his general argument would seek to protect.
That's why.
Intellectually? Careful how you answer.
Well, the alternative is your intention to troll. One or the other, so if you want a third option, maybe skip the tough-guy clownery and try saying something useful.
Glasgow Uni guy? He attacked just about everyone aggressively including me, zero to do with his views.
We turned it around before he requested to be banned.
Actually, I'm just thinking about the fact that he even got the Admin to call out his Covid stuff. That wasn't necessarily normal. And it's true, the part of his bullshit I saw was in the Religion forum.
Still, though, that's the thing; not everybody is allowed to turn it around, and being right or wrong doesn't necessarily correspond to that difference.
It usually boils back down to this. You need to let that go.
You see, even you're more favorable toward right-wingers than religious people.
There is also this:
No. I have answered twice.
What does that even mean? That you uttered on two occasions? So, what?
You shifted the subject when― ... oh, that's right, you skipped over that part, last time. So, yeah, sure, again:
By comparison, why would anybody object to that? See, that's the thing, these blank declarations and basic fallacies skip out on the detail. To wit, if, for instance, you point to some perceived problem about theists and theism, I might actually agree; indeed, that's an essential component of the juxtaposition; indeed, that's an essential component of the juxtaposition.
But you just reset that to a blank slate. That is, you skipped out on the proposition of any problem in order to cover, what, merely "being" right-wing?
You shifted the subject when
you changed the terms↗ of the juxtaposition. Maybe you thought nobody would notice.
†
Think of, say, over twenty years of history you're not aware of. Yes, we are allowed to be much more abusive toward religious people, around here, than right-wingers.
(Q) and me↑, for instance; to some degree, he knows what I'm referring to when I remind that we're harder on theists. His hatred of religious people is ... dramatic.
For some, it seems a complicated point, but it's actually pretty simple: Despite claims to what is rational and scientific, some atheists at Sciforums needed crackpot definitions in order to rough up religious people. I never have understood why that is, but, whatever. A few years back, (Q) pretended to be aghast at a rightist's behavior, so I reminded that part of what distressed him was, in fact, a result of the sort of crackpot permission he needed. And, now, there he was,
playing patty-cakes↑ with another one, so, yeah, I reminded him of the time I reminded him.
Or was that a little too meta for you?
The contrast point, here, is the the idea of being able to support our arguments, and why we gave up on that.
