Ohio Catholic schoolteacher fired for being gay

Post Reply New Topic

You were in attack mode telling me that I use my "morals" as a substitute for thinking, so I responded in kind. Nobody is trying to cause you irritation. I just don't see why you get up in arms when someone refers to "right wing loonies" in response to deliberate baiting from your best buddy Raptor. Last I checked you don't even consider yourself "right wing" so why are you so touchy? Or do you? I've certainly never seen you jump to the defense of progressives when Raptor or Ruveyn sneer about "sniveling liberals" and "pinko stinkos". Why is that? Is it because conservatives are outnumbered on this forum? I thought your attitude was that "wrong is wrong" no matter which side does it? If you think it's defensible to criticize the choice of language or tone of one side because you see that side as having an imbalance of power through being a majority then congratulations you're thinking like a stinking liberal. Making excuses for bad behavior on behalf of "the underdog" is a criticism commonly levied the left (often a valid one too IMO). I'm really not that touchy about being called a "snivelling liberal" or "pinko stinko" until you butt in all self-righteously in the same thread as soon as a "liberal" makes a snarky post back.


Or maybe I just unfortunately took the bait when they were deliberately trying to offend and troll. Looks like you have a blind spot for this behavior when it comes from people you happen to agree with more often than me.


If your goal is not to upset me then why do you have to continue bringing up old crap? I haven't "lost it" in this thread so what is your purpose being all self-righteous. It seems trolling by your favorite sociopath buddies Raptor and Johnbrowing is a-okay in your book.

But people who think like you and decide what is in my best interest aren't understanding the long-term effects this is having. You can't get a hot coffee at a restaurant because some lady burned herself and sued McDonalds. The people on the jury didn't think about the consequences of their ruling, they just felt sorry for the poor lady. I understand that. But the aggregate is negative in the long term by making life worse for everyone to placate a few victims of carelessness. Coffee is hot, saws are sharp. Duh. Some of us don't need duh laws.

So how does it affect me if someone decides not to wear their seat belt? You are saying these laws are necessary because people make choices you don't agree with. That is called freedom. And you are outlawing it.




I don't fail to see the benefits, although in many cases there are no benefits for me. The benefits are for the people who don't deserve them. I was doing fine.

You fail to see the negatives. The rules around how medicine is practiced protect people from inferior unlicensed care, sure. Except the problem is that it also makes medical care unreasonably expensive to the point that many people are unable to receive any care at all. These people would benefit from someone with medical knowledge even if they hadn't jumped through expensive hoops to get a degree or built a hospital that is up to code. Meanwhile the health care system is bankrupting the entire country. Gotta love those benefits.

Alternatively, even without regulations, if you were a bad doctor you probably wouldn't get a lot of patients. The system takes care of itself, government interference usually makes it worse. Not always, but often.



You are describing my tax burden as a punishment. I reject that notion. I replace it with the notion that barriers to accessing a living income are a punishment.

Call me when you've live on welfare for a year, and we'll compare notes about who's getting punished. I'll take my higher tax rates any day of the week, thank you very much.[/quote]

This argument makes so little sense I almost don't know how to explain it. But let me try:
People on welfare aren't forced to be on welfare. They are free to get jobs or provide for themselves. Welfare is an option, not a punishment. Try to exercise the option of not paying your taxes and see where that gets you. Say hello to Wesley Snipes for me.

Now, some people may be unable to provide for themselves. That isn't a punishment which is caused by someone else, that is reality. Reality is harsh. There are "barriers to accessing a living income" but this is inherent in life, it is no one's fault. To make up for this, society has chosen to give them programs like welfare. It isn't a reward exactly, because it isn't earned by some action. It is an entitlement.

But here's the problem -- if you are willing to give them something for nothing, why would the ones who could provide for themselves try to do so in the first place?

Possibly because subsisting on benefits is a) just that - subsisting. if you can do better by working why would anyone with self respect choose that lifestyle? and b) It is the right thing to do. I believe that most people accept that if you CAN support yourself, you should. unfortunately not everyone is able to, either because the jobs simply aren't available, or don't pay a living wage, or because they have health problems/disabilities, or caring responsibilities which mean they are not reasonably available for work - the latter until recently was my own position. SELF RESPECT and the wish to have a decent standard of living for themselves and their families is the answer to your question that most claimants would give, I'm sure, speaking from my own experience and the comments of others (in England anyway) - how many people really are lazy irresponsible bums other than a visible but clear minority of welfare recipients?

Is it? I actually do support a social safety net on purely utilitarian grounds, as I think it's more efficient than the alternative, but I don't like this uncritical belief so many people seem to have that they're "right" or "decent" or "moral"; those things aren't really quantifiable, you may as well quote scripture to support an idea.

You misunderstand me. My comment was that I believe most welfare recipients do consider that supporting yourself if you are able to is the right thing to do. Maybe my wording was a bit ambiguous. Disregarding a moral position on welfare I concur that in terms of utility it is beneficial both to the recipient and to wider society that people are not left to starve, beg or steal where work is not an option.

Gotcha. I often use welfare and the reasoning behind why I support it as an example when trying to explain my own thought process to others, so it's not so much an argument for me as a demonstration. As you can see in this thread, I'm deeply wary of good intentions, as people who see themselves as doing good, or god forbid, knowing what's best, are the most likely to resort to any means they feel is necessary to achieve their ends, cause they see anything and anyone standing in their way as evil (who else would oppose good?). Writ large, you get American foreign policy, writ small, you get smug, self righteous douche-baggery; in between you get Michael Bloomberg and a million other petty dictators. But I digress...

I was responding to this comment by you " I don't have an ideology that automatically gives me the "correct" answer, which means I have to think about it, balancing the pros and cons before coming to a decision", and, I can point to examples of you using your morals alone as justifications for berating and abusing people that disagree with them. You, on the other hand, said something that you *know* is not true, leaving malice as the most likely motivator, unless you want to clarify.



Better recheck the thread there Marshall, as that's not how it went down, unless you want to characterize Raptor simply stating his opinion as "deliberate baiting". Further, if you'd bothered to read my initial post, you'd know that while I started by attacking the generalization and slur, I then offered further critiques of the post, not simply the insults. You'll also find that Raptor and I have a fairly narrow overlap of opinions, and that when I'm defending him it's usually because someone is unfairly attacking his character for expressing an opinion or going over the top, e.g. professing their desire to stab him in the eye...



You already know the answer here, that I think the false dichotomy of left and right is inaccurate, and that I hold a number of positions that put me alternately to the left of the left and the right of the right, depending upon the issue. You also know that I don't like smugness, generalizing, and people mistaking their own opinions for common sense, so my involvement here should be no mystery to you.



I'm sorry, is there a green tag under my name and I didn't notice? Last I checked, which threads I posted to, who I choose to argue with, about what, and why, were no one's business but my own. I've already stated on numerous occasions that I hate the whole "sides" thing and refuse to be a part of it, and simply post where I want to when the interest strikes me. If you have a problem with reading my posts, you can always install an ignore add on, I believe there's a thread explaining how to do it in the about WP forum. Cause I got to tell you, when I decide to get into an argument or ignore something, the last thing I'm thinking of is partisan balance or what other people will make of the pattern.



You're claiming psychic abilities now? Cause there are plenty of times where I see a blunt statement and you see a deliberate provocation, and the only person who really knows the truth is the person who posted. Also, do you think that I'm somehow obligated to respond to certain posts? As you're the first to note, I'm not the police, so explain again why you don't think I'm allowed to pick and choose my posts?



One, my goal is to post my opinion, not getting into a battle with you is simply desirable. Two, you entered this thread with an attack on me, and have continually referenced older posts throughout; why is that only wrong when I do it? Are you saying I should ignore the history that you clearly aren't?



But you have lost it repeatedly, and recently, while arguing with me. Do you deny this?



Strong accusations, are you claiming to be a psychologist now in addition to possessing psychic powers? I don't think Browning has even posted in this thread, what does digging him out have to do with anything? Or are we just throwing sh*t at the wall to see if it sticks?

If the USA is anything like the UK, then most people on welfare are forced to be on welfare. People are not free to get jobs, because there's a major unemployment problem, with far more applicants for most menial positions than there are jobs. Unless you're the lucky one who gets the job, it is welfare or begging. I would suggest that is not a free choice at all.

Work is better than welfare because living on welfare really sucks if you are independent. In this country, parents on welfare have to skip meals to be able to afford their children. They can't take part in leisure activities that most people take for granted.

If someone wants to try and subsist on £10.24 a day (not counting housing costs), then good luck to them.

So me admitting that I haven't yet made up my mind on an issue and don't have an ideological default position is something that should invite an attack from you? Interesting.


Where did I say I "know" something is not true. I go with what I can gather connecting the dots. It seems property rights are pretty damn important to you, and fairness, not so much. You stated it's not the government's business to enforce "tolerance or fairness" without any qualification that I could see.


Why do you have to keep bringing up things from months ago. Why don't you just admit that your selective tone-policing and inane off-topic meta-analysis of arguments by liberals (by "liberals" I mean anyone who is not a "conservative" and not a "libertarian" from the idiotic US-centric viewpoint) is a deliberate act of passive aggression and an attempt to be as annoying as possible. You're already displaying your characteristic obnoxious passive-aggressiveness by insisting on bringing up things from months ago. You hate me and think I should be banned. Please don't insult my intelligence and deny it. I get it already.


You hate the false dichotomy but love the false trichotomy of "conservative", "libertarian", and the catch-all "liberal".


You should not be one to comment on "smugness".


Just because you are a libertarian doesn't mean you aren't on a "side". The extreme selectiveness of your tone policing indicates that you have chosen a "side" subconsciously. You even admitted that you are annoyed by liberals ( by which I assume you mean anyone who's not an American conservative or libertarian ) "a little bit more" than conservatives. I guess you said "a little bit more" as a matter of tact because you think anyone who wants to legislate justice or fairness is just a power tripping tyrant who arrogantly thinks he/she knows better than you what is best for you. Never mind that fairness and justice is something important for me and not just you.


Well, if they knew their "blunt" statements where distasteful and chose to brandish them anyways I count that as deliberately trying to offend and troll. Me saying that you aren't as bright as you think you are could also be interpreted as "blunt statement of fact". So it appears your interpretation of "blunt" verses "trolling" is based on whether something offends you. Sorry, that's not how it works.


Ummm... I didn't "attack" you any more than you attacked ModusPonens. How can you be this blind? Also I am not the one who STARTED bringing up SPECIFIC old posts. YOU DID. I'm also assuming you were warned not to. YOU MADE YOUR BED, NOW LIE IN IT.

Ignoring all the other ranting for the moment, if I hated you and wanted you gone, you'd be gone, period. Don't take that as me claiming to have some sort of pull with the mods, that's just a comment on you being easily provoked and having a documented history of the type of behavior that would get someone banned. My position regarding you has been that you're a smart guy that generally means well but has an anger problem, and that I'm mostly willing to overlook things so long as they don't get too out of hand. I have also made it clear that there are limits to my tolerance, and that when you repeatedly cross the line I do expect some sort of action, which I see as more than fair. Again, if I wanted you gone, I wouldn't be arguing with you when you insult people, I'd just report you and be done with it; this way takes a lot more of my time and effort for not a whole lot of reward.

If you still don't want to take my word that I'm not out to get you, PM Cornflake and ask him what I've said about you, I give my permission to discuss any communications I've had with the moderators concerning you.

See folks, it's perfectly possible to support a state interference position without resorting to "because I said so" levels of non-argument. Now I happen to think Visa demonstrates far too much trust in the state to decide what's in everyone's best interest, but he British Canadian, so I forgive him. More importantly, he offers rigorous argumentation and examples to support his position, so I respect him.

I've been ignoring this the last few days because I didn't feel that it warranted response, but then I decided I had to approach it on the proper level, to try and get in the same head-space as the author and maybe see something I missed. So, I've got a flue that's making my head all stuffy, I'm loaded up on cough syrup, benzos, and muscle relaxers, and just chased 10mg of Zolpidem and 10mg of Hydroxyzine with a nice bloody Caesar, so I think I'm ready. Take that, brain!

You know, you're even worse at mocking people than you are at arguing, and you're really bad at arguing.
Considering how many times you go on to accuse me of being unable to read (an accusation so obviously false that I'm surprised even you would try it), you sure didn't seem to notice that I never said I won the argument, let alone because you left. I pointed out that you'd failed to defend your points or attack mine and were leaving, and allowed people to form their own conclusions.



Okay, you're going to bang me later on for a misplaced, apostrophe, but then you've got gems like "setence" and "acuse", among many, many spelling errors, scattered throughout your post. Seriously, if you're going to attack someone for doing something, make sure it's not something you also do, repeatedly, in the same post. It makes you look like (more of an) idiot.

And again with the reading comprehension; did I say you lied? I said the internet allows people to easily spot lies and distortions, but I didn't make a specific allegation. As said, for a guy who wants to attack my reading, you're sure not very good at it yourself.



You know, condescension really doesn't work when you're trying to accuse someone of something you yourself do repeatedly, and within plain sight of anyone reading the post. I also would have though that my response made my position quite clear, but apparently I was giving you too much credit.

No, I don't. I think most people who work with saws are aware that they are sharp, and that good safety procedures are the best way to reduce accidents, not some finicky and expensive piece of technology foisted upon people by the crony state.



I don't see an option there, I see the government creating a giant cluster f*ck by attempting to tell one company what it's price is going to be while telling another that it must buy the product that it is told to, but trust us, well make sure the price is fair. I also didn't think to wish upon my lucky star.



Another psychic, huh? Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now? I'll give you a hint, It's about the weather. A cloud moves lazily across the sky, and everyone thinks it's ret*d. I'll leave deciphering the symbolism to your psychic powers.



That you can't defend.



You really do suck at this whole mocking thing, you know that, right? Do you even know what a straw man is? You made it abundantly clear that you're in favor of mandating a product be used by industry by after collusion between the product's developer and state regulators; calling something a straw man only works if it's not really your position, no that it seems to matter to you.



Read your entire post history for spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors.

Wow, even whacked out on drugs I feel dumber for having read that, let alone critiqued it.. Seriously, bravo, it's a true dubious achievement.

Now, I've got $20 riding on you coming back, where as my anonymous buddy thinks you've turned tail and shan't return and has wagered accordingly. I think I'm going to get me a new pair of kitchen clogs out of this...

You've got $20 on this? I'm suposed to feel that you shouldn't get the money and therefor not argue with you? You clearly don't know me.

Anyway, I'll let you both decide if this is a come back or not.

Should I tattle that you are continuing to bring up a months old moderator-deleted incident in a deliberate attempt to attack me? Your kid buddy Raptor has done the same repeatedly. I'm showing restraint here. You two haven't been.

You decided to passive aggressively lay into me because you're butthurt that I "mischaracterized" your views in this thread after you did nothing less to ModusPonens. I'm not the only "problem" on this board is you have a history of getting into prolonged petty spats with multiple users.

marshall, Dox47 - one or both of you need to walk away from this off-topic row so it dies a well-deserved death, otherwise I'm gong to fetch my thread pruning shears.

[quote="ModusPonens"][/quote]

Hah!

My trolling monetizing scheme is working already!