reply to post by ziggystrange
In the arguments I originally posted in this thread, I ended my arguments asking the zealot strange if he was willing to earn the respect he so
clearly thinks he deserves. I asked him if instead of engaging in the politics of divisiveness and blame, he could instead just offer sound reasons
as to why he opposes those he labels as "the right" and rely upon the more reliable tools of debate such as syllogistic logic. What was his
response? Well, of course, if you are reading this far, then you have read his response.
The O.P. has made it perfectly clear that he has no intentions of actually debating the issues, only smugly asserting that if he were so inclined to
do so, he would. Ah, but if only he could. For it is in debate, that the civil discourse of disagreement can flourish where wiser men will find
common ground, but the zealot strange has no desire to find common ground with people he so clearly reviles. With people he so clearly despises, and
will show his own willful intolerance by engaging in name calling and ad hominem attacks on those he believe have no right to an opinion.
The zealot strange has declared himself, self righteously so, the moral arbiter of all that is good and just, not by offering sound reason and
inarguable logic, but simply by declaring those he opposes wrong, and in his own deluded state, by default he is right. But is he right? Does not
this zealot have every bit of a right to state his opinion as the zealots he opposes? Well, of course he does! Here is the absolute beauty of
liberty and freedom. That every man and woman, regardless of their race, creed or code can advocate their beliefs openly and without abrogation or
derogation to their unalienable right to do so. However, having the right to express an opinion does not by nature of that right, make them right in
their arguments, if this is what one would call this zealot strange's invectives.
This liberty, however, is not a freedom that the zealot strange advocates. Indeed, he has gleefully declared that I belong in prison! Why? Why does
this strange and spiteful zealot think I belong in prison? Why, for expressing the ideas and values I hold dear openly and without fear of
censorship, this is why. True to his leftist ideology, he declares I belong in prison because I have advocated revolution. (Gasp!) How dare I
advocate change. This strange and incomprehensibly hateful person would have me imprisoned for wanting to change the tyranny of elitist souls who
deem themselves better than the average Joe, average Joe's that the O.P. gleefully and without shame refers to as "a community of simpletons" and
"knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys".
The O.P. has opened this thread in a pitiful attempt to "expose" the lies, deceit and revisionist history of "the right", while himself lovingly
embracing mendacity in order to declare himself right. He hopes to rely upon the word revolution to shock and disturb, somehow believing that
revolution necessarily means violence. It is a lie to assert that advocacy of change means advocacy of violence.
No doubt, there have been those, many of whom hold values and ideas that I openly advocate, who are advocating violence. I am not one, however, who
believes that violence is the only answer, not one who believes that now is the time for violence, and in my strong belief that revolution can happen
through peaceful means, I have insisted that reasonable discourse and calmer heads will prevail. The zealot strange has acknowledged I have done
this, but what is his own assessment of my appeal to reason and civil discourse? Why, he declare it delusional!
It is necessary that the O.P. continue to frame revolution as synonymous with violence because he has no rebuttal, no considered response to reason
and logic and can only hope to shock and disturb you the reader, those he believe are simpletons' and of "lesser intelligence" than he, hoping that
your own reasonable nature will fall prey to his sensationalism. Ironically, it is he who suggests I am delusional, and while he will admit and
acknowledge that I openly and consistently call for a peaceful solution, he attempts to imply that I do so out of disingenuous strategy.
The O.P. would have you the reader believe that it is he who calls for peace, yet no where in this thread is there any evidence of that. On the
contrary, this strange and self declared monitor of dangerous posters, has willingly and admittedly opened this thread to foment further divisiveness
and to provoke those "bottom feeders" into violently reacting. He does this because he no more advocates peace than those he takes to task. It is
not he calling for a more a reasoned debate, he would rather act as some internet enforcer, some technological prosecutor of those he disagrees with.
Why does this Ziggy Strange believe that by calling those he opposes, "a community of simpletons" and "knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys" and
"bottom feeders", is appropriate? Because he has no intentions at all of appealing to reason and would rather engage in fallacious hyperbole as a
method of exercising his own right to free expression. With no regard at all nor any willingness to acknowledge that those he opposes would willingly
fight and die, indeed there have been many throughout history who have, for him to have this right to hurl shameful invectives at those he opposes,
instead he insists that those who would fight for his rights, want to remove these rights.
I have relied upon my natural right to respond to this O.P.'s assertion that those he opposes are liars, by insisting that he himself is a liar, and
in response to my posts the O.P. returns the accusations and now calls me a liar. The both of us can go back and forth calling each other liars in a
tedious display of emotion, or we can settle this argument like reasonable men will, and discuss our differences with intelligence and calm. Of
course, the O.P. has promised to prove his assertions of deceit by quoting directly those he claims are liars, from extracting their posts from other
threads, he being the self appointed monitor of right wing liars, but of course, has thus far failed to do so, only because he has been to busy
calling those he oppose liars and simpletons and knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys of whom he views as bottom feeders.
Enough of this silly name calling Ziggy! If you have ideas that you believe are solutions to this great divide that threatens to explode into
violence sometime down the future then for God's sake declare them! Instead of viciously attacking those you oppose, offer reasons as to why you
oppose them! Or, would you insist that this was not at all the purpose of this thread and that you only opened it to provoke and to push emotional
buttons? Indeed, you have openly admitted this is your cause, pretending you have some how brilliantly laid a trap to ensnare myself and others of
whom you relish to taunt.
Taunting is a childish and mindless game played by those incapable of intelligently discussing their own ideas, if indeed you have any ideas outside
of laying pointless traps to show the world what an effective monitor you are. If we are at war with each other Ziggy Strange, then it is a war of
ideas, and this war will not be brought to any resolution through foolish barbs and silly taunts. You have smugly declared that you are not, at least
at this moment, so inclined to engage in civil discourse, but I entreat you reconsider your ill conceived strategy and make the attempt to discuss the
issues, to analyze the options and to learn to accept those whom you disagree with are no less your brothers and sisters, than those you wish to
If you are so opposed to violence, Strange, then drop the provocations and embrace the wisdom of peace, and attempt civil discourse!