09-27-2018, 12:37 PM
(09-27-2018, 12:21 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL looks like you still haven't squared this--
With this--
So two quick points:
1. The issue of how ideology relates to--or drives--political positions, flies in the face of data and/or generates logical inconsistencies--that is never "off topic" on threads in this forum.
2. You don't get to raise the issue of how ideology drives politics by accusing others of "extremism" (referencing gun control no less) and then unilaterally decide it's "back to the topic" the moment your own projection becomes the issue.
You claim your inconsistencies merely express a "range of opinions," yet those you disagree with are "extremists," "boxed in by orthodoxy," who demand "the correct answer to every question." It's others who show "disdain for different opinions" and "hyper-partisanship," never you.
But if, after saying this, you characterize refusal to condemn the entire religion of Islam as simply support for "Islamic oppression of women"; and you characterize a refusal to call other humans "animals," even ISIS, as "support" for ISIS, then you are doing exactly what you claim your "extremists" do. You are demanding people buy your total, condemnatory (and uninformed) agenda or they are misogynists and ISIS supporters--THE ENEMY. That is how people are "boxed in by orthodoxy."
You know I could draw on examples of your orthodoxy/ideology overriding data on a range of other topics (anti-communism? antifa? fake news?)--always with a flourish of extreme anti-extremist rhetoric-- but that would really take us off topic.
Rep.
SSF is a complete extremist when it come to gun laws. There are lots of moderate people who don't want to ban guns. All they want is simple common sense laws to help hold gunowners responsible and prosecute criminals illegally in possession of guns. But he claims that we can not have even the slightest gun control laws like licensing and registration because that will inevitably lead to the government taking every ones weapons.
