Burn baby burn! Texas on fire. 🔥

[RobDownSouth]

LOL. Jay is such a fucking cuck. Probably put me on ignore since I'm asking simple questions instead of using the famous right wing technique of giving you so much information that if you don't have an hour to spare you aren't going to read through and find and link back to counter points. It is brilliant.

I suspect it's only a matter of time until he adopts the "Full Rightguide" approach.

Rightguide got regularly pummeled for posting garbage from fringe-right wing sites, not reading the articles but relying solely on headlines to make his point. We crucified him early and often for this sort of shitposting.

While not very intelligent, he is quite clever...he began posting hour long youtube videos and saying "ta da! checkmate libtards! ....knowing full well none of us were going to waste an hour by some wheezy youtube influencer.

 

[ditzylildoll]

Well, I wouldnt say the name calling seems to stop you all discussing political matters. The politics discussion still goes on, just with large helpings of name calling and vitriol too. My issue was that we had lost the ability to debate opposing opinions without that happening.

So maybe my post was in a little way political after all lol?

 

[bijedi]

According to
the Declaration of Independence

, the source of rights is the laws of nature and nature's God. The Declaration states that
all men are created equal

and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Funny that what the founders said about politics contradicts what you say. I'll roll with them.

And we know original intent because the writers and signers wrote extensively about their intent and we have those writings. Start with the Federalist Papers and go from there.

Yes. The Declaration of Independence contains four references to deity. "Nature's God" in paragraph one, "Creator" in paragraph two, "Supreme Judge" and "divine Providence" in the final paragraph.

The DOI is a justification for rebellion. To justify this rebellion, it contains a theory of rights granted by a higher authority than the government of man. Thomas Jefferson attributed it to a creator, but it is really just a restatement of John Locke's theory of natural rights (almost verbatim). This theory is used as establishing a right to rebellion when a government attempts to restrict these natural rights.

The underpinnings of the DOI are more directly tied Thomas Hobbes theory of social contract and John Locke's theory of natural rights than they are to any religious doctrine popular then or now. And despite the references to deity noted above, it is more secular in most of arguments than it is reliant the divine.

As an example, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" can only be seen as secular observation. These truths can be determined by reason alone. If those truths were dependent on deity, this statement would have to be something like "we hold these truths to be revealed by God".

Or "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". Again, an entirely secular statement with no reference to Deity. A theistic argument would require something like "governments derive their authority from the Almighty". Of course this would be problematic since the king of England already had a claim to divine providence.

So yeah, I'll grant you that the DOI contains appeals to Deistic authority. But no religion can claim that those deistic references are references to their deity. Or, alternatively, all religions can. Creator can just as easily be Brahma or Allah or Goddess as it can be YHWH. And even with the Deistic references, the majority of the DOI relies on Enlightenment and English Reformation philosophy than it does on religious doctrine or divine authority.

Now the constitution is an entirely separate kettle of fish. There are no reference to Deity in that document, and it is if anything hostile to religious sentiment.

 

[JaySecrets]

Yes. The Declaration of Independence contains four references to deity. "Nature's God" in paragraph one, "Creator" in paragraph two, "Supreme Judge" and "divine Providence" in the final paragraph.

The DOI is a justification for rebellion. To justify this rebellion, it contains a theory of rights granted by a higher authority than the government of man. Thomas Jefferson attributed it to a creator, but it is really just a restatement of John Locke's theory of natural rights (almost verbatim). This theory is used as establishing a right to rebellion when a government attempts to restrict these natural rights.

The underpinnings of the DOI are more directly tied Thomas Hobbes theory of social contract and John Locke's theory of natural rights than they are to any religious doctrine popular then or now. And despite the references to deity noted above, it is more secular in most of arguments than it is reliant the divine.

As an example, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" can only be seen as secular observation. These truths can be determined by reason alone. If those truths were dependent on deity, this statement would have to be something like "we hold these truths to be revealed by God".

Or "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". Again, an entirely secular statement with no reference to Deity. A theistic argument would require something like "governments derive their authority from the Almighty". Of course this would be problematic since the king of England already had a claim to divine providence.

So yeah, I'll grant you that the DOI contains appeals to Deistic authority. But no religion can claim that those deistic references are references to their deity. Or, alternatively, all religions can. Creator can just as easily be Brahma or Allah or Goddess as it can be YHWH. And even with the Deistic references, the majority of the DOI relies on Enlightenment and English Reformation philosophy than it does on religious doctrine or divine authority.

Now the constitution is an entirely separate kettle of fish. There are no reference to Deity in that document, and it is if anything hostile to religious sentiment.

Actually, the founders themselves stated what the founding documents were based on. They themselves stated that the founding documents were based on two texts... The Bible, And the writings of Blackwell. If you've ever read, Blackwell's law books, You know that his law books almost read like a theological study in law. Fact Blackwell was obsessed with the idea of the application of God's law to man's application of law. He cites scripture heavily throughout his law books. They really are a fascinating study, used to be required reading in law schools up until very recent history. Your idea that the writings were based on John Locke are only partially correct. They may have gotten some of the language from John Locke, but the philosophy they got from the Bible and from Blackwell.

 

[bijedi]

Actually, the founders themselves stated what the founding documents were based on. They themselves stated that the founding documents were based on two texts... The Bible, And the writings of Blackwell. If you've ever read, Blackwell's law books, You know that his law books almost read like a theological study in law. Fact Blackwell was obsessed with the idea of the application of God's law to man's application of law. He cites scripture heavily throughout his law books. They really are a fascinating study, used to be required reading in law schools up until very recent history. Your idea that the writings were based on John Locke are only partially correct. They may have gotten some of the language from John Locke, but the philosophy they got from the Bible and from Blackwell.

Bullshit:
“This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825

Straight from the author himself. No reference to the Bible or Blackwell. You need to find yourself some better sources.

I will give you this, Blackwell is some interesting reading.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well, I wouldnt say the name calling seems to stop you all discussing political matters. The politics discussion still goes on, just with large helpings of name calling and vitriol too. My issue was that we had lost the ability to debate opposing opinions without that happening.

So maybe my post was in a little way political after all lol?

Honestly if you pay attention here just like in real life the vitriol is much more pronounced on the Conservative side. I know we like to play both sides bullshit but that's not reality. Nancy Pelosi rips a piece of paper in half and wipes her hands was OUTRAGEOUS behavior. Trump claiming she had broken the law by destroying government documents as if everybody else didn't toss theirs in the trash is normal. Calling Obama a liar during the SotU was no biggie. Boebert and Greene heckling Biden during a SotU like this was a comedy club didn't even do serious rounds on MSM sources because we can't ask for better behavior from conservatives. The only reason people know who Maxine Waters is is because she said "Take Trump Out" once and in context was not a physical threat is the same as "Fight like hell" "Stand back and stand by" etc etc.

Can you imagine the world where Obama, Biden or Clinton used similar language? Of course not Its been eight years and still hear a great gnashing of teeth over 'Deplorables' and 'Maga extremists' whree Biden went out of his way to specify he didn't mean all repubicans he meant MAGAts has been claimed as disparaging half the nation. Not that Republicans make up half the nation as almost every vote shows.

 

[JaySecrets]

Bullshit:
“This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825

Straight from the author himself. No reference to the Bible or Blackwell. You need to find yourself some better sources.

The Bible influenced the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in several ways:

• Declaration of Independence
  The Bible influenced the Declaration of Independence through the use of Bible stories, quotes, and examples in political speeches and sermons. The Bible's ideas of human dignity, natural rights, self-governance, and government by consent are reflected in the Declaration of Independence.
• Constitution
  The Bible influenced the Constitution through theological and doctrinal principles about human nature, civil authority, and political society.
• 
  
• The Bible also influenced the Constitution through Western legal tradition, especially English common law. For example, James Madison may have been inspired by Isaiah 33:22 to separate the powers of the government while attending the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
  
  
  https://blog.oup.com/2016/11/bible-influenced-founding-fathers/
  

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Actually, the founders themselves stated what the founding documents were based on. They themselves stated that the founding documents were based on two texts... The Bible, And the writings of Blackwell. If you've ever read, Blackwell's law books, You know that his law books almost read like a theological study in law. Fact Blackwell was obsessed with the idea of the application of God's law to man's application of law. He cites scripture heavily throughout his law books. They really are a fascinating study, used to be required reading in law schools up until very recent history. Your idea that the writings were based on John Locke are only partially correct. They may have gotten some of the language from John Locke, but the philosophy they got from the Bible and from Blackwell.

The Bible says slavery is allowed.

 

[JaySecrets]

The Bible says slavery is allowed.

The Bible actually only acknowledges the existence of slavery as we know it.. And Paul actually tells a Christian brother that he is not to have his slave but rather to treat that man as a brother, not a slave. The slavery in the Old testament is not slavery as we know it today. It was Bond servitude in order to pay off a known debt. After a certain time the bond servant would be released and would be released with property and with means to be able to make it on his own. If that person chose to, they could choose to remain in servitude because they prefer the benefits of the job as opposed to functioning without that job, at that point they would voluntarily take a mark marking them as such. And those were supposed to be treated with utmost respect. That's what the Bible says about slavery. Get your facts right.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The Bible actually only acknowledges the existence of slavery as we know it.. And Paul actually tells a Christian brother that he is not to have his slave but rather to treat that man as a brother, not a slave. The slavery in the Old testament is not slavery as we know it today. It was Bond servitude in order to pay off a known debt. After a certain time the bond servant would be released and would be released with property and with means to be able to make it on his own. If that person chose to, they could choose to remain in servitude because they prefer the benefits of the job as opposed to functioning without that job, at that point they would voluntarily take a mark marking them as such. And those were supposed to be treated with utmost respect. That's what the Bible says about slavery. Get your facts right.

Yes, the Bible allows it.
Just like the Bible allows husbands to beat wives.

 

[bijedi]

The Bible influenced the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in several ways:

• Declaration of Independence
  The Bible influenced the Declaration of Independence through the use of Bible stories, quotes, and examples in political speeches and sermons. The Bible's ideas of human dignity, natural rights, self-governance, and government by consent are reflected in the Declaration of Independence.
• Constitution
  The Bible influenced the Constitution through theological and doctrinal principles about human nature, civil authority, and political society.
• 
  
• The Bible also influenced the Constitution through Western legal tradition, especially English common law. For example, James Madison may have been inspired by Isaiah 33:22 to separate the powers of the government while attending the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
  
  
  https://blog.oup.com/2016/11/bible-influenced-founding-fathers/

Oh, so now direct quotes from the founders (the author of the document in question no less) are less authoritative than a blog post?

And that blog largely relies on study done by Donald Lutz, which is largely debunked here: https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/09/2...titution-misrepresents-study-of-founding-era/

In the end, the founders were a diverse group, with diverse beliefs and diverse influences. Were some of the founders influenced by the Christian bible? Absolutely. Were they exclusively influenced by the Christian Bible? Not at all. What we can say is they didn't want the government they created to be associated with or influenced by any religion, including Christianity. Otherwise why explicitly forbid any religious tests for members of the government?

This is not fertile ground. It has been studied, dissected and researched for over two centuries. We can toss studies back and forth, but the constitution says what the constitution says. And there is no reference to any aspect of Christian theology in the Constitution. If it makes you feel better to believe there is, nobody is going to stop you. But don't expect the rest of us to share in your delusion.

 

[ll74]

Actually, the founders themselves stated what the founding documents were based on. They themselves stated that the founding documents were based on two texts... The Bible, And the writings of Blackwell. If you've ever read, Blackwell's law books, You know that his law books almost read like a theological study in law. Fact Blackwell was obsessed with the idea of the application of God's law to man's application of law. He cites scripture heavily throughout his law books. They really are a fascinating study, used to be required reading in law schools up until very recent history. Your idea that the writings were based on John Locke are only partially correct. They may have gotten some of the language from John Locke, but the philosophy they got from the Bible and from Blackwell.

Your God isn't part of our Constitution... Sorry.... Freedom of religion and such.

 

[bijedi]

The Bible actually only acknowledges the existence of slavery as we know it.. And Paul actually tells a Christian brother that he is not to have his slave but rather to treat that man as a brother, not a slave. The slavery in the Old testament is not slavery as we know it today. It was Bond servitude in order to pay off a known debt. After a certain time the bond servant would be released and would be released with property and with means to be able to make it on his own. If that person chose to, they could choose to remain in servitude because they prefer the benefits of the job as opposed to functioning without that job, at that point they would voluntarily take a mark marking them as such. And those were supposed to be treated with utmost respect. That's what the Bible says about slavery. Get your facts right.

Leviticus 25:39-43
39 If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

Bond servitude is exclusively reserved for Israelites, because they are already bonded to God. So this seems to support your position.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Uh oh. This doesn't look like bond servitude, this looks straight chattel slavery. Property? Check. For life? Check. Inheritable? Check. This doesn't seem like a mere acknowledgement of slavery. It looks more like a pretty clear endorsement of chattel slavery to me. Maybe you have an older definition of endorse that you prefer? I seem to remember you have a preference for outdated usage of the English language.

Now what was that about how slaves should be treated?

Exodus 21:20-21
20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

I mean, I know some people don't like their brother, but I am pretty sure that they don't regularly beat them to near death.

Do you even read your Bible? Or do you just take other people's word for what it says? It seems you are the one that needs to get his facts straight.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The Bible actually only acknowledges the existence of slavery as we know it.. And Paul actually tells a Christian brother that he is not to have his slave but rather to treat that man as a brother, not a slave. The slavery in the Old testament is not slavery as we know it today. It was Bond servitude in order to pay off a known debt. After a certain time the bond servant would be released and would be released with property and with means to be able to make it on his own. If that person chose to, they could choose to remain in servitude because they prefer the benefits of the job as opposed to functioning without that job, at that point they would voluntarily take a mark marking them as such. And those were supposed to be treated with utmost respect. That's what the Bible says about slavery. Get your facts right.

In theory it wasn't quite like we know it today any intelligent person would abuse the fucking hell out of the law to make it near enough to identical to the way we think of it to hell. You clearly do not have your facts straight.

By the way why are we sanctioning IRan and North Korea? Do you know cus I don't know of any reason we would do that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The Bible

You should have stopped right there Fisher.

Aren't you tired of getting your ass handed to you? Your proofs are wrong, and what you believe about the DOI and constitution,and even conservatives is wrong. Just a little wake up call, you're not the deity of conservatism. Or in words you should understand, you speak only for yourself.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You should have stopped right there Fisher.

Aren't you tired of getting your ass handed to you? Your proofs are wrong, and what you believe about the DOI and constitution,and even conservatives is wrong. Just a little wake up call, you're not the deity of conservatism. Or in words you should understand, you speak only for yourself.

Honestly he speaks for enough of the country that Trump was and may again be president. Doesn't mean they have their facts straight. It just means that elections, especially in the modern era are not decided on facts but rather on feelings. For this purpose I shall refer to the modern era as anytime after the average person had access to a television even if it might mean going to a neighbors house to huddle around for debates.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Honestly he speaks for enough of the country that Trump was and may again be president. Doesn't mean they have their facts straight. It just means that elections, especially in the modern era are not decided on facts but rather on feelings. For this purpose I shall refer to the modern era as anytime after the average person had access to a television even if it might mean going to a neighbors house to huddle around for debates.

He might be in the group, he doesn't speak for the group. Which was my point. Yep there is a whole segment of your country that drank the kool aid.

 

[JaySecrets]

You should have stopped right there Fisher.

Aren't you tired of getting your ass handed to you? Your proofs are wrong, and what you believe about the DOI and constitution,and even conservatives is wrong. Just a little wake up call, you're not the deity of conservatism. Or in words you should understand, you speak only for yourself.

Festival I have no clue who this Fisher dude is. I'm quite certain that if you would go over to The Poetry side of the boards and look at what I posted there and if you would go to my commentary on other people's writings there and so on and so forth, You would quickly realize that I'm not just someone that's writing the politics boards and not doing anything else with my time. You would also discover that the way I write and my writing style and what I have to say has more substance and has more sides to it than what you think. And I'm quite certain that it would become obvious that I am not whoever this Fisher dude is.

Second the only one who thinks they are winning. Any kind of debate here on your side is you guys. I'm quietly and calmly laying out facts and laying out data and information. You are name calling and dismissing out of hand and reducing a nuanced complex argument into simple straw men that you can knock down. In classic debate rules, the second you started calling names and oversimplifying nuanced argument, You lost the debate. Or did they not teach you critical thinking and debate in your schools growing up?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You would also discover that the way I write and my writing style and what I have to say has more substance and has more sides to it than what you think. And I'm quite certain that it would become obvious that I am not whoever this Fisher dude is.

Actually it is your writing style that gave it away. It's very difficult for a person to change how they express themselves in writing. They use the same 3000 words, sentence structures are near identical. The method of how you structure your paragraphs. How do you think law enforcement can identify people who are otherwise anonymous?

Not to mention your deflecting to poetry. Why do you keep pointing that out? Is it because in your previous Alt you never did?

I'm quietly and calmly laying out facts and laying out data and information.

Yes I get you think that is what you are doing. The reality is far from that. At best you're just a poor regurgitation of right wing Evangelical talking points. I'll not go to the worse case, you seem sensitive to vulgar expressions.

In classic debate rules, the second you started calling names and oversimplifying nuanced argument, You lost the debate. Or did they not teach you critical thinking and debate in your schools growing up?

This isn't high-school debate class.

 

[JaySecrets]

Actually it is your writing style that gave it away. It's very difficult for a person to change how they express themselves in writing. They use the same 3000 words, sentence structures are near identical. The method of how you structure your paragraphs. How do you think law enforcement can identify people who are otherwise anonymous?

Not to mention your deflecting to poetry. Why do you keep pointing that out? Is it because in your previous Alt you never did?



Yes I get you think that is what you are doing. The reality is far from that. At best you're just a poor regurgitation of right wing Evangelical talking points. I'll not go to the worse case, you seem sensitive to vulgar expressions.

This isn't high-school debate class.

I keep going to the Poetry side because that is how I communicate in my most comfortable and relaxed state. In other words, if you want to know my rhythms and thought patterns and beliefs go to what I write there. It's about getting to know the person before you attack or assume things about them. As for the rest of it, there are a lot of us that will use longer phrases and will communicate it this way because this is a way of communicating that is very heavily focused on facts and trying to keep emotions out of it. But because we are passionate about it, some of that emotion will creep in as well. And apparently this guy was or is well educated if he's phrasing things in clear, concise terms like this.

If there are weird breaks and punctuation and capitalization things that you're looking at, it's because I am voice typing and voice typing does not pick up sometimes or understand my accent and understand voice inflection. When you are making the long form argument it takes forever to type and so you voice type it. That is exactly why that looks the similar way if that's indeed what he was doing, laying out longer arguments.

But regardless, I'm not sure why you think I am this dude. I'm really confused at why you would think I'm some guy that I'm not, but you're going to think what you think and you are clearly, based on your other statements as well, holding your own opinions above fact and reason. And I can't help you there.

As for classic debate rules, that wasn't high School debate rules. Those were the debate rules of University level debate. Those were the rules of any classic debate. That was the basic standard. The fact that at least my school had those debate teams and those debates and they were judged on those standards was ancillary to the fact that that was the basic standard of debate regardless of what level you were debating. It's the application of critical thinking to discourse. But you're not mature enough to handle that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I keep going to the Poetry side because that is how I communicate in my most comfortable and relaxed state.

Then do us all a favour here on the PB. Stay in the poetry forum. We've all seen the bullshit you're trying to sell from a dozen other posters who were here before you.

If you expect us to conform or agree with your thinking, it aint gona happen, we're a tad bit smarter then you give us credit for.

 

[JaySecrets]

Then do us all a favour here on the PB. Stay in the poetry forum. We've all seen the bullshit you're trying to sell from a dozen other posters who were here before you.

If you expect us to conform or agree with your thinking, it aint gona happen, we're a tad bit smarter then you give us credit for.

I'm not trying to get you to confirm or agree. I already know you drank the Kool-Aid. I already know you're brainwashed. I already know that sort of real life smacking you upside the head, You won't see anything other than your biased twisted point of view.

What I'm doing here is presenting the other side so that someone who was reading a thread like this and considering what's being said, can hear the other side, can hear it put coherently. And then hopefully that person is reasonable enough to go out and do the kind of digging and homework that I had to do to come to the conclusions I have, And they can go come to their own conclusions that are not based on your liberal sycophantic "legacy" media. You are just the foil that I'm using to get actual facts out there. The fact that you reduce things to name calling and reducing people to tropes and stereotypes and straw men, that's just a bonus to prove that my side might want to be listened to a little bit more closely.

Y'all go into meltdown real easy. And because you go into meltdown really easily, it makes the weakness of your position obvious. And that is why I do what I do.

As for staying on the Poetry side, there is no reason for me to do that. I have multiple interests in life. I am fascinated by multiple things. I can actually hold to opposing views in my mind and weigh them out. I can be staunchly conservative and at the same time have a passion for love and beauty and actually care about people and want to see compassion on an individual level become the norm. That's actually the norm for conservative thought anyway. I can lay out raw fact and application to that fact here and turn around and wax poetic about everything from love to poetry itself to the need to care for the outcast on the Poetry side.

If you cannot do that, then you're worse off than I thought.

 

[Lazaran]

I'm not trying to get you to confirm or agree. I already know you drank the Kool-Aid. I already know you're brainwashed. I already know that sort of real life smacking you upside the head, You won't see anything other than your biased twisted point of view.

What I'm doing here is presenting the other side so that someone who was reading a thread like this and considering what's being said, can hear the other side, can hear it put coherently. And then hopefully that person is reasonable enough to go out and do the kind of digging and homework that I had to do to come to the conclusions I have, And they can go come to their own conclusions that are not based on your liberal sycophantic "legacy" media. You are just the foil that I'm using to get actual facts out there. The fact that you reduce things to name calling and reducing people to tropes and stereotypes and straw men, that's just a bonus to prove that my side might want to be listened to a little bit more closely.

Y'all go into meltdown real easy. And because you go into meltdown really easily, it makes the weakness of your position obvious. And that is why I do what I do.

As for staying on the Poetry side, there is no reason for me to do that. I have multiple interests in life. I am fascinated by multiple things. I can actually hold to opposing views in my mind and weigh them out. I can be staunchly conservative and at the same time have a passion for love and beauty and actually care about people and want to see compassion on an individual level become the norm. That's actually the norm for conservative thought anyway. I can lay out raw fact and application to that fact here and turn around and wax poetic about everything from love to poetry itself to the need to care for the outcast on the Poetry side.

If you cannot do that, then you're worse off than I thought.

You’re off your meds and deep in the manic phase of your mental illness.

Seek help. (No shame)

 

[JaySecrets]

You’re off your meds and deep in the manic phase of your mental illness.

Seek help. (No shame)

An attempt at intelligent discourse dismissed on your side by name calling and snarky dismissal. Noted. You have no interest in intelligent conversation or critical thinking. You are a bumper sticker thinker.

 

[Lazaran]

An attempt at intelligent discourse dismissed on your side by name calling and snarky dismissal. Noted. You have no interest in intelligent conversation or critical thinking. You are a bumper sticker thinker.

Tell me I’m wrong that you have been previously diagnosed with a mental illness and are currently off your meds.



Also:

Tell us your previous username or GTFO.