Actually, it was this guy who defined the term "progressive" then asked conservatives to justify why they weren't "progressive."Hey, I just answered the guy's question! If you want to take a stab at "Catholic", that would fall well within your free speech rights, articulated quite ably today by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.Thanks for dropping by....
This guy A. Carlton Sallett guy is a blatant liar. He accused me of threatening his son. He's beneath contempt.
Well, Dave - you posted the following:I hope A. Carlton Sallet['s son] turns out to be the biggest, flamingest, queeniest cocksucking queer there ever was or ever will be.I will leave it to others to decide for themselves whether a father would find this threatening or not.Ans what and who may be "beneath contempt."
A. Carlton Sallet, not only do you not post the link to my response, you deleted the response when I posted it to your blog. A lie by omission is a lie just the same. You are a liar.The text of my response to your blatant lie is here for everyone to see.
So, basically, he doesn't know what "progressive" means, and he takes many parapraphs to explain why he doesn't.*tsk* What a bad Catholic.
Progressives, on the other hand, see this debate as one of “entitlements” – why should person A be allowed to have nicer things or a happier life than person B just because person A is smarter, or works harder or whatever? Progressives would mitigate the “harsher aspects of capitalism” to the point where merit is replaced by entitlement. Conservatives would mitigate only to the point of “due charity” and no further.Okay, so you're trying to say 'progressive' equals 'communist.'Do you really need me to tell you how fallacious this arguement is and what an obvious response to it is?
According to the parties involved, "thickslab" wrote:I hope A. Carlton Sallet['s son] turns out to be the biggest, flamingest, queeniest cocksucking queer there ever was or ever will be.To which sallet responded:I will leave it to others to decide for themselves whether a father would find this threatening or not.Anyone who would find that statement "threatening" is moronic beyond description. By its very definition, the concept of a "threat" involves an indication to inflict pain or injury of some sort (see here).You can argue that wishing someone's son turns out to be gay is mean, hard-hearted or what have you, but it does not even remotely rise to the level of "threat."For you to suggest that shows quite clearly your utter contempt for both gays and the English language.
The gist of my response was in the final line:"Carlton, I hope that your son will turn out gay because that means all the nonsense you’re teaching him will have failed. It’s not evil that I wish on your son, it’s liberation."
thickslab:Just as a clarification, I wasn't claiming that your position was cold or hard-hearted or what have you. I was simply stating that one could at least argue that point if they wished. But to argue that it constituted a "threat" is sheer dumbfuckery.And, no, we're not done with Mr. Sallet yet. Not by a long shot.
I read Carlton Sallet's article. man oh man, if I had the time I could rip it apart into tiny shreads of dried bs that it is. Oh there are indivual rights, but those are supercede by societies rights which are judged more important when "my religeous and moral code" is offend or violated by other peoples rights, which are then called entitlements or "wants" not "needs" or rights.Ok new rules people,... hang on, I will take me some time to codify this new set of BS.Carlton, please tell me you are not one of those Catholics that have 8 to 10 kids because the lord wants you to have them? Please tell me that limiting your damage to our society
cc: Thanks. I didn't interpret your comment that way at all.
Post a Comment