So, in GB's own words, he is describing some of the very methods of discourse he himself has engaged in ...
No I am not because in this thread I was specifically questioning how we deal with one another, with our own allies; in this thread I was not discussing how we or I deal with criminals. I would think we would all be in agreement that criminals are for the most part essentially unwanted pests among society. Can you really tell me you want people to be committing crimes and that you7 feel them a blessing to our nation! If you do not agree with this then fine, but that is no reason not to intelligently and respectfully discuss the matter with another board member. Was I being disrespectful to criminals? Yes I was. They have lost my respect (as they should under our laws lose their freedom and certain of their rights) once they have committed the crime and continue to commit others. When they have paid their due to society (and I do not mean amnesty but incarceration or deportation) and then come back into society as a law abiding citizen, or legal nonimmigrant or immigrant alien, I would respect them again. No my logic is not flawed even if you disagree, nor is my use subject for this thread ironic or self-contradictory.
Again though this thread deals with another subject and that is essentially how you treat your allies not how you talk about criminals. I also see many are discussing this in light of how we talk to antis. I am not speaking about that at all. I mean this only as we communicate with one another and how it effects our argument against our opponents. Specifcally and more to the point I was aksing about how we interact with other law abiding gun enthusiasts and second amendment rights advocates. I do not personally fault anyone on these boards in a pompous or pontificate manner when they are wrong about something as I see it. For example this quote from an above post is, in my opinion, dead wrong:
Glenn, your post is a picture-perfect example of "begging the question." You answer the question in asking it in pejorative terms.
There is a valid argument to be made that those who are not hypocrites, who take personal responsibility for their well-being and that of their families, and who choose to live their lives according to a moral code are superior to those who do not. ...
I was not talking about being in disagreement with others of another belief system concerning guns, I was talking about people who have the same belief as to second amendment rights on these and other forums related to guns AND I WAS BEING VERY SPECIFIC IN THAT REGARD. Furthermore, I was not pejorative at all in my question or my statement above in the first post. If you think such you are very wrong in my opinion. Their was nothing derogatory in what I asked or in what I stated. I said or implied that I do not believe such use of attitude with one another to be right, but I asked others what they thought. I am not putting negative words into your keyboards - you answer as you choose to write.
Aren't you the same guy who posted that illegal immigrants are maggots, varmints, and sub human scum???
Dont you think referring to human beings that way might reflect badly, esp coming from an LEO?
I think my words reflect that in my essay I exercised my right to free speech. I think that reflects well upon me and my nation. As for my choice of words, no I do not think it reflects badly, but I have discussed that issue in the earlier thread to which you make reference.
As for someone saying, or at least implying by way of a question, I called anyone “sub-human scumâ€, please show me the citation. I believe this to be a blatant example of exactly what I was asking. It is funny though that such should be pointed out when it was never said - even if it came in the form of a probably sarcastic question. It goes to show exactly of what I am speaking. I do not mind if someone questions me or my beliefs, as others have done in this thread. I do not mind if they say I am wrong. Well maybe I mind, but I do not attack with a pompous attitude and try to make the other guy look really bad by reaming him out because his ideas do not agree with mine. yet others go so far as to freely make it look as if another gun rights advocate is of some morally, ethically, lower position than his or her own by use of blatantly derogatory wordage, and yes this includes misquoting people even if only by way of implication. I do not mind when someone quotes me correctly and tries to say here, look at this, you say this now and said something else then, is that hypocritical or not. Someone above did that, but as I pointed out above I think my point, my specific point regarding this thread was overlooked innhis reply to me. So what, I will intelligently and repectfully discuss the issue even if we vehemently disagree because we are all law abiding gun enthusiasts and all members of these forums.
I do mind, however, when someone makes it a personal attack such as by putting words into my mouth or my pages, or by trying to imply that the issue currently being discussed is the same (or is of the same type) as the earlier issue, the one I was discussing from which my words are now used against me. While many may believe that what I say now is somehow contradicted by what I said earlier, I again point out I am currently discussing how you deal with allies on a forum in whcih you are mutual members, as opposed to how you deal with criminals (the issue of my earlier piece) who are, in essence as I see them, the enemies of a morally sound society. I do not believe I called anyone sub-human and; I just read every word I posted in that other thread and edit checked my posts on MS Word for the words: sub, subhuman, sub human, sub-human - they were not there in any of my words. To imply that I used terminology that I did not actually use is, in my opinion, incorrect at best, and possibly is an example of what I was inquiring about in the intial post of this thread.
