Sure I do, mine in this case was not to take sides in this example of piling on the extremist. It's obvious that SetiAlpha6 is on the life at conception side, and your on the life at delivery side. It would be shooting fish in a barrel mocking either one of you, so rather than piling on one side or the other I chose a different tack.
Well, that nearly makes sense: If mockery is your priority, that would make its own point.
With my rather consistent anti theistic views in the religion threads, my pro God stance in this one was obvious satire to anyone familiar with my posting history.
Like the time you judged just how traumatized little girls should be allowed to be by sexual abuse? You know, in support of religious people?
It's like your line (
#300↑) about getting most of your news from "mainstream and left leaning sites"; that actually doesn't tell us anything despite its apparent intention. You do realize, do you not, the phrasing about your "rather consistent anti theistic views in the religion threads" and getting "most of [your] news from mainstream and left leaning sites", does not explicitly disagree with apparent rightist advocacy of white supremacism, nor even the unfortunate episode about sexual abuse of children. That is, you have done nothing to mitigate the evidence that you are simply a trolling poseur. An example is your white supremacist advocacy regarding Elizabeth Warren:
Because only white supremacists were calling for Liz Warren to do what she concluded was the right thing to do. I guess her whiteness got the better of her. Better for her to take your advice and remain ignorant of her true origins.
Right, you sided with white supremacists because they were yelling at someone°.
And, furthermore, your argument that "she concluded" she was doing "the right thing" is clearly contradicted by the point of making the concession in the first place and later apologizing to the nonwhites she offended by making such a white supremacist concession.
You don't seem to understand the "left leaning sites". There are a few apparent poseurs around here who give themselves away by their fluency in conservative political dialect and lack of understanding about the liberalism, progressivism, or leftism they pretend; it's not exactly a rare or infrequent routine°°.
You must be referring to the Michael Brown shooting, that the racist FBI concluded was justified by the cop involved.
And of that occasion I'm referring to your desperate, self-contradicting behavior in support of white supremacism. Institutional outcomes speak nothing of your own behavior.
I didn't know it was an audition for the lead role in the Christopher Hasson story or I would've upped my game.
Your lack of sincerity is the other reason people don't believe your excuses. Think of it this way: You're not playing Devil's Advocate; you're playing Satan.
Thoughtless mockery is about all the nonsense the OP presented deserved, it certainly didn't deserve any of your long winded commentary on abortion rights.
Making this all about you just makes the point.
Stop trying to pretend that any of the comments, yours or SetiAlpha6's in this thread had any meaningful contribution to discussion of abortion in the US. At the point I entered the thread the wheels were already coming off, and you had already made your obligatory ideological poses, so stop crying and go find another trigger to feel alive.
Here we come back to your priority: personal judgment and a rush to white supremacism.
Meanwhile, people were addressing a novel and unsupported claim offered in support of a debunked claim that, sure, has ethnosupremacist elements woven into it, but more has to do with a pretense of Christianist evangelism reading more like ill-considered antireligious provocateurism. Dedicated laborious sloth is, in itself, curious behavior, as there are many paths arriving at the appearance.
Still, though, we have a quasihistorical assertion on the table, and one of the questions that remains is whence it comes, that we might examine the source support. Whether or not we ever get that out of an advocacy that reads more like lazy, antireligious provocateurism is its own question, and the advocate will as he does; your digression into lazy white supremacism is your own question, your own priority.
There is always someone to bring the supremacism, and they always think they have a reason, and few, if any, can actually bear the burden. In the end, it looks more like the point is to bring the supremacism, which means something about priorities goes here.
In the applicable adaptation of what Morillo advised in re Housley's chimp line:
If you do not wish to be seen as supremacist, then bring something better. If you know your mockery will be perceived as hostile, be prepared to defend your willful provocation.
And toward that last, if all you bring is a post-hoc pretense of mockery, the shape and structure of your priority stands out all the more.
____________________
Notes:
° Follow the bouncing ball; it's actually a can of corn, an easy catch, once one recognizes the elements. A famous person accidentally came out of the closet a few years back. A politician, actually. Some people were committing vile crimes against homosexuals, and prosecutors didn't want to charge the offenders; the politician, when asked, supported that reluctance because if homosexuality wasn't punished, good men will become gay; a gay rights advocate correctly pointed out the obvious, that men who say this apparently feel exposure to that outcome. We might, for instance consider homophobic slogans like, "Exit only", because those men are either trying to inform others or convince themselves, and what about a lack of homophobic torture and murder would even imply those men are going to magically transform into queers, and the answer, of course, is nothing, because they are either purely heterosexual or not. The easy catch: The politician outed himself as bisexual at least because that is the only way the "Exit only" men have exposure to somehow turning gay. If they're purely heterosexual men without any such fluidity, as they pretend, there is no danger they will see a man who takes it up the ass walking around in open daylight without being harassed and suddenly want their own donuts punched; when that happens, the heterosexual was already queer to begin with. In our moment, the point considers that as much as fear of turning gay was the politician's priority in answering the question put to him, so also does your easy sympathy and deference to white supremacists describe the priority of your response to their Warren question. Additionally, we might as well reiterate your apparent ignorance of the story in its current form, and wonder what, other than echoing white supremacists, you think you've accomplished.
°° It's an obscure point to people who aren't inclined leftward, but in Reasons To Be Cheerful [Simon & Schuster, 2002], Mark Steel discussed the realization that one could be a Communist without supporting the Soviet Union. Age might come into it, as well; the point makes much more sense if one remembers the Seventies and Eighties. Similarly, in the U.S., many leftists developed in a rightist atmosphere, their socialism, communism, or anarchism postured as a reaction against and response unto conservative politics, mythopoeia, and gossip. These read and sound differently compared to longer partisans steeped in sympathetic literature. But there is also a counterinsurgency, as such, including some manner of provocateurism both organized and independent, and these read and sound differently from the others. And it's true, we are familiar with them, here at Sciforums and in our lives at large. For instance, after the election, an activist—likely individual and not part of an organized campaign—in my sphere of association tried to convince people he was some sort of progressive or leftist in order to argue that what Democrats should do is appease conservatives. And while such arguments are not utterly impossible, questions of validity and reliability weren't even on the map; whenever that associate tries his poseur routine, he is simply incapable of showing any comprehension of leftism, progressivism, or even liberalism, while his fluency is as conservative as his presuppositions. And if you ask him obvious questions, he responds with right-wing criticism. There is a reason nobody believes his poseur routine.