Why don't you attack his argument leaves instead of attacking Trolly?

I have a few infractions. The one I distinctly remember isn't there. Sorry to bother.

It's not as though I haven't, but he repeats it ad nauseum, which is fine if you want extremely cluttered discussions where evereone assumes nobody's taken philosophy 101, what a syllogism is, and how guilt by association is used as a fallacy, but it really gets old fast.

I think calling it an argument is very generous considering how little substance there actually is.

And yet the ACists produce less and less coherence...

I am not sure how one would "produce coherence". One could produce coherent arguments, kero, but personally I do not give you credit in that category.

What had happened was that there was no infraction, but I received a 1-day ban for saying "statism is a religion", though I don't think/know if it was Wookie, which is why I'd prefer unmoderated forum over a noticeably liberal forum. I only complain about infractions, because I have gotten infractions over stuff that is silly. I don't remember being trolled by such-and-such, but implying someone is in a rapy movement as an internet tough guy, you certainly remember that. I don't take anyone seriously that says they would do nothing differently if the shoe was on the other foot.

I mean, I could say mutualists are all under the umbrella of that jew-hater Prouhdon, rather than read it, understand it, and have something to add about it. It's all about what kind of conversations do you actually want to have, and whether the rules should apply to everyone.

I thought Rape Town was the endgame, honestly.

Those conversations were had ad nauseam, for years. Conclusions were reached. Your side decisively lost. What you want is a forum where the political equivalent of phrenology is granted respect. I see no reason to do that.

I don't perceive that post to be making the claim that all ACists advocate for rape. It's definitely arguing that some ACists embrace quite radical ideas about morality and law, which is certainly true in my experience. It goes along with the "anarchy" part, I'd say, although the whole "rape-town" thing is over the top.

In any case, the text in the image comes from this reddit thread, so obviously he's not completely straw-manning. There are ACists who hold that view. I think your perfectly justified to push back and say that you are not one of them, or that it's not a majority.

The best analogy I can think of involving liberals would be someone claiming that being pro-choice means supporting the murder of unborn babies. I've heard that one lots of times, and I probably wouldn't mod it, although obviously I think it's asinine. I've heard "liberals are the real racists" more times than I can count as well, and would not mod that either, fwiw.

What's obvious is that you're not a skeptic.

I mean, it's not hard for some rando to make a gimmick, etc. There's no reason to take the comment at face value.

Look you can simply search "reddit liberal rape", and come to the conclusion that liberals are rapists under this criteria.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...n_be_heard_on/

It's not very difficult game to play for trolls. By your logic, Sweden is liberal rape haven. I mean, would you mod that, if someone repeated over and over that Sweden is liberal rape haven?

Oh look, an ACist

In "shocking" news, leaves spends all day on the trump Reddit.

Do you want a cookie for being so noble as to deign to allow (your majesty) mainstream conservative thought (no stormfront bull**** here, my friend), to wit:

1. Being pro-choice really DOES mean supporting the murder of unborn babies.

2. Liberals really ARE racist because they are so goddam keen on checking everyone's skin color when they walk through the door to apply for a job so they can effectuate their quotas oh wait excuse me the politically correct term is affirmative action.

There's a reason the Republicans swept all of the branches of government in the most recent elections, federal and state. We are sick and tired of being sick and tired.

So thank you for condescendingly allowing departure from liberal orthodoxy, kind sir.

If you can't counter the simple argument that your philosophy allows horrible things then have the guts to own that ****. Don't hide behind stupid complaints about what other people get away with. If you can counter it then make your argument. Trying to get people who are winning the argument banned is petty.

I like cookies, but you seem to have missed the fact that I was responding to a direct accusation of hypocrisy or bias. I'm not sure why you think its condescending to answer a question. In any case, I appreciate the fact that you chose to illustrate my point for me.

For the amusement of everyone else, I have never issued a single infraction to lol for anything, and none of the infractions he's received are for what he said.

Voter suppression, gerrymandering and the Russians?

No, it was my mystake, and I apologize. Someone did give me a 24 hour ban without giving me an infraction after posting "statism is a religion", though. So, I don't believe I have a way of knowing who.

That's not an equivalent, like, at all. Come on now.

Actually not true Official support for Gary Johnson as POTUS. Seems like a political affiliation to me. One election though but still. Lobbying efforts to change laws regarding online poker seem to be in the realm of wielding political influence as well to me.

Not just a poker/gambling site, obviously a social media site too.

I don't social media means what you think it means

So not only do you not know who gave the temp ban, you also don't know why they gave it? But you're sure it was the statism comment.

No wonder the ACists seem like they could **** up a wet dream.

I think the reason was the election went bad, and some mod wanted to lash out in a tantrum without being known which is why there was a 1-day ban, no explanation, and no comment that received an infraction.

You are totally credible now, TOTALLY!