no that is not what I mean. You can apply logic correctly, or you can fall into fallacies. Although you still have no answered whether you consider all non democrats to be creationists and KKK members. Or do you accept that at least a sizable portion of us here are capable of arguing against the liberal holy grails without being nut jobs.

There ARE actual creationists in here who make strawman arguments about evolution... I don't think I should be grouped with them when I proclaim my opposition to communism; do you?

People can be right for the wrong reasons. And just because someone does something, doesn't implicate everyone else supporting that notion... EX: hitler opposed animal cruelty and was a vegetarian. Does that mean all vegetarians and people opposing animal cruelty are mass murderers? the answer is no; I would go so far as saying that those are unrelated.

This precisely proves my point.

Generalizations are *always* going to be wrong but people will *always* make them because they do have predicitive value because while generalizations are always wrong in an individual sense they are fairly accurate in an aggregate sense.

In other words my applying conservative generalizations as to any one person's specific beliefs are just as wrong as someone applying liberal generalizations to my beliefs. There can and most certainly will be some correspondence but still they're as likely to be wrong as right. But I didn't do that. I didn't make assumptions about any one person's belief system. I did make assumptions about the site as an aggregate which are that anything that appears to be liberal will be vehemently opposed without exception and to me most importantly matters of personal opinion are often argued against as somehow "wrong" and I do believe these assumptions to be vaild.

When I say that I see no real evil in a state having a progressive tax then there exists no argument that anyone can make to say I'm wrong. You can disagree with my opinion but it is a valid opinion shared by many intelligent and well meaning people. But yet people here will in fact argue that I'm wrong. This to me is intolerable, and so I won't. But I'll check back on occasion, who knows perhaps prevailing attitudes will change someday.

No, you will not.

A habitual ass decided to rant about how gaming companies are parasites and evil and the like and how brad (CEO of stardock, the company that runs this forum) contributes nothing to society... on christmas day. He got banned; that was last christmas and the only banning I have witnessed.

There are tons of people here who disagree with brad all the time and they don't get banned for it. If you haven't noticed, this article was made BY the CEO of stardock.. all the people here who vehemently disagree with him and are insulting him and capitlism are still not banned. You have to be quite an extreme jerk to be banned around here.

This is actually worse... because the alternative is that you consider anyone who opposes communism and despotism to be a "rabid wingnut". I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. Way to go lowering my opinion of you even further.

Yes, you will. Disagree with Brad and you risk getting banned (I can vaguely recall reading him saying something about the forum rules being you don't piss him off, and obviously if you disagree with him you're more likely to piss him off). He does tend to give you the courtesy of a warning first though.

I vehemently disagree that you never get banned.

Plural you, not singular. As in people/generally, not you personally.

Yes, that's a weird thing.

The association game leads to strange results. It has happened to me several times. I write something about Israel or the Hebrew Bible and suddenly people are "surprised" that I read Dawkins. Many liberals make such snap judgements.

Now, can we address the real issue? _I_ need convincing that not all Democrats are KKK members. Any takers?

why don't we start with you aeortar. You are on a thread he himself has created (and thus is probably reading the comments of) and you are blasting him for silencing difference of opinion. And yet you weren't banned.

You are like those people who argue 9-11 was an inside job... the biggest proof it wasn't is that they are still alive.

I comprehended what you asked for.

And you actually consider my example to be over "disagreeing with him"? that wasn't about a difference of opinion; if you can't tell that, then you have problems.

Oh, please. She attacked him personally. That was not a "difference of opinion" she was exiled for.

I know Little-Whip, I was one of her friends.

Then you are deliberately seeking to misstate what I have said.

Another idiot who can't read (that's you I'm talking about, not Brad - I'd better make that clear given the abysmal level of reading comprehension being displayed here)

Let's see:

Make up your mind over who you think I was referring to because at the moment you're ending up arguing against yourself!

Anyway because you seem clearly incapable of understanding simple English I'll spell it out for you.

This was directed at taltamir, which would be fairly obvious to most people seeing as I quoted him directly above where I made this comment. In case you're still scratching your head at what I was referring to, it was the comment by taltamir " you are blasting him [Brad] for silencing difference of opinion", which was a clear attempt to put false words into my mouth since I have not once "blasted" Brad here (afterall, I don't want to be banned ). I have not expressed an opinion over the possibility of people being banned for disagreements, merely that they have happened.

Again directed at taltamir - guess what, I quoted him just before my response to him! Since he has had the chance to re-read what he said (and what I said) and confirms he understood it, it means the likely outcome is that he deliberately sought to put false words in my mouth rather than it being accidental, hence why I said what I did.

I quote you, and then I respond to you. I even take the time to let you know it's you I'm talking to! My comment here was because you for some bizarre reason seemed to be implying I was saying Brad had a poor reading comprehension with your " The man does run a business. I seriously doubt reading blogs take priority. Quite the cheap shot I must say, dragging Brad into your argument" comment (if you're still struggling to understand how I wasn't saying that, if someone says it would be quite an assumption to make that x is the case, it usually means they don't think that x is the case, and certainly doesn't mean that they're saying x is the case. On second thoughts maybe I shouldn't introduce algebra here, it will probably make things even harder for you). As for 'dragging Brad into the argument', again look back to see who mentions Brad first - that's right, scroll up the page, read a post by someone called taltamir, around number 56.

Yet, somehow, you seem to think that I am attacking Brad here...until you change your mind and think I'm attacking you (at least your change of heart indicates you read my comment that I was talking to you). Maybe you'll change your mind again and think these posts are all attacking Mumble...

Says a lot about you (plural this time) that you kick up this much fuss over a simple factual statement. Small wonder more subjective ideas+discussions have no chance here.